I commend Apple for standing up for OUR RIGHTS! Let the "Publishers" establish their own relationship and extract their information, marketing plans, data, etc AFTER the individual subscribes via the iTunes Store. At that point, it is a personal decision between the individual and the publisher. Apple should in no way give out information about its own individual database!
Besides, just how how "marketing information" does a magazine publisher get when I buy a magazine off the rack?
Give me an incentive to share my demographic data with you and I might. Otherwise...
At the introduction of the Kindle, I vowed to never again buy a new book in printed form (e-book only from now on). The introduction of the iPad cemented the decision, and anyone who has actually priced out new books sees the logic in going e-book only. The publishers will eventually move to an e-only stance once they have been divested of their legacy printing presses and distribution networks.
And just what percentage of the price goes towards printing and distribution now? Is Apple's 30% cut that unreasonable compared to that?
to be honest I don't think it's the percent that bugs them. It's the idea of only getting paid when someone plays which means that their inflow is variable and unpredictable. Publishers, Networks etc don't like that game. It makes them nervous.
Plus being cut out of any demo info about who is buying what. Which frankly I can't see them needing outside of spamming and such and the last thing we need is more ads. So anything that improves that game by making it my choice, not some 3rd party, of what information and how much someone gets is great to me.
"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"
"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.
Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?
Please.
You are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing Apple's privacy policy! The Section titled "When we disclose your information" begins with the paragraph,
"Apple takes your privacy very seriously. Apple does not sell or rent your contact information to other marketers."
Apple makes money by focusing on the end-user experience. They don't treat their customers well because they are saints -- they treat their customers well because that's how they make their money! Selling contact information would be stupid, because it would alienate their customers and they would end up making less money.
"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"
"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.
Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?
Please.
Bingo!
Every company has their own "privacy policy" that suits their marketing plan to a "T". The publishers may be bankrupt in a sense of the mature electronic age but they do provide premium content with high expenses. Apple and publishers will have to have to have some compromise in terms of market data and costs charged. I am surprised that Apple does not provide an iTunes "micro-payment" price to whoever partners on content.
Steve J can't sell hardware, (shiny ball) without a constant media content, either electronic paper, videos, etc. Good business's will get the better angels in there to create the bridge here.
I can see it being done for cable/sat subscribers but I don't go that way.
Ever heard of the "Nielsen Ratings"?
That's how the TV industry finds out how many people are watching ABC, ESPN, and now even using TiVo.
The Wikipedia has a nice article on it. Along with focus groups, the Nielsen Ratings dictate what gets shown on TV.
Right now, a newspaper or magazine collects data on its subscribers, mainly by looking at the postal codes of it's subscribers, through which they can infer a lot about demographics, which they then use to sell advertising space. There are also frequent questionnaires sent out to subscribers, often paired with a contest or renewal info or getting online content when they ask what field of work you're in, what other magazines you read, what your favourite websites are, etc. etc.
If they go from that model when they know the age/location/salary/ethnic group of their subscribers to Apple just telling them "50000 subscriptions, here's your cheque for 500000 dollars, then they can't really say any specific details to their advertisers, who require that information to make their choices. And, I probably don't need to remind you that in newspaper and magazine industry, about 90% of the gross revenue comes from advertising....
great explanation of how all this works.. Thanks!!
i know some magazine formats take advantage of multiple viewing.. doctors offices, coffee table magazines.. national geographic.. etc etc. how much do advertisers count on this kind of viewership versus a single user viewership of their ads? for example, wouldn't it be better to allow a given magazine to be passed around up to X number of times so that others who would not subscribe anyway see their ads too - just like the doctors office, friends coffee table etc etc kinds of mags already offer.. dumb question maybe but it seems to me some magazines don't get read and tossed.. they stay around and are viewed several or many times by more than one person..
The multi-reader stats are built into the demographics gathered by examining the business vs consumer purchasing, then looking at the demographics of either businesses in that area or specific survey results for that type of business.
The sharing of physical items vs. electronic items is a discussion best carried on under the topic of scarce goods vs. infinite goods and the nature of ownership and the impact on business models. It's a bit off topic for this forum.
Unlike book publishers, magazine and news paper publishers make the bulk of their money from advertising revenue. The cost at the news stand, or subscription costs, are there to cover the cost of dead trees and the costs associated with delivery of the physical product.
...
Yours is the best post yet in this thread. What most people don't get is that we are not the customers for ad-supported newspapers and magazines. Advertisers are the customers. We are the product.
The publishers are demanding from Apple information that they can't get any other way. The iBookstore will be much more like a newsstand than a subscription service. The publisher has no idea who purchased the magazine or newspaper picked from the rack in a convenience store or newsstand. Many magazines and newspapers are available exclusively on the rack. In the case of a publication delivered to a subscriber, the only verified information available to the publication is the subscriber's address. The publication may use demographic models that predict the socioeconomic circumstances of people in the area. These models are fairly accurate. However, they cannot give specific information about individuals.
There are publications that have specific information about their subscribers. They fall into two categories:
The publications offered by professional organizations their membership have access to the information provided by the members.
Publications offered to professionals at "professional courtesy" prices or free of charge require the subscriber to complete an application for the price reduction.
In each case, there is consideration in exchange for the private information. However, these publishers fighting Apple offer no consideration for us to surrender our information.
Ad-supported publications must recognize that we live in a new day. They need to find a new business model.
"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"
"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.
Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?
Please.
Stop spouting nonsense. Good companies don't sell info on their customers just because someone might pay them a buck for it.
You may have a grudge against Steve Jobs, but you should take that elsewhere.
Add: Post #46 (NormM also points this out, better than I did).
Every company has their own "privacy policy" that suits their marketing plan to a "T". The publishers may be bankrupt in a sense of the mature electronic age but they do provide premium content with high expenses. Apple and publishers will have to have to have some compromise in terms of market data and costs charged. I am surprised that Apple does not provide an iTunes "micro-payment" price to whoever partners on content.
Steve J can't sell hardware, (shiny ball) without a constant media content, either electronic paper, videos, etc. Good business's will get the better angels in there to create the bridge here.
I commend Apple for standing up for OUR RIGHTS! Let the "Publishers" establish their own relationship and extract their information, marketing plans, data, etc AFTER the individual subscribes via the iTunes Store. At that point, it is a personal decision between the individual and the publisher. Apple should in no way give out information about its own individual database!
The problem is that Apple's model prevents that from happening, because it puts a wall between the consumer of the publication and the publisher. Normally, the publisher can communicate with the subscriber, but this hides the subscriber from the publisher.
They won't be able to adjust their Ad rates properly, because they won't be able to tell the advertisers who is reading the publication. That's VERY important. Then how will they make a profit? Subscription payments don't pay for more than a fraction of a publication's cost.
In other words, the publisher has no idea as to who the subscribers are.
Even basic information such as which subscribers are not renewing are not available. Publishers often send out cards at reduced rates to subscribers if they don't renew on time. That can't happen here. If a subscriber has subscribed for years, and now doesn't, the publisher wants to know that. It matters to them if long time subscribers are not renewing. It's different than it is for someone who just subscribed for one year and quit. Or if someone was given a gift subscription. This helps publishers adjust the editorial content.
They won't see any of that info now. All they will see is subscription numbers. The who and why will be totally lost to them.
It's easy for you to say they should do this on their own, but they won't be able to.
Your comparison is flawed. Please give me an example of how ABC knows who is watching, outside of surveys such as Nielsen. They don't have subscriber or audience member specific information like that. For that matter, Panasonic doesn't have any idea. I don't see how the publisher has earned the right to information that isn't necessary to carry out the transaction. They sold a product, once the money and product has changed hands, that's it as far as I'm concerned. If people want to fill out surveys or log into the publisher's web site, that's fine.
His argument is flawed as far as Tv goes, because they do depend on outside organizations, as they have no direct avenue to their consumers. Through, the pay channels do that that avenue.
But as far as publications go, they all have that access to their subscribers, and they need it.
I agree with the original poster, publishers should not have access to my information. And plenty of people get that model today when they buy newspapers from newsstands or grocery stores.
Newspaper stand sales, yes. but most sales of magazines are through subscriptions, and there, they have that info. Much newspaper sales are through subscription as well, and they have the info there too.
Not sure I'm picking up on what you may be implying. Are you suggesting that digital sales (which have perhaps surpassed CD's in sales) is the reason why EMI is failing? Is there something unique about EMI that I'm not aware of? Are they not making their catalog available for digital download?
Digital sales are still no more than about 20% of CD sales numbers.
Is there a reason for this? Bad management, recession, or is there a direct link to going digital and DRM-free that the problem?
Bad management. When present management took over, they alienated their major stars, and a number have left. There are other reasons that put management up there. But the company, as the smallest of the majors, hadn't had the cash to collect the top musicians it needed to compete.
And the company has the largest digital sales by percentage of its total sales of all the majors. Digital sales aren't going to help a company.
You've made the point I think I was aiming for, only much better!
Had Apple not come along and sorted out a sensible model for digital downloads, illegal downloads were going to do untold harm to the music publishers. In that sense, I think iTunes saved their industry, as everything they were doing themselves was nothing short of a joke.
Obviously they also don't help themselves by publishing so much teeny pop crap!!!
The biggest buyer of music is a thirteen year old girl.
Comments
I commend Apple for standing up for OUR RIGHTS! Let the "Publishers" establish their own relationship and extract their information, marketing plans, data, etc AFTER the individual subscribes via the iTunes Store. At that point, it is a personal decision between the individual and the publisher. Apple should in no way give out information about its own individual database!
Besides, just how how "marketing information" does a magazine publisher get when I buy a magazine off the rack?
Give me an incentive to share my demographic data with you and I might. Otherwise...
That is all.
And just what percentage of the price goes towards printing and distribution now? Is Apple's 30% cut that unreasonable compared to that?
to be honest I don't think it's the percent that bugs them. It's the idea of only getting paid when someone plays which means that their inflow is variable and unpredictable. Publishers, Networks etc don't like that game. It makes them nervous.
Plus being cut out of any demo info about who is buying what. Which frankly I can't see them needing outside of spamming and such and the last thing we need is more ads. So anything that improves that game by making it my choice, not some 3rd party, of what information and how much someone gets is great to me.
Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:
http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/
"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"
"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.
Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?
Please.
You are misunderstanding and mischaracterizing Apple's privacy policy! The Section titled "When we disclose your information" begins with the paragraph,
"Apple takes your privacy very seriously. Apple does not sell or rent your contact information to other marketers."
Apple makes money by focusing on the end-user experience. They don't treat their customers well because they are saints -- they treat their customers well because that's how they make their money! Selling contact information would be stupid, because it would alienate their customers and they would end up making less money.
Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:
http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/
"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"
"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.
Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?
Please.
Bingo!
Every company has their own "privacy policy" that suits their marketing plan to a "T". The publishers may be bankrupt in a sense of the mature electronic age but they do provide premium content with high expenses. Apple and publishers will have to have to have some compromise in terms of market data and costs charged. I am surprised that Apple does not provide an iTunes "micro-payment" price to whoever partners on content.
Steve J can't sell hardware, (shiny ball) without a constant media content, either electronic paper, videos, etc. Good business's will get the better angels in there to create the bridge here.
www.answersforapple.com
They will all come around like all the music labels.
The main ABC network itself isn't cable though.
I can see it being done for cable/sat subscribers but I don't go that way.
Ever heard of the "Nielsen Ratings"?
That's how the TV industry finds out how many people are watching ABC, ESPN, and now even using TiVo.
The Wikipedia has a nice article on it. Along with focus groups, the Nielsen Ratings dictate what gets shown on TV.
Right now, a newspaper or magazine collects data on its subscribers, mainly by looking at the postal codes of it's subscribers, through which they can infer a lot about demographics, which they then use to sell advertising space. There are also frequent questionnaires sent out to subscribers, often paired with a contest or renewal info or getting online content when they ask what field of work you're in, what other magazines you read, what your favourite websites are, etc. etc.
If they go from that model when they know the age/location/salary/ethnic group of their subscribers to Apple just telling them "50000 subscriptions, here's your cheque for 500000 dollars, then they can't really say any specific details to their advertisers, who require that information to make their choices. And, I probably don't need to remind you that in newspaper and magazine industry, about 90% of the gross revenue comes from advertising....
great explanation of how all this works.. Thanks!!
i know some magazine formats take advantage of multiple viewing.. doctors offices, coffee table magazines.. national geographic.. etc etc. how much do advertisers count on this kind of viewership versus a single user viewership of their ads? for example, wouldn't it be better to allow a given magazine to be passed around up to X number of times so that others who would not subscribe anyway see their ads too - just like the doctors office, friends coffee table etc etc kinds of mags already offer.. dumb question maybe but it seems to me some magazines don't get read and tossed.. they stay around and are viewed several or many times by more than one person..
The multi-reader stats are built into the demographics gathered by examining the business vs consumer purchasing, then looking at the demographics of either businesses in that area or specific survey results for that type of business.
The sharing of physical items vs. electronic items is a discussion best carried on under the topic of scarce goods vs. infinite goods and the nature of ownership and the impact on business models. It's a bit off topic for this forum.
-- Scott
Ever heard of the "Nielsen Ratings"?
Yeah but people volunteer their information to Nielson. The television networks are not able to collect it just because you've watched their program.
And, I probably don't need to remind you that in newspaper and magazine industry, about 90% of the gross revenue comes from advertising....
This is the crux of the problem. That revenue is no longer viable to cover operating expense and they need a new business model.
Unlike book publishers, magazine and news paper publishers make the bulk of their money from advertising revenue. The cost at the news stand, or subscription costs, are there to cover the cost of dead trees and the costs associated with delivery of the physical product.
...
Yours is the best post yet in this thread. What most people don't get is that we are not the customers for ad-supported newspapers and magazines. Advertisers are the customers. We are the product.
The publishers are demanding from Apple information that they can't get any other way. The iBookstore will be much more like a newsstand than a subscription service. The publisher has no idea who purchased the magazine or newspaper picked from the rack in a convenience store or newsstand. Many magazines and newspapers are available exclusively on the rack. In the case of a publication delivered to a subscriber, the only verified information available to the publication is the subscriber's address. The publication may use demographic models that predict the socioeconomic circumstances of people in the area. These models are fairly accurate. However, they cannot give specific information about individuals.
There are publications that have specific information about their subscribers. They fall into two categories:
- The publications offered by professional organizations their membership have access to the information provided by the members.
- Publications offered to professionals at "professional courtesy" prices or free of charge require the subscriber to complete an application for the price reduction.
In each case, there is consideration in exchange for the private information. However, these publishers fighting Apple offer no consideration for us to surrender our information.Ad-supported publications must recognize that we live in a new day. They need to find a new business model.
Oops! You already gave your consent to them. Look at the Privacy Policy:
http://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/
"There are also times when it may be advantageous for Apple to make certain personal information about you available to companies that Apple has a strategic relationship with or that perform work for Apple to provide products and services to you"
"...times when it may be advantageous for Apple"... includes any time someone will pay them for your private information.
Do you imagine that Apple would not throw you under the bridge to make a buck? Do you imagine that iSteve is a good person? Do you think that Apple exists for any reason other than to extract money from you, any way it can?
Please.
Stop spouting nonsense. Good companies don't sell info on their customers just because someone might pay them a buck for it.
You may have a grudge against Steve Jobs, but you should take that elsewhere.
Add: Post #46 (NormM also points this out, better than I did).
Bingo!
Every company has their own "privacy policy" that suits their marketing plan to a "T". The publishers may be bankrupt in a sense of the mature electronic age but they do provide premium content with high expenses. Apple and publishers will have to have to have some compromise in terms of market data and costs charged. I am surprised that Apple does not provide an iTunes "micro-payment" price to whoever partners on content.
Steve J can't sell hardware, (shiny ball) without a constant media content, either electronic paper, videos, etc. Good business's will get the better angels in there to create the bridge here.
www.answersforapple.com
"Bingo" what? You and iGenius should become more informed.
I commend Apple for standing up for OUR RIGHTS! Let the "Publishers" establish their own relationship and extract their information, marketing plans, data, etc AFTER the individual subscribes via the iTunes Store. At that point, it is a personal decision between the individual and the publisher. Apple should in no way give out information about its own individual database!
The problem is that Apple's model prevents that from happening, because it puts a wall between the consumer of the publication and the publisher. Normally, the publisher can communicate with the subscriber, but this hides the subscriber from the publisher.
They won't be able to adjust their Ad rates properly, because they won't be able to tell the advertisers who is reading the publication. That's VERY important. Then how will they make a profit? Subscription payments don't pay for more than a fraction of a publication's cost.
In other words, the publisher has no idea as to who the subscribers are.
Even basic information such as which subscribers are not renewing are not available. Publishers often send out cards at reduced rates to subscribers if they don't renew on time. That can't happen here. If a subscriber has subscribed for years, and now doesn't, the publisher wants to know that. It matters to them if long time subscribers are not renewing. It's different than it is for someone who just subscribed for one year and quit. Or if someone was given a gift subscription. This helps publishers adjust the editorial content.
They won't see any of that info now. All they will see is subscription numbers. The who and why will be totally lost to them.
It's easy for you to say they should do this on their own, but they won't be able to.
Your comparison is flawed. Please give me an example of how ABC knows who is watching, outside of surveys such as Nielsen. They don't have subscriber or audience member specific information like that. For that matter, Panasonic doesn't have any idea. I don't see how the publisher has earned the right to information that isn't necessary to carry out the transaction. They sold a product, once the money and product has changed hands, that's it as far as I'm concerned. If people want to fill out surveys or log into the publisher's web site, that's fine.
His argument is flawed as far as Tv goes, because they do depend on outside organizations, as they have no direct avenue to their consumers. Through, the pay channels do that that avenue.
But as far as publications go, they all have that access to their subscribers, and they need it.
I agree with the original poster, publishers should not have access to my information. And plenty of people get that model today when they buy newspapers from newsstands or grocery stores.
Newspaper stand sales, yes. but most sales of magazines are through subscriptions, and there, they have that info. Much newspaper sales are through subscription as well, and they have the info there too.
Not sure I'm picking up on what you may be implying. Are you suggesting that digital sales (which have perhaps surpassed CD's in sales) is the reason why EMI is failing? Is there something unique about EMI that I'm not aware of? Are they not making their catalog available for digital download?
Digital sales are still no more than about 20% of CD sales numbers.
Is there a reason for this? Bad management, recession, or is there a direct link to going digital and DRM-free that the problem?
Bad management. When present management took over, they alienated their major stars, and a number have left. There are other reasons that put management up there. But the company, as the smallest of the majors, hadn't had the cash to collect the top musicians it needed to compete.
And the company has the largest digital sales by percentage of its total sales of all the majors. Digital sales aren't going to help a company.
You've made the point I think I was aiming for, only much better!
Had Apple not come along and sorted out a sensible model for digital downloads, illegal downloads were going to do untold harm to the music publishers. In that sense, I think iTunes saved their industry, as everything they were doing themselves was nothing short of a joke.
Obviously they also don't help themselves by publishing so much teeny pop crap!!!
The biggest buyer of music is a thirteen year old girl.
The newspaper and magazine NEEDS a new model, if it is to survive. And frankly, I hate newsprint ink on my fingers.
Ink on the fingers does suck... but you're missing the biggest draw back to print media - the news and information is dated before you read it.
Mags & papers need to use iPad so they can provide timely information. Until then, I'll continue to check the internet for the latest news and info.