Soft sales prompt Conde Nast to slow addition of magazines to Apple's iPad
Publisher Conde Nast is not abandoning the iPad, but weaker-than-expected sales of digital version of its publications on the iPad have caused the company to slow the introduction of brands to Apple's tablet.
According to Ad Age, Conde Nast is "tapping the brakes" on delivering iPad editions of its existing line of print magazines. Currently available are Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Golf Digest, Self and Allure, but the publisher reportedly does not see a strong business case for adding more options.
"That hardly means Conde is done with the iPad," author Nat Ives wrote. "It remains committed to creating iPad editions for its titles, with an undisclosed one planned to arrive in May. And it has created many other kinds of iPad apps tied to its brands that don't attempt to deliver an entire print issue's experience."
Previously, Conde Nast was pushing to make all of its magazines available on the ipad. But since initial sales were not as strong as expected, the company has decided to slow its approach. "We're not rushing," one publisher reportedly said.
Some of the company's biggest products remain without an iPad edition: W, Vogue, Teen Vogue, Details, Architectural Digest, Brides, Lucky, Golf World, Bon Appetit, and Conde Nast Traveler. The publisher reportedly plans to launch many of them in the coming months, and some in early 2012.
Conde Nast made a splash last year, when it partnered with Adobe to bring Wired to the iPad as quickly as possible. The magazine got off to a strong start, selling more than 100,000 copies in its first month.
But by the end of 2010, sales had slowed significantly, to 22,000 in October and 23,000 in November. And Vanity Fair sold just 8,700 copies on the iPad in November.
Apple introduced recurring subscriptions for publications on its iOS App Store in February. But many publishers have not agreed to Apple's terms, in which the iPad maker keeps a 30 percent cut of all transactions. As a result, publications like Wired can only be purchased issue-by-issue at a much higher price than subscriptions typically offer.
According to Ad Age, Conde Nast is "tapping the brakes" on delivering iPad editions of its existing line of print magazines. Currently available are Wired, GQ, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Golf Digest, Self and Allure, but the publisher reportedly does not see a strong business case for adding more options.
"That hardly means Conde is done with the iPad," author Nat Ives wrote. "It remains committed to creating iPad editions for its titles, with an undisclosed one planned to arrive in May. And it has created many other kinds of iPad apps tied to its brands that don't attempt to deliver an entire print issue's experience."
Previously, Conde Nast was pushing to make all of its magazines available on the ipad. But since initial sales were not as strong as expected, the company has decided to slow its approach. "We're not rushing," one publisher reportedly said.
Some of the company's biggest products remain without an iPad edition: W, Vogue, Teen Vogue, Details, Architectural Digest, Brides, Lucky, Golf World, Bon Appetit, and Conde Nast Traveler. The publisher reportedly plans to launch many of them in the coming months, and some in early 2012.
Conde Nast made a splash last year, when it partnered with Adobe to bring Wired to the iPad as quickly as possible. The magazine got off to a strong start, selling more than 100,000 copies in its first month.
But by the end of 2010, sales had slowed significantly, to 22,000 in October and 23,000 in November. And Vanity Fair sold just 8,700 copies on the iPad in November.
Apple introduced recurring subscriptions for publications on its iOS App Store in February. But many publishers have not agreed to Apple's terms, in which the iPad maker keeps a 30 percent cut of all transactions. As a result, publications like Wired can only be purchased issue-by-issue at a much higher price than subscriptions typically offer.
Comments
For example, New York Times is the main online paper I read. I used to be an annual subscriber during my student days when we get subsidized educational discounts.
But, I would never buy the current online subscription of New York Times because it is "too costly", especially so because I can read the same "summary information" from other current free online newspapers.
It is anectdotal but most likely many NYT readers have the same reaction.
The 70-30% split is not the main issue.
In regard Conde Nast "Wired", I have browsed some of their contents, once in awhile, but it just does not appeal to me. The fees they charge per issue may even be unattractive to their most avid readers.
The reality is that the internet and other alternative mass media have impacted the business of news dissemination and consumption.
Apple Ecosystems
What these corporations are missing is that it's not about making more money at all, it's about getting with the times and making use of the efficienties our new technology has brought us. Some industries are flat out going to die because they are no longer useful. i.e. Record labels...
Save the trees baby yeah!
Other periodicals I subscribe to (NG, Economist, etc) give me the digital version for free as a subscriber and I am happy to support them.
I took the bait for the NYTs subscription intro, but won't be continuing after the trial period because they want to charge more for access on both my iPhone and iPad than for just the iPad; go figure. If these companies could come up with reasonable models they would get support. Ridiculous models will be ignored. As others have mentioned, they better get this figured out quickly or they will perish in the marketplace.
1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.
Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.
Zinio is the only App that's gotten it right. Prices are reasonable and every month my new issues are waiting and I don't have to do anything to get them.
This whole magazine thing is a fu**ing disaster. I don't want an App that is a magazine. I want an App that holds my magazines.
Zinio is the only App that's gotten it right. Prices are reasonable and every month my new issues are waiting and I don't have to do anything to get them.
That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.
I'm a wired subscriber but they charge more for the digital version (which must have lower production and distribution costs) than for the print version, so I stuck with the latter.
Other periodicals I subscribe to (NG, Economist, etc) give me the digital version for free as a subscriber and I am happy to support them.
I took the bait for the NYTs subscription intro, but won't be continuing after the trial period because they want to charge more for access on both my iPhone and iPad than for just the iPad; go figure. If these companies could come up with reasonable models they would get support. Ridiculous models will be ignored. As others have mentioned, they better get this figured out quickly or they will perish in the marketplace.
The NYTimes mobile web site looks better and loads faster than the NYTimes iPhone app, though the iPad app is actually pretty awesome.
I got a free trial of the web site (including the mobile site) and iPhone app that runs through the end of the year, but I never use the iPhone app.
I'm hoping the iPad pricing will be a dud and that the Times will revise it later this year.
Look at how we consume content today: We browse web sites, read blogs, texting on the phones, email links to friends.
We want information NOW.
All content should be published when it is ready, not on a daily, weekly or a monthly schedule.
That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.
I agree too, for th magazines I actually read because they have reasonable subscription terms (Newsweek, Businessweek , and Popular Science), I wish they did not all have different apps. Business week has the best interface of the three. I would get wired if they had a reasonable price. I got the free issue last month. 4.99 an issue (or really anything over $15 a year) is never going to fly for a mass market monthly magazine.
On the digital front I tend to be much more focused on the details of the content and the ads for some reason I find annoying. Not sure why there is such a different perception between the two but I can see that the digital version of the paper format doesn't exactly translate the complete user experience even if the content is mostly equal.
In effect they either have to trust that Apple's ecosystem will deliver subscribers and put their future in Apple's hands, or don't offer subscriptions via the AppStore at all. In Conde Nast's case, the AppStore may not be the best way for them to attract subscribers.
What's so hard about selecting File > Export in InDesign, then calling it an online magazine?
I know The Daily isn't all that, but at least they tried redefining the tablet model by starting from scratch. They moved the platform forward, albeit not that much.
Conde's offerings are still without subscriptions. This means:
1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.
Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.
And I want a television that holds radio stations . . . a car that holds my horse . . . a book that holds my tablets (stone tablets, that is).
If you want something to hold your magazines I would suggest you go to Pier One and buy a wicker basket.
The problem with Condé Nast's tablet strategy is simple: they argued and argued internally about native apps versus using Adobe Digital Publishing Suite, a conversion tool. Then went with the conversion tool rather than building something new, something that worked on a new platform - strike one.
Then they priced their conversion product like a print product - strike two.
Then they expected that the market, in this case, the 16 million iPad owners spread out worldwide would give them sales results more in line with the US market, made up of a couple hundred million adults. It was unrealistic, we are still in the early days of tablet publishing - strike three.
If you want to know what the tablet can do for publishing don't look at iPad apps from Condé Nast, look at what independent publishers are doing.
If you want a print magazine buy a print magazine. I love print. But I love digital, too. I don't want print in digital form anymore than I would want YouTube to put out a magazine with stills in the place of video.