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.
The entire subscription model is changing. The behavioral psychology of the readership is going to change. The medium changes that. The models used by periodic content producers on the web are the models that need to be adapted for electronic periodicals.
Subscriber information can still be obtained in other ways. A new line added to the electronic equivalent of a survey card, for instance.
The current marketing models and calculations will have to change. Those who successfully adapt to this change and solve the, at times difficult, problems confronting the shift from paper to electrons will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.
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.
Those professional publications will still be able to get that same information. Send your readers to a website to enter the requisite information to receive a 'gift' subscription or however Apple, et al.. decide to handle that.
The same goes for any other publication whose primary ad models require that kind of detailed demographics.
Being involved in several national magazines, I do see how publishers deem the need for access to the people purchasing their product.
Contrary to what the average consumer may think, a publication is considered a catalyst for one thing and one thing only, advertising revenue. Sure, articles and great content are key to a great magazine... but a subscription barely pays for a magazines total overhead. it's advertising that keeps the magazine going. The more subscriptions you have only means more circulation, which once again, goes back to advertising... Advertisers like circulation.
Do you really think that the unbelievable introductory subscription price of $14.99/12 issues of Sports Illustrated really makes the publishers anything? It barely covers 3 issues going out the door. However, 1 more number to overall circulation helps drive ad revenue. guaranteed.
That being said, it's very hard for a publisher to gain existing and new advertising dollars if they cannot come back to the advertiser and tell them who the audience is that reads the publication. As much as I hate seeing my personal information shared with the next, I believe that if a person does subscribe to a particular magazine, my information should be shared with the publisher.
Publishers also depend on 3rd party advertising opportunities as well. Let's say Axe launches a new body spray and aside from placing an ad in said magazine, they also want to personally touch more of their audience with a sample. Without knowing who is purchasing digital copies, publishers can't very well sell Axe the opportunity to market more directly with bulk mail and eblasts. Once again... depending on who you ask, this can be considered a great thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm okay with marketing to me direct... it's how I find out whats new and whats cool. I enjoy knowing deals.
Without these opportunities, regardless of how many digital copies publishing companies sell... it could very well effect what a magazine is.Sure, we rule out paper and cost of print, but theres still employees, r&d, planning, digital media and content production, edits, revisions, etc. etc. etc. And with digital magazines comes a whole new wave of media rich magazines with video and sound... live streams. Way more expensive than paper and ink.
And as far as the ibook store being compared to a news stand rack... I don't know if i buy that. The cost of the ibook store subscriptions will more than likely be far less than a physical subscription. Ever see a news stand price? It's godly inflated to give two incentives for the publishers - a reason to gain a subscription, and a reason to gain a circulation head. Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.
Publishers still don't make money off of news stand price. Eventually, the person purchasing magazines off the news stand turn into a subscriber. And more than likely Apple will push ibook store subscriptions. So what does that mean? Subscribers to your magazine... without knowing who they are.. and not being able to market to them outside of the magazine.
I know this model doesnt fit every type of publisher out there.... but for a publisher heavy with magazines and ad related content, its the reality.
The entire subscription model is changing. The behavioral psychology of the readership is going to change. The medium changes that. The models used by periodic content producers on the web are the models that need to be adapted for electronic periodicals.
Subscriber information can still be obtained in other ways. A new line added to the electronic equivalent of a survey card, for instance.
The current marketing models and calculations will have to change. Those who successfully adapt to this change and solve the, at times difficult, problems confronting the shift from paper to electrons will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.
Yes, I do read in some posts wishful beliefs that it's changing. But it isn't so simple.
These models don't change all at once. There will be years, decades even, when both models will exist side by side. Both will have to make a profit.
It's easy to talk about someone else's business, and say what's good for them when you don't have an interest (financial) in it. It's like the talking heads on Tv who are always criticizing and making impractical suggestions, but who have no responsibilities to carry them out, and take responsibility when they fail.
The magazine industry has been around for quite a long time. During recessions, sales always suffer, and the past two and a half years has been worse than most. During the depression, many went out of business as well, but it sprung back later. While these tablets will make an impression on their model, it will take a long time before people switch over in large numbers.
It has to be understood that these devices are not only much bigger than an iPod, but are also much more expensive as well. Sales of them will be restricted when compared to digital music players. Will Apple ever sell 50 million a year? Perhaps at some time in the future, after the price drops, and they do more. But it will take years for those sales to materialize. Meanwhile, most people will still subscribe, a smaller number will buy from the news stand or magazine shop, and a smaller number yet will get it electronically.
But in order to convince the publishers they should go electronic, they must be given the same chance to interact with their customer. That doesn't mean an invidious amount of personal information. It often just needs to be what I mentioned on my other posts. Sometimes they'll want more, and they could embed a form into the publication itself. But they would have to be given a means by which they could reward the customer for answering as they often do now. We don't as yet know if that will be possible.
Being involved in several national magazines, I do see how publishers deem the need for access to the people purchasing their product.
Contrary to what the average consumer may think, a publication is considered a catalyst for one thing and one thing only, advertising revenue. Sure, articles and great content are key to a great magazine... but a subscription barely pays for a magazines total overhead. it's advertising that keeps the magazine going. The more subscriptions you have only means more circulation, which once again, goes back to advertising... Advertisers like circulation.
Do you really think that the unbelievable introductory subscription price of $14.99/12 issues of Sports Illustrated really makes the publishers anything? It barely covers 3 issues going out the door. However, 1 more number to overall circulation helps drive ad revenue. guaranteed.
That being said, it's very hard for a publisher to gain existing and new advertising dollars if they cannot come back to the advertiser and tell them who the audience is that reads the publication. As much as I hate seeing my personal information shared with the next, I believe that if a person does subscribe to a particular magazine, my information should be shared with the publisher.
Publishers also depend on 3rd party advertising opportunities as well. Let's say Axe launches a new body spray and aside from placing an ad in said magazine, they also want to personally touch more of their audience with a sample. Without knowing who is purchasing digital copies, publishers can't very well sell Axe the opportunity to market more directly with bulk mail and eblasts. Once again... depending on who you ask, this can be considered a great thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm okay with marketing to me direct... it's how I find out whats new and whats cool. I enjoy knowing deals.
Without these opportunities, regardless of how many digital copies publishing companies sell... it could very well effect what a magazine is.Sure, we rule out paper and cost of print, but theres still employees, r&d, planning, digital media and content production, edits, revisions, etc. etc. etc. And with digital magazines comes a whole new wave of media rich magazines with video and sound... live streams. Way more expensive than paper and ink.
And as far as the ibook store being compared to a news stand rack... I don't know if i buy that. The cost of the ibook store subscriptions will more than likely be far less than a physical subscription. Ever see a news stand price? It's godly inflated to give two incentives for the publishers - a reason to gain a subscription, and a reason to gain a circulation head. Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.
Publishers still don't make money off of news stand price. Eventually, the person purchasing magazines off the news stand turn into a subscriber. And more than likely Apple will push ibook store subscriptions. So what does that mean? Subscribers to your magazine... without knowing who they are.. and not being able to market to them outside of the magazine.
I know this model doesnt fit every type of publisher out there.... but for a publisher heavy with magazines and ad related content, its the reality.
my two cents.
Agreed. Consumers don't understand how business works. It's good you brought up how video and other enhancements will raise the cost of the publication, because that's very true.
Unfortunately, consumers still think "cheaper, cheaper", as though that covers all topics of importance. According to that way of thinking, we're ALWAYS being ripped off. I just wonder how many of them don't need to work for a living, because surely, their salaries are inflated as their companies are obviously ripping us off as well, to help pay for it.
People don't seem to understand how Ad dollars pay for everything.
That was very interesting. Even though I'm not a fan of his, as the WSJ has moved further to the right since he's owned it, we do still subscribe.
Right now, the subscription is just $99 for the year, after we've paid about $550 a year over the years. Our NY Times subscription including the Sunday edition is also about $550 a year.
It will be interesting to see if the $99 price is a one time thing, which it likely is. If not, I may not re-subscribe. But if he follows through with what he mentioned, depending on what is being offered, I may go with that. If the Times also offered an iPad subscription, and it too was lower, I'd go with that one as well.
The question here is how long will the paper exist on the device? A day, a week, a month, forever?
It's the same question with magazine subscriptions. Will we be able to back up and keep all copies, or do they go away after a time?
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!!!
If you read magazines and newspapers, then you know that ad pages have been down for a lot longer than that. Look at the average newspaper. Its pages are geometrically smaller and there are fewer of them. Magazines? Geometrically smaller pages and fewer of them.
Long story short--whatever problems plague digital downloads face, thin layers of dead trees have it ever so much worse.
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.
Thanks Jeff! You took the words right outta my...uh...keyboard Seriously, the point being made is that Apple has no right nor obligation to divulge any info it may have about iTunes and/or iPad users. The publishers have no rights to user info UNLESS that info and thus the inherent right to use same is given expressedly by the user. Buying a book via iTunes or iBook Store (really anywhere for that matter) does not obligate the user to divest his rights nor give any right of access to the publisher. Apple is right on in this case!
"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.
Actually, the policy specifically states that they will not provide your information to other marketers.
Strategic partners doesn't include providers of content. It does, however, include Google, which pisses me off.
Are you certain that Apple would not sell that info to the publisher? ISTM that Apple will have something of value, and would be foolish not to sell it.
Apple is no different from any other multi-national corporation.
Apple does not sell or rent your info to other marketing companies.
From the Apple privacy page:
"When we disclose your information
Apple takes your privacy very seriously. Apple does not sell or rent your contact information to other marketers."
Some publishers also said Apple's revenue model, which gives the content provider 70 percent of sales while Apple keeps 30 percent, does not make much sense for subscriptions.
Anyone that knows the publishing world knows that revenue from subscriptions are NOT a major source of income... directly. You want subscribers not for their money but for their names to appear on your subscription rolls. Why? Because that allows them to raise their advertising rates which is where they really make their money!
They'll practically give away a subscription to raise the price of a full page ad to the next bracket.
The iPad's subscription model will make them more money - if they know how to be business people. If they don't know how to adapt to this new business model... well then they'll go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.
Comments
Note that is projected for 2010. There appears to be evidence yet that digital distribution has actually overtaken CD sales.
Where and what is that evidence?
In 2009, digital sales slowed down.
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.
The entire subscription model is changing. The behavioral psychology of the readership is going to change. The medium changes that. The models used by periodic content producers on the web are the models that need to be adapted for electronic periodicals.
Subscriber information can still be obtained in other ways. A new line added to the electronic equivalent of a survey card, for instance.
The current marketing models and calculations will have to change. Those who successfully adapt to this change and solve the, at times difficult, problems confronting the shift from paper to electrons will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.
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.
Those professional publications will still be able to get that same information. Send your readers to a website to enter the requisite information to receive a 'gift' subscription or however Apple, et al.. decide to handle that.
The same goes for any other publication whose primary ad models require that kind of detailed demographics.
-- Scott
Contrary to what the average consumer may think, a publication is considered a catalyst for one thing and one thing only, advertising revenue. Sure, articles and great content are key to a great magazine... but a subscription barely pays for a magazines total overhead. it's advertising that keeps the magazine going. The more subscriptions you have only means more circulation, which once again, goes back to advertising... Advertisers like circulation.
Do you really think that the unbelievable introductory subscription price of $14.99/12 issues of Sports Illustrated really makes the publishers anything? It barely covers 3 issues going out the door. However, 1 more number to overall circulation helps drive ad revenue. guaranteed.
That being said, it's very hard for a publisher to gain existing and new advertising dollars if they cannot come back to the advertiser and tell them who the audience is that reads the publication. As much as I hate seeing my personal information shared with the next, I believe that if a person does subscribe to a particular magazine, my information should be shared with the publisher.
Publishers also depend on 3rd party advertising opportunities as well. Let's say Axe launches a new body spray and aside from placing an ad in said magazine, they also want to personally touch more of their audience with a sample. Without knowing who is purchasing digital copies, publishers can't very well sell Axe the opportunity to market more directly with bulk mail and eblasts. Once again... depending on who you ask, this can be considered a great thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm okay with marketing to me direct... it's how I find out whats new and whats cool. I enjoy knowing deals.
Without these opportunities, regardless of how many digital copies publishing companies sell... it could very well effect what a magazine is.Sure, we rule out paper and cost of print, but theres still employees, r&d, planning, digital media and content production, edits, revisions, etc. etc. etc. And with digital magazines comes a whole new wave of media rich magazines with video and sound... live streams. Way more expensive than paper and ink.
And as far as the ibook store being compared to a news stand rack... I don't know if i buy that. The cost of the ibook store subscriptions will more than likely be far less than a physical subscription. Ever see a news stand price? It's godly inflated to give two incentives for the publishers - a reason to gain a subscription, and a reason to gain a circulation head. Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.
Publishers still don't make money off of news stand price. Eventually, the person purchasing magazines off the news stand turn into a subscriber. And more than likely Apple will push ibook store subscriptions. So what does that mean? Subscribers to your magazine... without knowing who they are.. and not being able to market to them outside of the magazine.
I know this model doesnt fit every type of publisher out there.... but for a publisher heavy with magazines and ad related content, its the reality.
my two cents.
Where and what is that evidence?
In 2009, digital sales slowed down.
My bad, meant to write "no evidence" as contextualized by my first sentence that it was just someone's projection of when it will occur.
The entire subscription model is changing. The behavioral psychology of the readership is going to change. The medium changes that. The models used by periodic content producers on the web are the models that need to be adapted for electronic periodicals.
Subscriber information can still be obtained in other ways. A new line added to the electronic equivalent of a survey card, for instance.
The current marketing models and calculations will have to change. Those who successfully adapt to this change and solve the, at times difficult, problems confronting the shift from paper to electrons will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.
Yes, I do read in some posts wishful beliefs that it's changing. But it isn't so simple.
These models don't change all at once. There will be years, decades even, when both models will exist side by side. Both will have to make a profit.
It's easy to talk about someone else's business, and say what's good for them when you don't have an interest (financial) in it. It's like the talking heads on Tv who are always criticizing and making impractical suggestions, but who have no responsibilities to carry them out, and take responsibility when they fail.
The magazine industry has been around for quite a long time. During recessions, sales always suffer, and the past two and a half years has been worse than most. During the depression, many went out of business as well, but it sprung back later. While these tablets will make an impression on their model, it will take a long time before people switch over in large numbers.
It has to be understood that these devices are not only much bigger than an iPod, but are also much more expensive as well. Sales of them will be restricted when compared to digital music players. Will Apple ever sell 50 million a year? Perhaps at some time in the future, after the price drops, and they do more. But it will take years for those sales to materialize. Meanwhile, most people will still subscribe, a smaller number will buy from the news stand or magazine shop, and a smaller number yet will get it electronically.
But in order to convince the publishers they should go electronic, they must be given the same chance to interact with their customer. That doesn't mean an invidious amount of personal information. It often just needs to be what I mentioned on my other posts. Sometimes they'll want more, and they could embed a form into the publication itself. But they would have to be given a means by which they could reward the customer for answering as they often do now. We don't as yet know if that will be possible.
Being involved in several national magazines, I do see how publishers deem the need for access to the people purchasing their product.
Contrary to what the average consumer may think, a publication is considered a catalyst for one thing and one thing only, advertising revenue. Sure, articles and great content are key to a great magazine... but a subscription barely pays for a magazines total overhead. it's advertising that keeps the magazine going. The more subscriptions you have only means more circulation, which once again, goes back to advertising... Advertisers like circulation.
Do you really think that the unbelievable introductory subscription price of $14.99/12 issues of Sports Illustrated really makes the publishers anything? It barely covers 3 issues going out the door. However, 1 more number to overall circulation helps drive ad revenue. guaranteed.
That being said, it's very hard for a publisher to gain existing and new advertising dollars if they cannot come back to the advertiser and tell them who the audience is that reads the publication. As much as I hate seeing my personal information shared with the next, I believe that if a person does subscribe to a particular magazine, my information should be shared with the publisher.
Publishers also depend on 3rd party advertising opportunities as well. Let's say Axe launches a new body spray and aside from placing an ad in said magazine, they also want to personally touch more of their audience with a sample. Without knowing who is purchasing digital copies, publishers can't very well sell Axe the opportunity to market more directly with bulk mail and eblasts. Once again... depending on who you ask, this can be considered a great thing or a bad thing. Personally, I'm okay with marketing to me direct... it's how I find out whats new and whats cool. I enjoy knowing deals.
Without these opportunities, regardless of how many digital copies publishing companies sell... it could very well effect what a magazine is.Sure, we rule out paper and cost of print, but theres still employees, r&d, planning, digital media and content production, edits, revisions, etc. etc. etc. And with digital magazines comes a whole new wave of media rich magazines with video and sound... live streams. Way more expensive than paper and ink.
And as far as the ibook store being compared to a news stand rack... I don't know if i buy that. The cost of the ibook store subscriptions will more than likely be far less than a physical subscription. Ever see a news stand price? It's godly inflated to give two incentives for the publishers - a reason to gain a subscription, and a reason to gain a circulation head. Advertising. Advertising. Advertising.
Publishers still don't make money off of news stand price. Eventually, the person purchasing magazines off the news stand turn into a subscriber. And more than likely Apple will push ibook store subscriptions. So what does that mean? Subscribers to your magazine... without knowing who they are.. and not being able to market to them outside of the magazine.
I know this model doesnt fit every type of publisher out there.... but for a publisher heavy with magazines and ad related content, its the reality.
my two cents.
Agreed. Consumers don't understand how business works. It's good you brought up how video and other enhancements will raise the cost of the publication, because that's very true.
Unfortunately, consumers still think "cheaper, cheaper", as though that covers all topics of importance. According to that way of thinking, we're ALWAYS being ripped off. I just wonder how many of them don't need to work for a living, because surely, their salaries are inflated as their companies are obviously ripping us off as well, to help pay for it.
People don't seem to understand how Ad dollars pay for everything.
Rupert Murdoch talks about offering the WSJ as part of a "bundle" of newspapers on the iPad for $5-6/week.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommo...JjOTM1YTlmYzI=
Until then, I'll continue enjoying my magazines, etc via Zinio's excellent digital distribution system.
DaHarder loyal Zinio subscriber since 2004
Check out the end of the video
Rupert Murdoch talks about offering the WSJ as part of a "bundle" of newspapers on the iPad for $5-6/week.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommo...JjOTM1YTlmYzI=
That was very interesting. Even though I'm not a fan of his, as the WSJ has moved further to the right since he's owned it, we do still subscribe.
Right now, the subscription is just $99 for the year, after we've paid about $550 a year over the years. Our NY Times subscription including the Sunday edition is also about $550 a year.
It will be interesting to see if the $99 price is a one time thing, which it likely is. If not, I may not re-subscribe. But if he follows through with what he mentioned, depending on what is being offered, I may go with that. If the Times also offered an iPad subscription, and it too was lower, I'd go with that one as well.
The question here is how long will the paper exist on the device? A day, a week, a month, forever?
It's the same question with magazine subscriptions. Will we be able to back up and keep all copies, or do they go away after a time?
Rupert Murdoch talks about offering the WSJ as part of a "bundle" of newspapers on the iPad for $5-6/week.
I'd go for that.
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!!!
I agree!
Where and what is that evidence?
In 2009, digital sales slowed down.
If you read magazines and newspapers, then you know that ad pages have been down for a lot longer than that. Look at the average newspaper. Its pages are geometrically smaller and there are fewer of them. Magazines? Geometrically smaller pages and fewer of them.
Long story short--whatever problems plague digital downloads face, thin layers of dead trees have it ever so much worse.
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.
Thanks Jeff! You took the words right outta my...uh...keyboard
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.
Actually, the policy specifically states that they will not provide your information to other marketers.
Strategic partners doesn't include providers of content. It does, however, include Google, which pisses me off.
Are you certain that Apple would not sell that info to the publisher? ISTM that Apple will have something of value, and would be foolish not to sell it.
Apple is no different from any other multi-national corporation.
Apple does not sell or rent your info to other marketing companies.
From the Apple privacy page:
"When we disclose your information
Apple takes your privacy very seriously. Apple does not sell or rent your contact information to other marketers."
Digital sales are still no more than about 20% of CD sales numbers.
In dollar terms or in unit terms? If the latter, how are single tracks compared with CDs?
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.
I agree. Nowadays, printed newspapers give you yesterday's news. Magazines give you info from even longer ago.
I just watched Pirates of Silicon Valley, and it was almost comical when Woz came in with a magazine and claimed to have the latest scoop.
Times change. I can't imagine the days before sattelites, when it took days or weeks for news to arrive.
Some publishers also said Apple's revenue model, which gives the content provider 70 percent of sales while Apple keeps 30 percent, does not make much sense for subscriptions.
Anyone that knows the publishing world knows that revenue from subscriptions are NOT a major source of income... directly. You want subscribers not for their money but for their names to appear on your subscription rolls. Why? Because that allows them to raise their advertising rates which is where they really make their money!
They'll practically give away a subscription to raise the price of a full page ad to the next bracket.
The iPad's subscription model will make them more money - if they know how to be business people. If they don't know how to adapt to this new business model... well then they'll go the way of the buggy whip manufacturers.