iPad prompts changes to way magazines count circulation
Though it's yet to hit the market, Apple's iPad is already changing the rules of the games when it comes to how magazines quantify their readership and distribution, unlocking the potential for more lucrative advertising contracts with their sponsors.
According to the Associated Press, the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) -- a non-profit audit agency that assesses circulation, readership, and audience information for magazines and newspapers -- has altered its definition of a digital magazine to include the emerging class of tablet-style devices.
This means that magazine publishers can design their article spreads to be accessed by applications on the iPad and count paid digital subscriptions to those apps as part of their overall circulation, given that they include the same content and advertisements as their print-based counterparts.
Had the ABC not instated the change, publishers would only be able to count digital editions of their magazines that existed as exact facsimiles of their print editions, according to the AP, affording them little leeway in customization for gadgets like the iPad.
"Magazines need the change because they charge for ads based on the size of their so-called rate base, the circulation they guarantee to advertisers," the report explains. "By comparison, newspapers have had looser restrictions. Because they don't guarantee a rate base, they can count people who pay for access to their Web sites regardless of what ads run there."
There's one caveat, however: the ABC must approve each iPad app, and those for other tablet platforms, before its subscribers can be counted as part of the magazine's overall circulation.
A version of Conde Nast's Wired magazine is said to be among the first apps to receive such approval. The publishing firm is also reportedly working on similar apps for its GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Glamour offerings.
Apple's iPad goes on sale April 3th in the United States.
According to the Associated Press, the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) -- a non-profit audit agency that assesses circulation, readership, and audience information for magazines and newspapers -- has altered its definition of a digital magazine to include the emerging class of tablet-style devices.
This means that magazine publishers can design their article spreads to be accessed by applications on the iPad and count paid digital subscriptions to those apps as part of their overall circulation, given that they include the same content and advertisements as their print-based counterparts.
Had the ABC not instated the change, publishers would only be able to count digital editions of their magazines that existed as exact facsimiles of their print editions, according to the AP, affording them little leeway in customization for gadgets like the iPad.
"Magazines need the change because they charge for ads based on the size of their so-called rate base, the circulation they guarantee to advertisers," the report explains. "By comparison, newspapers have had looser restrictions. Because they don't guarantee a rate base, they can count people who pay for access to their Web sites regardless of what ads run there."
There's one caveat, however: the ABC must approve each iPad app, and those for other tablet platforms, before its subscribers can be counted as part of the magazine's overall circulation.
A version of Conde Nast's Wired magazine is said to be among the first apps to receive such approval. The publishing firm is also reportedly working on similar apps for its GQ, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair and Glamour offerings.
Apple's iPad goes on sale April 3th in the United States.
Comments
Apple moves, the world changes. It's nice not to be marginal anymore.
I hear you!
Once again, Apple is showing the way forward.
they all going to be live soon!!!!
Apple moves, the world changes. It's nice not to be marginal anymore.
Hate to tell you, but if you're an end-user, you're more marginal than you've ever been.
Hate to tell you, but if you're an end-user, you're more marginal than you've ever been.
Care to explain what you mean?
Shouldn't magazines simply consult Google regarding AdWords?
No, because next to print ads, the online Google stuff is still like sitting at the kids table. Sure the toys are new and cool, but the grown ups are still in print and TV.
The business/stock world is much more excited by Google's efforts than advertisers. Money on traditional ads is hard to qualify, web based stuff is even harder, especially because the "ignore" rate is much higher. I've been involved with tangible ad campaigns, always get responses form the print/TV stuff, never from anyone by AdWord.
I was the one who pushed for AdWords as well, and I was warned and learned the hard way. I've received a lot of similar opinion from ad company reps. It's pretty obvious, even the clumsy or dim who click on an online ad, quickly realize the mistake and start to learn not to do that. Even when your desperate looking for something obscure in a search, break down and try one of Google's suggestions - it's never what you want, just spam. So people subconsciously just ignore that little area on the results page. Negative reinforcement is one of the most effective ways to change behavior. Google knows this too, that's why they want to tailor search results based on your past history, and put the ads in your search.
There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page. I'm sure if I can see that, they are very aware of it, and looking for solutions.
Hate to tell you, but if you're an end-user, you're more marginal than you've ever been.
Try telling that to my father...
He'd likely bop you over the head for being an elitist techno-snob
No, because next to print ads, the online Google stuff is still like sitting at the kids table. Sure the toys are new and cool, but the grown ups are still in print and TV.
The business/stock world is much more excited by Google's efforts than advertisers. Money on traditional ads is hard to qualify, web based stuff is even harder, especially because the "ignore" rate is much higher. I've been involved with tangible ad campaigns, always get responses form the print/TV stuff, never from anyone by AdWord.
I was the one who pushed for AdWords as well, and I was warned and learned the hard way. I've received a lot of similar opinion from ad company reps. It's pretty obvious, even the clumsy or dim who click on an online ad, quickly realize the mistake and start to learn not to do that. Even when your desperate looking for something obscure in a search, break down and try one of Google's suggestions - it's never what you want, just spam. So people subconsciously just ignore that little area on the results page. Negative reinforcement is one of the most effective ways to change behavior. Google knows this too, that's why they want to tailor search results based on your past history, and put the ads in your search.
There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page. I'm sure if I can see that, they are very aware of it, and looking for solutions.
There is always the right tool for the job. Adwords are a great idea. Keep the search results away from financial motivation and put a few relevant paid links on the side. If your looking to buy something, the paid links are often more relevant then the (financially) unbiased links. As a consumer, I find the adwords a useful tool. That is always the challenge of advertising. You need to get the consumer to *want* to view your add. Much better idea then banner ads. I hope to see the end of banner ads one day. I don't think banners are very effective. That is just an effort by the traditional print industry to move to the web. Those banner ads are filtered out by my browser anyway.
If you buy an adword, you need to make sure it will function as a tool for the user. If you buy the wrong words or your product/service doesn't make sense then it isn't going to work. If it is a product/service that is a hard sell, an Adword will do you no good. Anybody looking at adwords already have a basic idea of what they want.
There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page.
Yup, and nearly all of their revenue depends on the value of content they don't own.
There a very real possibility that Google is severely over-valued as an advertising tool, maybe even as a company... at any moment they are just 5 little bookmark characters away from obscurity. 90% of their revenue is based on people going to their search page. I'm sure if I can see that, they are very aware of it, and looking for solutions.
Google is going DOWN! We will KILL them!
Care to explain what you mean?
Ignore the trolls
In short - they buy nice things. In long - ads for nice things generate more revenue than "End of days seeds".
Another thing causing magazines to jump into the iPad market whole-heartedly is the fact that the base demographics can afford a 499.99 e-reader / multimedia thingie. This isn't a snark - it's a very tasty (I'm talking tasty!) advertising group.
In short - they buy nice things. In long - ads for nice things generate more revenue than "End of days seeds".
I guess you're right. Funny thing is, I barely ever buy the paid version of an app so I doubt I'll be subscribing to any papers
With the iPad the ads can be updated daily if needed, they are guaranteed to reach target audience (since you are the one reading) and are not the same each time you read the story (so you can share the same story with another company 50/50 and pay half for the ad space. In many ways this is a win win, as long as the magazines realize all this and take advantage, not try to force people to keep reading the same way as print used to be.