A magazine in a store is an impulse buy... At $5 a pop you still go for it because a certain article catches your eye, or you start reading something and want to finish before you leave the checkout line. In the app store, you don't get that ability to "browse before buying". You may be able to see a few of the main articles, but little more. Combine that with the fact that a $5 one time read is listed in the same "store" as a $5 game or productivity app that provides reuse value, and the magazine loses it's luster.
Personally I can't remember the last time I just "picked up" a magazine at a store, outside of something to read on an airplane... If I like a magazine, I'll subscribe to it. For my subscription loyalty, one usually gets a reduced rate over the newsstand price. Why aren't online magazines being sold using a subscription model?
Seems like a pretty crappy model. I got a 2-year subscription to GQ magazine for around $9.99 from Amazon.com last year. Why the hell would I spend an additional $2.99, plus $1.99 per issue just to have the luxury of reading on my iPad where I can't even smell the sample cologne tabs?
There needs to be some kind of centralized magazine subscription service instead of everyone having their own separate app (among other things).
Here's some adoption rates among computer users (PC and Mac) of similar Apple products.
iPod (various types except Touch) adoption rate: 36% price: $59 to $249 2 GB to 160 GB of storage
iPod Touch adoption rate: 9% price: $199 to $399 storage: 8 GB to 64 GB
Now the iPad
iPad price: $499 to $829 storage: 16 GB to 64 GB
16GB is actually plenty for eBooks, I recall eBooks tend to be less than a megabyte unless they're thousands of pages or loaded down with images. I have a 6 MB app that contains 25+ books. Even the Kindle DX doesn't have more than 4GB. The main reason a typical person might need for more is videos or a huge music library. The price is actually pretty decent for a mobile device with an IPS panel. I don't really know of any other hand held, phone, netbook or laptop with an IPS screen.
That number has to be way way up for the March and April issues. I didn't even consider digital magazines before the iPad and now I've got GQ and half a dozen Zinio subscriptions going. I couldn't imagine trying to read it on the iPhone and I refuse to buy any magazine charging $5 an issue.
Better to ask, where are they *all* at? There's such a dearth of magazines and newspapers (as apps or from iBooks) that I keep wondering if the publishing industry forgot *they* were ones pushing out the idea that the iPad was going to save them.
Condé Nast's magazines aren't really that bad as apps, on their own. At least they don't try to hammer the "look, it's the magazine in digital format!" that others insist should be the new paradigm.
But the pickings are slim, and many news apps feel rushed or not thought out. (Not to mention that if they want to "train" people to pay for access, they're committing the same mistake they did with free access to news in the first place.)
Maybe most men don't want to tote around a pad in their murse.
Aren't the men that read GQ supposed to be a little more manly, comfortable with who they are, and actually *not* scared of appearing gay?
Seriously, if you even think of stuff like this and are not a complete homophobe or over 75, you might have some problems with your own concept of manhood.
i don't know about anyone else but i have been hit by a bunch of adverts trying to get me to subscribe to gq and other conde nast publications. They have a great opportunity (to really add to the content) with wired but i have not heard anything about it.
I wish they allowed print subscriptions to be converted to the iPad version. I would do that in a minute.
I know Popular Science is combining their print and iPad subscription rreal SOON! At least that was what I was told when I emailed them. I bought one iPad issue but won't be purchasing again until the subscription is up and running.
Time Magazine also said that they will be doing subscriptions in the coming months. Don't know when exactly. Hopefully they'll combine their print subscription with their iPad subscription like PopSci is planning on doing. They used to sell one app for every single issues but they since created a single app where you can purchase in-app.
I believe Conde Nast is planning a subscription also but I guess they and the other publishers are playing which model will work. But based on user comments they might eventually just stick with a discounted subscription model just like the print versions.
iPad is certainly a great device. There are multiple of problems going on here
Apple provided access to iPad quit late to the Publishers
The publishers are content providers and not App creators. I think they are missing the point here. They need to be educated a bit more on delivering content to this new type of device.
Publishers need to start thinking outside of the box. I think they have inhaled too much of paper dust.
The way out of this is that Apple needs to educated and guide some of the publisher is doing this right. If they don't, it will end up tarnishing Apple and this fine product. Remember, the publishers are also reviewer of the products and if they don't get a success, they are going to not fault on themselves, but will fault on Apple.
If they were smart they would work out a WIFI deal in the airports so that you could download the magazine before getting on the plane. You have a captive audience and you don't have to carry one more thing with you on the plane.
I think the iPad is so new and one of it's kind right now that publishers have no clue what to do as far as content and format on the iPad. Either that or they're just too lazy to do something different and are just content on converting their print editions to digital and just tweek it a little bit. But I think Wired's upcoming app might be the one magazine that all others will be measured against and hopefully the rest will follow.
I stopped reading (print) magazines a couple years ago but I started reading them again when I got the iPad. Although it's not much different than the paper version I find reading mags on the iPad far more convenient and a better experience not to mention far less annoying ads. It'll get better (for my wallet) with subscriptions coming soon and hopefully add more features like interactivity that takes advantage of the iPad's capabilities and eventually will distinguish itself apart from their paper counterparts.
The other problem is that the ad-saturation that's so obvious with the major glossy magazines becomes even more obvious when you see it on screen and it's discouraging to readers.
Actually, most magazine readers no longer differentiate where they get their information from. The advertising and editorial are of equal service to them. This is especially true for fashion and lifestyle magazines. The days of church/state separation between advertising and editorial are basically gone.
Legally (postal rules) a magazine must be at least 20% editorial to be mailed under periodical postage regulations. Most magazines maximize their ad/edit ratio in order to maximize profits and the expense of paper and distribution. Subscription income hardly covers the basic overhead. My assumption is that only advertisers who pay are going into the digital version, and they are replicating only the parts of the magazine for which they have digital rights. So no matter how you slice it, the digital version will never be the same content as the print. That's why they need to reinvent the entire experience.
The fact is that editorial departments are not set up to provide continuous digital content, especially rich media experiences. Creating a monthly event digitally will be a problem for any magazine which goes onto the iPad. This is why the majority of success lays in opinion and news formats.
Comments
Personally I can't remember the last time I just "picked up" a magazine at a store, outside of something to read on an airplane... If I like a magazine, I'll subscribe to it. For my subscription loyalty, one usually gets a reduced rate over the newsstand price. Why aren't online magazines being sold using a subscription model?
I will buy it if
1, it is $1.99 per issue, but I can subscribe 12 issues for $9.99
2, it contains all pages from the paper version
3, I can sync the magazine between my iPad/iPhone.
Yep, I think that's fair enough.
If the editorial content is good enough, it doesn't need lots of flashy extras, but a sensible way of pricing is a must.
Seems like a pretty crappy model. I got a 2-year subscription to GQ magazine for around $9.99 from Amazon.com last year. Why the hell would I spend an additional $2.99, plus $1.99 per issue just to have the luxury of reading on my iPad where I can't even smell the sample cologne tabs?
There needs to be some kind of centralized magazine subscription service instead of everyone having their own separate app (among other things).
There is: Zinio
I'll say! At this rate I am going to have to jailbreak to do a hosts file adblock, unless I can find a better solution.
Some routers will allow you to block IP's, of course you would have batch resolve all Domain Names first.
Wonder if there is a app for that?
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.txt
One Thousand and ninety-one dollars in sales!! Surely that must be a typo.
That is only for the single issue currently available on the iPad.
As of last week, 365 people using the iPad, purchased the December 2009 (5 month old)Men of the Year issue.
For a e-reader the iPad is a expensive device.
Here's some adoption rates among computer users (PC and Mac) of similar Apple products.
iPod (various types except Touch) adoption rate: 36% price: $59 to $249 2 GB to 160 GB of storage
iPod Touch adoption rate: 9% price: $199 to $399 storage: 8 GB to 64 GB
Now the iPad
iPad price: $499 to $829 storage: 16 GB to 64 GB
16GB is actually plenty for eBooks, I recall eBooks tend to be less than a megabyte unless they're thousands of pages or loaded down with images. I have a 6 MB app that contains 25+ books. Even the Kindle DX doesn't have more than 4GB. The main reason a typical person might need for more is videos or a huge music library. The price is actually pretty decent for a mobile device with an IPS panel. I don't really know of any other hand held, phone, netbook or laptop with an IPS screen.
Re: GQ: Has the thought that the app sucks ever cross their mind?
Outside of a a few-block radius of midtown Manhattan's 5th Ave, does anyone read that stuff any more?
GQ?!
Outside of a a few-block radius of midtown Manhattan's 5th Ave, does anyone read that stuff any more?
Good call sir!
Condé Nast's magazines aren't really that bad as apps, on their own. At least they don't try to hammer the "look, it's the magazine in digital format!" that others insist should be the new paradigm.
But the pickings are slim, and many news apps feel rushed or not thought out. (Not to mention that if they want to "train" people to pay for access, they're committing the same mistake they did with free access to news in the first place.)
Maybe most men don't want to tote around a pad in their murse.
Aren't the men that read GQ supposed to be a little more manly, comfortable with who they are, and actually *not* scared of appearing gay?
Seriously, if you even think of stuff like this and are not a complete homophobe or over 75, you might have some problems with your own concept of manhood.
i don't know about anyone else but i have been hit by a bunch of adverts trying to get me to subscribe to gq and other conde nast publications. They have a great opportunity (to really add to the content) with wired but i have not heard anything about it.
comes out next month
I wish they allowed print subscriptions to be converted to the iPad version. I would do that in a minute.
I know Popular Science is combining their print and iPad subscription rreal SOON! At least that was what I was told when I emailed them. I bought one iPad issue but won't be purchasing again until the subscription is up and running.
Time Magazine also said that they will be doing subscriptions in the coming months. Don't know when exactly. Hopefully they'll combine their print subscription with their iPad subscription like PopSci is planning on doing. They used to sell one app for every single issues but they since created a single app where you can purchase in-app.
I believe Conde Nast is planning a subscription also but I guess they and the other publishers are playing which model will work. But based on user comments they might eventually just stick with a discounted subscription model just like the print versions.
50?60% of most magazines' page counts are ads. I think GQ's might be even higher than that.
GQ's iPad app has way less ads than the print version. Only 4-5 ads... and they're not intrusive, annoying, and all over like the print version.
- Apple provided access to iPad quit late to the Publishers
- The publishers are content providers and not App creators. I think they are missing the point here. They need to be educated a bit more on delivering content to this new type of device.
- Publishers need to start thinking outside of the box. I think they have inhaled too much of paper dust.
The way out of this is that Apple needs to educated and guide some of the publisher is doing this right. If they don't, it will end up tarnishing Apple and this fine product. Remember, the publishers are also reviewer of the products and if they don't get a success, they are going to not fault on themselves, but will fault on Apple.That is only for the single issue currently available on the iPad.
As of last week, 365 people using the iPad, purchased the December 2009 (5 month old)Men of the Year issue.
Oops. That was me. I wanted an annual subscription
I stopped reading (print) magazines a couple years ago but I started reading them again when I got the iPad. Although it's not much different than the paper version I find reading mags on the iPad far more convenient and a better experience not to mention far less annoying ads. It'll get better (for my wallet) with subscriptions coming soon and hopefully add more features like interactivity that takes advantage of the iPad's capabilities and eventually will distinguish itself apart from their paper counterparts.
The other problem is that the ad-saturation that's so obvious with the major glossy magazines becomes even more obvious when you see it on screen and it's discouraging to readers.
Actually, most magazine readers no longer differentiate where they get their information from. The advertising and editorial are of equal service to them. This is especially true for fashion and lifestyle magazines. The days of church/state separation between advertising and editorial are basically gone.
Legally (postal rules) a magazine must be at least 20% editorial to be mailed under periodical postage regulations. Most magazines maximize their ad/edit ratio in order to maximize profits and the expense of paper and distribution. Subscription income hardly covers the basic overhead. My assumption is that only advertisers who pay are going into the digital version, and they are replicating only the parts of the magazine for which they have digital rights. So no matter how you slice it, the digital version will never be the same content as the print. That's why they need to reinvent the entire experience.
The fact is that editorial departments are not set up to provide continuous digital content, especially rich media experiences. Creating a monthly event digitally will be a problem for any magazine which goes onto the iPad. This is why the majority of success lays in opinion and news formats.