Selling your information and your basic demographics to advertisers is pretty much the entire point of magazines. It always has been and always will be that way. That's why even before the digital age, magazines are mostly sold by subscription and why every single magazine you ever picked up has a cardboard insert that tells you how much cheaper it would be if you *subscribed* to the magazine instead of buying it at the store.
I don't think it is quite as sinister as you make it out to be. One reason they want the signature on the subscription card is for their BPA audit. See, the more validated subscriptions they have, the higher rate they get to charge for a page of advertising. The advertisers don't just take their word for it about their circulation numbers. Just because you print a hundred thousand copies doesn't mean they were delivered. They don't sell your info to the advertisers. All they have is a name and address. Most of the time they don't have any contact at all with the companies since it is their ad agencies that pay for the placement.
1. They want your information because information is gold?not for subscription renewal. As for #2, no, you'd be wrong. Example. The New Yorker wants $5 PER iPad edition EVEN IF YOU SUBSCRIBE to the print edition. You get no discount off the print version vs. the newsstand or for being a subscriber. Fail x 2 and about par for the course for these clowns.
This is what publishers want, not what they are doing. And they aren't doing it because they can't at this point.
Publishers are releasing paid apps of individual issues because the subscription model just isn't there yet.
As for information being "gold" -- true, but consumer magazine publishers don't get good information from its readers through the subscription process (generally), they get information through reader surveys. Only trade publishers get good information when they force you to fill out those longer subscription cards -- but those are for controlled circulation magazines (free).
I don't think it is quite as sinister as you make it out to be. One reason they want the signature on the subscription card is for their BPA audit. See, the more validated subscriptions they have, the higher rate they get to charge for a page of advertising. The advertisers don't just take their word for it about their circulation numbers. Just because you print a hundred thousand copies doesn't mean they were delivered. They don't sell your info to the advertisers. All they have is a name and address. Most of the time they don't have any contact at all with the companies since it is their ad agencies that pay for the placement.
Actually, trade publishers (those that are BPA audited, most consumer magazines are ABC audited) do sell your name and address to customers -- they do this through list rentals. The buyer doesn't get to keep the information, but use those lists for promotional mailers.
Consumer magazines also rent lists -- that's why you end up getting so many wine accessory catalogs once you've subscribed to something like the Wine Spectator.
But you are right about that signature being important. One of the largest expenses publishers face is maintaining their circulation files.
The "demographic information" they want is really just your name, address, phone number and credit card information.
With magazines, mostly you are buying a few usually quite thin "articles" that are mostly written by hacks and mostly repeat information that is freely available almost anywhere.
And with the current system, Apple would now get the very same information. For the consumer it's a wash, but for the magazines it is handing over revenue to Apple (plus the 30%, minus the content delivery cost).
And if you try to suggest that most magazines are a fraud, you essentially say that all the people buying them are stupid.
Actually, trade publishers (those that are BPA audited, most consumer magazines are ABC audited) do sell your name and address to customers -- they do this through list rentals. The buyer doesn't get to keep the information, but use those lists for promotional mailers.
Consumer magazines also rent lists -- that's why you end up getting so many wine accessory catalogs once you've subscribed to something like the Wine Spectator.
But you are right about that signature being important. One of the largest expenses publishers face is maintaining their circulation files.
That is true. I was not clear enough while replying about collecting and selling demographics. A simple name and address is not very informative from a marketing standpoint. The original poster was implying that they would sell age, gender, occupation, etc which is not the case.
And with the current system, Apple would now get the very same information. For the consumer it's a wash, but for the magazines it is handing over revenue to Apple (plus the 30%, minus the content delivery cost).
And if you try to suggest that most magazines are a fraud, you essentially say that all the people buying them are stupid.
Well, you have it exactly right. the difference is that Apple (so far) doesn't do nefarious things with that information. They instead, actually keep it secure.
Why anyone thinks that handing this information over to the magazines is a good idea and that Apple is somehow in the wrong for not doing so, is beyond me (and mostly my point).
As to magazine buyers being stupid, I realised as I was writing that last that the kind of magazines I'm talking about doesn't actually stand true for *all* magazines. Some of the technical ones have actual information, some of the older ones have minimal advertising etc. However, if we are talking about the majority of magazines, (fashion, "style", home and garden etc.), then yes, the people who buy them *are* stupid.
You are essentially spending a relatively huge amount of money, for a package of advertisements, (and somewhere between minimal and zero information content). If that doesn't count as a generally dumb-ass thing to do then what does?
The best magazine apps by far so far on the iPad are the ones developed using Adobe InDesign: like The New Yorker etc. The UI, speed of the app, download size and experience is by far the best, and that's nothing to do with the 'koolaid', as you put it.
You might be right with most of that, but I don't think download size. Both Wired and The New Yorker are based on InDesign, and their size is in the hundreds of megabytes. Compare that to the size of reading their respective issues on their websites.
Agreed! I had Zinio a few years ago on my iMac...thinking that it would be cool to have live links in the articles...but even with a 20" iMac I spent too much time scrolling and zooming in and out....I eventually deleted it, cancelled my online subscriptions and went back to dead tree periodicals...
I do plan to get a second gen iPad Mainly because my daughter and I are really digging Facetime. And then I will put an end to all my dead tree periodicals.
PS. I can't believe any company wouldn't hitch their wagon to Apple! Unbelievable. Yes they are following the music industry and network television and the cable companies right down the proverbial drain!
Well, you have it exactly right. the difference is that Apple (so far) doesn't do nefarious things with that information. They instead, actually keep it secure.
Why anyone thinks that handing this information over to the magazines is a good idea and that Apple is somehow in the wrong for not doing so, is beyond me (and mostly my point).
There is nothing wrong with Apple not handing it over, if you are happy to compensate the magazine more for your iPad copy than the paper copy. The point is with the current system, the magazine publishers get less selling to the iPad then selling on paper. That is not what the digital revolution was supposed to be about.
And any decent magazine has a checkbox on their subscription form whether you allow them to use your personal data for other purposes then delivering the magazine. It's mandated by law in most industrial countries.
You might be right with most of that, but I don't think download size. Both Wired and The New Yorker are based on InDesign, and their size is in the hundreds of megabytes. Compare that to the size of reading their respective issues on their websites.
It's a better experience, once downloaded. It's faster, feels lighter, and looks nicer than anything else.
Seriously? None of your synapses could figure out that Apple wants to keep all of your personal information for themselves? To power their own advertising initiatives? That their entire mobile platform revolves around this control?
Wow dude, talk about epic reading comprehension fail.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Walmart... no large corporation is looking out for your privacy - just how to exploit it for their own gains.
If you can't read between the lines and see what is really happening (hello, your privacy is a commodity, pick your flavor of who you want to control it)... then you should chill on the ad-hom attacks.
I think it's safe to say Apple and Google are not the same when it comes to privacy. Google are more like FaceBook. Although Apple does use user data, they don't do it like FaceBook and Google do it. Apple is more like: "people who like that app also like this app", or "people who like that music also like this music". Apple never goes to that creepy Google-level. I believe there is a line with this thing that Apple never crosses, and it's because they actually give a shit about your privacy. Google and FaceBook don't, because it's "their whole business model".
Comments
And, this is relevant exactly how?
Besides, no one ever said Big Brother was a cheap bastard. He pays his henchmen well, to buy their loyalty.
So every employee is a henchmen? Yeah you stick with that mouse.
Selling your information and your basic demographics to advertisers is pretty much the entire point of magazines. It always has been and always will be that way. That's why even before the digital age, magazines are mostly sold by subscription and why every single magazine you ever picked up has a cardboard insert that tells you how much cheaper it would be if you *subscribed* to the magazine instead of buying it at the store.
I don't think it is quite as sinister as you make it out to be. One reason they want the signature on the subscription card is for their BPA audit. See, the more validated subscriptions they have, the higher rate they get to charge for a page of advertising. The advertisers don't just take their word for it about their circulation numbers. Just because you print a hundred thousand copies doesn't mean they were delivered. They don't sell your info to the advertisers. All they have is a name and address. Most of the time they don't have any contact at all with the companies since it is their ad agencies that pay for the placement.
So every employee is a henchmen? Yeah you stick with that mouse.
It doesn't surprise me to find you can't understand things that don't have a literal meaning.
If you're not running Android Google's just a search engine to you, in a world of many. How hard can it be?
Harder than you might guess, given that they have tracking software -- e.g., Google Analytics -- spread all over the web.
1. They want your information because information is gold?not for subscription renewal. As for #2, no, you'd be wrong. Example. The New Yorker wants $5 PER iPad edition EVEN IF YOU SUBSCRIBE to the print edition. You get no discount off the print version vs. the newsstand or for being a subscriber. Fail x 2 and about par for the course for these clowns.
This is what publishers want, not what they are doing. And they aren't doing it because they can't at this point.
Publishers are releasing paid apps of individual issues because the subscription model just isn't there yet.
As for information being "gold" -- true, but consumer magazine publishers don't get good information from its readers through the subscription process (generally), they get information through reader surveys. Only trade publishers get good information when they force you to fill out those longer subscription cards -- but those are for controlled circulation magazines (free).
I don't think it is quite as sinister as you make it out to be. One reason they want the signature on the subscription card is for their BPA audit. See, the more validated subscriptions they have, the higher rate they get to charge for a page of advertising. The advertisers don't just take their word for it about their circulation numbers. Just because you print a hundred thousand copies doesn't mean they were delivered. They don't sell your info to the advertisers. All they have is a name and address. Most of the time they don't have any contact at all with the companies since it is their ad agencies that pay for the placement.
Actually, trade publishers (those that are BPA audited, most consumer magazines are ABC audited) do sell your name and address to customers -- they do this through list rentals. The buyer doesn't get to keep the information, but use those lists for promotional mailers.
Consumer magazines also rent lists -- that's why you end up getting so many wine accessory catalogs once you've subscribed to something like the Wine Spectator.
But you are right about that signature being important. One of the largest expenses publishers face is maintaining their circulation files.
The "demographic information" they want is really just your name, address, phone number and credit card information.
With magazines, mostly you are buying a few usually quite thin "articles" that are mostly written by hacks and mostly repeat information that is freely available almost anywhere.
And with the current system, Apple would now get the very same information. For the consumer it's a wash, but for the magazines it is handing over revenue to Apple (plus the 30%, minus the content delivery cost).
And if you try to suggest that most magazines are a fraud, you essentially say that all the people buying them are stupid.
You don't have a cookie blocking filter? They're all over the place for Firefox, I'd imagine there would be several for Safari by now.
The point was that avoiding being tracked by Google is not as simple as just not actively using their search engine and other services.
Actually, trade publishers (those that are BPA audited, most consumer magazines are ABC audited) do sell your name and address to customers -- they do this through list rentals. The buyer doesn't get to keep the information, but use those lists for promotional mailers.
Consumer magazines also rent lists -- that's why you end up getting so many wine accessory catalogs once you've subscribed to something like the Wine Spectator.
But you are right about that signature being important. One of the largest expenses publishers face is maintaining their circulation files.
That is true. I was not clear enough while replying about collecting and selling demographics. A simple name and address is not very informative from a marketing standpoint. The original poster was implying that they would sell age, gender, occupation, etc which is not the case.
And with the current system, Apple would now get the very same information. For the consumer it's a wash, but for the magazines it is handing over revenue to Apple (plus the 30%, minus the content delivery cost).
And if you try to suggest that most magazines are a fraud, you essentially say that all the people buying them are stupid.
Well, you have it exactly right. the difference is that Apple (so far) doesn't do nefarious things with that information. They instead, actually keep it secure.
Why anyone thinks that handing this information over to the magazines is a good idea and that Apple is somehow in the wrong for not doing so, is beyond me (and mostly my point).
As to magazine buyers being stupid, I realised as I was writing that last that the kind of magazines I'm talking about doesn't actually stand true for *all* magazines. Some of the technical ones have actual information, some of the older ones have minimal advertising etc. However, if we are talking about the majority of magazines, (fashion, "style", home and garden etc.), then yes, the people who buy them *are* stupid.
You are essentially spending a relatively huge amount of money, for a package of advertisements, (and somewhere between minimal and zero information content). If that doesn't count as a generally dumb-ass thing to do then what does?
The best magazine apps by far so far on the iPad are the ones developed using Adobe InDesign: like The New Yorker etc. The UI, speed of the app, download size and experience is by far the best, and that's nothing to do with the 'koolaid', as you put it.
You might be right with most of that, but I don't think download size. Both Wired and The New Yorker are based on InDesign, and their size is in the hundreds of megabytes. Compare that to the size of reading their respective issues on their websites.
Zinio is a piece of crap.
Agreed! I had Zinio a few years ago on my iMac...thinking that it would be cool to have live links in the articles...but even with a 20" iMac I spent too much time scrolling and zooming in and out....I eventually deleted it, cancelled my online subscriptions and went back to dead tree periodicals...
I do plan to get a second gen iPad Mainly because my daughter and I are really digging Facetime. And then I will put an end to all my dead tree periodicals.
PS. I can't believe any company wouldn't hitch their wagon to Apple! Unbelievable. Yes they are following the music industry and network television and the cable companies right down the proverbial drain!
Best
Well, you have it exactly right. the difference is that Apple (so far) doesn't do nefarious things with that information. They instead, actually keep it secure.
Why anyone thinks that handing this information over to the magazines is a good idea and that Apple is somehow in the wrong for not doing so, is beyond me (and mostly my point).
There is nothing wrong with Apple not handing it over, if you are happy to compensate the magazine more for your iPad copy than the paper copy. The point is with the current system, the magazine publishers get less selling to the iPad then selling on paper. That is not what the digital revolution was supposed to be about.
And any decent magazine has a checkbox on their subscription form whether you allow them to use your personal data for other purposes then delivering the magazine. It's mandated by law in most industrial countries.
Yet another well reasoned argument
Crap is crap. It's not an argument, it's an opinion.
You might be right with most of that, but I don't think download size. Both Wired and The New Yorker are based on InDesign, and their size is in the hundreds of megabytes. Compare that to the size of reading their respective issues on their websites.
It's a better experience, once downloaded. It's faster, feels lighter, and looks nicer than anything else.
Reading comprehension fail.
Talk about throwing stones in a glass house
Seriously? None of your synapses could figure out that Apple wants to keep all of your personal information for themselves? To power their own advertising initiatives? That their entire mobile platform revolves around this control?
Wow dude, talk about epic reading comprehension fail.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Walmart... no large corporation is looking out for your privacy - just how to exploit it for their own gains.
If you can't read between the lines and see what is really happening (hello, your privacy is a commodity, pick your flavor of who you want to control it)... then you should chill on the ad-hom attacks.
Apple and Google are big brother.
Apple and Google are big brother.
I think it's safe to say Apple and Google are not the same when it comes to privacy. Google are more like FaceBook. Although Apple does use user data, they don't do it like FaceBook and Google do it. Apple is more like: "people who like that app also like this app", or "people who like that music also like this music". Apple never goes to that creepy Google-level. I believe there is a line with this thing that Apple never crosses, and it's because they actually give a shit about your privacy. Google and FaceBook don't, because it's "their whole business model".