Advertisers quick to invest money in new iPad publications

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
While tech pundits have stoked fear, uncertainty and doubt about the prospects for Apple's upcoming iPad, major advertisers are confident about investing in significant new sponsorships of high profile iPad publications.



A new report by the New York Times contrasts the cautious approach advertisers took to the Internet and mobile phones with the liberal spending they're now pouring into digital iPad versions of existing print publications.



"FedEx has bought advertising space on the iPad applications from Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. Chase Sapphire, a credit card for the high-end market, has bought out The New York Times?s iPad advertising units for 60 days after the introduction," the report stated.



"Advertisers including Unilever, Toyota Motor, Korean Air and Fidelity have booked space on Time?s iPad application. In a draft press release, The Journal said a subscription to its app would cost $17.99 a month, and the first advertisers included Capital One, Buick, Oracle, iShares and FedEx."



Advertisers are spending between $75,000 to $300,000 for a few months of ad space in print publisher's iPad apps, according to Phuc Truong, the managing director of Mobext U.S.



Advertisers are believed to trying to associate themselves with the excitement Apple has created around the iPad. The Times cited Alisa Bowen, senior vice president and head of consumer publishing at Thomson Reuters, as saying, "There is an appetite to be associated with the inevitable buzz ? the buzz around the iPad has been so long-lived."



Measuring iPad ads



Nobody yet knows how consumers will respond to the iPad and to its new paid-content model, which will allow publishers to both charge per app and also charge subscription fees, similar to a physical newspaper or magazine. The iPad will present a new type of content somewhere between traditional print, which charges advertisers a flat fee based on subscribers, and the web, which typically charges advertisers very little per ad impression, but significantly more when readers click on an ad.



Mark Ford, president of the Time Inc. News Group, which will be publishing a iPad version of Time in April, as well as an iPad edition of Sports Illustrated in June, explained to the Times, "We?ve got to figure out what the measurements are [for success in iPad advertising]. It?s not how you measure print, it?s not, certainly, how you measure digital. It?s going to be something different.?



Fran Pessagno, who is working on the FedEx iPad ad contract for Omnicom Media Group, told the Times he would be looking for firm results in iPad ads. "With everything we do, we?re just going to have to test it and see whether or not it actually results in new account signups,? he said, referring to accounts created with FedEx. ?Until anything goes to market, it?s always viewed through the lens of, ?it?s short term.? ?



No Flash on iPad



Another issue in front of advertisers lining up to get in on iPad buzz is that they can't use their existing web ad collateral built using Adobe Flash, because Apple has rejected the use of any Flash runtime for the iPad. "So advertisers must find other ways to enlivening [sic] their ads," the Times article said. "People, for instance, is using the Adobe program InDesign to create slide shows, videos and animation."



The iPad edition of People is expected to be ready by early August. Fran Hauser, the president of digital for the Time Inc. Style and Entertainment Group, which includes People, told the Times ?It?s a little more work for them, and for us, too,? said.



Time Inc. News Group's Ford added that while advertiser interest had been intense, ?we?re all learning. It?s a moving target."
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    woohoo!woohoo! Posts: 291member
    Quote:

    Advertisers quick to invest money in new iPad publications



    Hope they didn't invest much.



    Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?



    Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.



    It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    esummersesummers Posts: 893member
    They are using Indesign to create videos and animation? Really?!!?
  • Reply 3 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post


    Hope they didn't invest much.



    Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?



    Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.



    It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.



    A whole lot of people have already placed pre-orders. I also don't know if I'd say your computer controls the device anymore than it does the iPhone. Sometimes I download apps/music/video on my phone and sometimes on my computer and they all sync to each other. Sure, you have to have iTunes which resides on your computer but I still think it's a stretch to say it controls it.
  • Reply 4 of 32
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,572member
    Anybody else thinking that advertising is going to look a lot like the daily paper-- 75% ads and 25% content? And aadvertisers think "enlivening" content is the answer?
  • Reply 5 of 32
    nebrienebrie Posts: 483member
    $17.99 a month for the WSJ app?!?!?? That is significantly higher than what they charge for access to their website (at least when I canceled last year).
  • Reply 6 of 32
    The larger question is: are we seeing this much effort on the part of mobile advertisers, magazines, and others to produce product-specific designs for the JooJoo, Archos tablet or HP Slate? And if not, then why not?
  • Reply 7 of 32
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post


    It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.



    Actually, the Kindle for Mac has taken a very long time; it was first rumored about back in October 2009.



    Kindle for the iPhone/iPod has been around even longer.



    I believe Amazon has submitted Kindle for the iPad to Apple's App Store review committee. So your assumption that Amazon is "bypassing the whole iPad thing" is false. We just don't have Kindle for iPad because the iPad hasn't been released. The release of the Mac version prior to the iPad version's availability is irrelevant.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Woohoo! View Post


    Hope they didn't invest much.



    Why would most people spend a extra $500 more for a device that depends upon the device that a person already has to get the same content for free or a subscription on the internet?



    Doesn't make a whole lot of practical sense, but the Reality Distortion Effect is in full effect regardless.



    It didn't take long for Amazon to release Kindle for Mac application, neither. Smart of them to bypass the whole iPad thing and go directly to the computer that controls the iPad in the first place.



    Why do you hang around here? By next year, you'll have changed your name because you'll be exposed as the fool that you are.



    It's not most people, but by the end of 2010, over 5 million people will have iPads. And that'll be way more people than have Kindles and Nooks and Sony Readers combined.



    Even Amazon knows that. Obviously in your ignorance, you've missed that they will have a Kindle for iPad app soon after launch.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    We'll See Soon Enough How Many Advertisers Are Really On Board...
  • Reply 10 of 32
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post


    The larger question is: are we seeing this much effort on the part of mobile advertisers, magazines, and others to produce product-specific designs for the JooJoo, Archos tablet or HP Slate? And if not, then why not?



    Question: Why should JooJoo, Hp, Archos, etc. even care about 'product-specific' solutions when they feature fully functioning web browsers that can run (long established) ZINIO Digital Publications, as well as all sites utilizing Flash/Adobe AIR, quite handily?



    Answer: They Don't Care, Nor Should They
  • Reply 11 of 32
    charelcharel Posts: 93member
    All newspapers and magazine publishers should enable potential readers to buy a single issue just as they are able to purchase one on a news stand.

    The price should be substantially less than the price of the printed version.

    The iTunes store makes mini payments possible so Apple would not stand in their way.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Question: Why should JooJoo, Hp, Archos, etc. even care about 'product-specific' solutions when they feature fully functioning web browsers that can run (long established) ZINIO Digital Publications, as well as all sites utilizing Flash/Adobe AIR, quite handily?



    Answer: They Don't Care, Nor Should They



    ZINIO what?



    Get it?



    What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?



    When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    avidfcpavidfcp Posts: 381member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


    Anybody else thinking that advertising is going to look a lot like the daily paper-- 75% ads and 25% content? And aadvertisers think "enlivening" content is the answer?



    We all know Apple would rather you buy a show than watch it online, thus lack of flash but when it comes time for reading a publication, I won't miss the voice screaming CONGRATULATIONS nor any other ad that throw my train of though off, so for publication, who-rah!!!
  • Reply 14 of 32
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    I'm still waiting for Apple to step up and create the ultimate WYSIWYG program/IDE for creating web or Album content using Open Source and HTML5 standards-based code. Also with built in jQuery and MooTools UI interfaces. Possibly the new version of iWeb, or a completely new application.



    Regardless, we as designers need new and/or better tools to facilitate "the jump".



    Just my 2 cents.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,016member
    Can't wait to throw $500 down and get me a dose of ads. It's going to be awesome. And I get to pay for the content too.



    Apparently this is turning the content model on its heads. It's just the same tired formula rendered on a screen.



    No doubting it will sell like blazers, though.
  • Reply 16 of 32
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member
    Is that the same Zinio who released a free iPhone App a couple of weeks ago?



    Might take a look.



    It's good that they host their video on Vimeo so I can watch it in html5.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    Question: Why should JooJoo, Hp, Archos, etc. even care about 'product-specific' solutions when they feature fully functioning web browsers that can run (long established) ZINIO Digital Publications, as well as all sites utilizing Flash/Adobe AIR, quite handily?



    Answer: They Don't Care, Nor Should They



  • Reply 17 of 32
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Hey! It's iPad, not iAd.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


    Regardless, we as designers need new and/or better tools to facilitate "the jump".



    I must say for the iTunes Album format I did expect some sort of authoring tool.



    And it seems logical for ePub as well.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Is that the same Zinio who released a free iPhone App a couple of weeks ago?



    ZING! Excellent counter point. Silly trolls, you can't stop the iPhone/iPad app store
  • Reply 19 of 32
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post


    We'll See Soon Enough How Many Advertisers Are Really On Board...



    The smart ones that are interested in making money. After all, that's all who counts. We've had this discussion about quality vs. quantity before...
  • Reply 20 of 32
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,743member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    ZINIO what?



    Get it?



    What well established sites do you care to list that are Flash/Adobe AIR dependent and are high profile ala YouTube?



    When TIME WARNER and many other corporate conglomerates are moving to HTML5 watch how quickly the web moves forward w/o Flash.



    Speaking of which:



    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=883175



    CBS is also going HTML5. All thanks to the iPad.



    Expect ABC to follow suit shortly.



    Apple is dictating the rules of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.