- the cost of reclaiming and destroying left-over copies
However, the costs for design and programming the digital editions, plus the costs of acquiring extra content that are necessary for digital editions that have added value FAR OUTWEIGH the costs savings mentioned above. I know of one publication that has over 100 people working on the iPad digital edition. At $40K each (and it's probably much more), that's a $4 million salary investment. the team will probably be reduced in size over time, once the application matures, but still...
So publishers, already hit hard, are proceeding cautiously. I've worked with some publishers and rightly or wrongly, they feel that Apple wants too big a piece of the pie and they're all looking at alternate platforms.
Because they haven't figured out how to do it properly. And it probably won't be the large publishing houses that get the right mix for electronic delivery anyway - they are (as I mentioned earlier) too entrenched in traditional print. But then paradigm shifts are never friendly to the entrenched parts of the system now are they?
Really. I hope the Susquehanna hat company never makes an iPad app.
OMG that's hilarious but 1. Most here probably have no idea what you're talking about and 2. Your showing your age. Btw I was just by Susquehanna this weekend lol
If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)
I totally agree, I just found the concept of a 30% larger file size to support portrait orientation very strange. I would have thought (hoped) that SI would have figured this out - whether you deliver an encrypted bundle data bundle with an HTML5 driven viewer maybe, PDF as you suggest, etc., there are definitely ways to NOT have that issue.
True for now, but this segment is brand new. Just as Android has made huge inroads in the smartphone market and is iOS's biggest threat, we'll see the same issue with tablets. No matter how great your device is, if you have weaker content it'll eventually peter out. Not today, not this year, but a couple of years down the road you'll find yourself in second place or worse.
If the business models for Google and Apple were closer - I would say you might be correct - but they are worlds apart. Just as Apple's and Microsoft's business models are worlds apart as well. The problem with other tablets is they don't have an established infrastructure to support them like the App Store. It will be fragmented from the start as some go on Android, some go on ChromeOS, some go on H-P/Palm WebOS and some go on some variant of Win7. Look at how Sansung is delivering their little tabbies - subsidized by a two year 3G/cell-data contract by the carriers. Each carrier will deliver a different, locked-down version of the Galaxy Tab using Android. Remember, Google came out and said they didn't think Android would be a good fit for tablets, but hey, its free, so why not stretch it a bit and make it fit. And you are basing your comments on one publisher's grumping about making the transition. Unless the tablets are driven down the same road as the smartphones with the carriers, they won't go anywhere, and will become another also-ran device prized by idiosyncratic geeks. Like the Apple Newton for example. The tablet market and the smartphone market are different beasts altogether, unless the carriers figure out a way to monetize them via celldata contracts. The iPad is platform independent, except if purchased with 3G service availability. And may still be in the near future if it opens up (in the US) to all carriers. It's just a 1st gen device.
And to prognosticate a couple of year's down the road based on SI's grumpiness is a far reach when you consider the changes that have taken place over the last couple of years - wouldn't you say? I mean, three years ago, there was no iPad, tablets were a sorry little niche item in the PC world - just a hardware format and little else. Apple is not an entrenched player because they remain nimble and keep moving the playing field forward. Moreso than most of the players like Microsoft.
Dell didn't revolutionize the tablet/slate format did they? More importantly, neither did HP. Or Microsoft. Yeah, you had the "Courier" and the Surface, but where did they go? Surface is limited issue, quasi-commercial entertainment device and Courier died in concept. So you can't look to these companies for the right level of vision for the future. They are entrenched and committed to support the existing formats and platforms, and will change only if the market requires it of them. And consumers won't change, because they have no idea what that future might be.
It will be interestingto see which publishing house "gets it" first. The ones that step back listen a bit to their subscriber base, and build a foundation for future publishing. It's not just what the consumer wants - which is an immediate need, but also understanding how electronic delivery is different from print delivery - and not just throwing animations and vids in the mix as well. Likewise advertisers will need to rethink how they deliver *within the context of electronic media* which, it appears, was/is where Apple was trying to take them with iAds. Like any intrenched industry (like automobiles switching from petroleum to electric for example), it will be the nimblest and least intrenched that will score first, the more intrenched will refuse to buy into the paradigm shift, or delay so long that they will lose relevancy, and perhaps fold. Find the blend of consumer desire, ad delivery, subscription rate and formatting and you've found the holy grail. Fail that and end up at the Castle Aaaauuuggghhhh, or lose it trying to cross the Bridge of Death.
Wow you're good slinging that BS. We as consumers don't know what we want that's why there's advertising and then we're led to believe we want something. I do believe tablets are the future and these publications will eventually all be most read digitally but until then they do not have to bend over for SJ. He is no saviour, he's only a prophet when there's a PROFIT in it for him. I'd rather have Howard Stern as the king of all media before SJ.
so you think i should pay $10 a month for access to any publication? who gets what % of the money [other than Apple taking 30%
Why not offer a package plan for, say, $20.00 per month. The subscriber gets to choose 5 different subscriptions for $20.00 (the "A" plan) ... maybe 10 for $15.00 (the "B" plan) etc. The advantage of packaging Ã* la carte would be to increase the value to each subscriber and to each content provider by piggy backing with other content providers, thereby, increasing your sales ... and don't forget, each increase in sales makes the adds on each page more "valuable".
It's time for these people to give up on a marketing approach that is showing them, by decreasing sales, that it doesn't work in the digital age.
It's time to be bold and "think different" or keep watching your industry slowly die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
Yes it's that simple. it has nothing to do with how much they HAVE to spend, or if they're losing money by creating a portrait version, they should just spend more so you can rotate your iPad.
Adding value to your content and giving customers "what they want" is never a bad policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc
so you think every content provider should do this for free? great business model.
Free radio uses ads ... free tv uses ads .... the print media uses ads. The biggest hurdle is trying to establish the difference between "free", "affordable" ..... and "greedy".
There are a few things that we know for certain:
One: The business model that the print media is currently using does not work anymore.
Two: There is a lot of "free" content on these same media websites .... that they willingly put there ..... using their own digital age business model .... maybe it's time to listen to and work with someone else that has a proven track record in this new age (Apple) .... and stop worrying about how much money Apple might make on this venture and start worrying about the very survival of their industry.
the SI page format in paper is portrait, but they say the best way to read it on the iPad is landscape. I have a fundamental problem with designers who say the default behavior on the iPad is going to be different than the default behavior on print.
IMHO : If you are going to experiment with delivery don't do it by taking away the most familiar viewing angle for users and say if you want it back then ask for it. Why? If any percentage of the user community is like me they will just write you off... maybe forever.
Aside from that I'm not going to pay the same price or more for digital format. No way is it more expensive to give me the digital version than the print version for which no one pays newsstand price anyway. (Do they?)
the SI page format in paper is portrait, but they say the best way to read it on the iPad is landscape. I have a fundamental problem with designers who say the default behavior on the iPad is going to be different than the default behavior on print.
IMHO : If you are going to experiment with delivery don't do it by taking away the most familiar viewing angle for users and say if you want it back then ask for it. Why? If any percentage of the user community is like me they will just write you off... maybe forever.
Aside from that I'm not going to pay the same price or more for digital format. No way is it more expensive to give me the digital version than the print version for which no one pays newsstand price anyway. (Do they?)
Do any flying lately? Those airport newsstands are always very busy aren't they?
If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple.
The problem, as I see it, is that the current digital business model, that the publishers themselves created, (free content on web) is not working. surprise, surprise
Apple has a history of waiting until they think they have all of the kinks worked out before they introduce something ... and have a track record that suggests they are pretty good at what they do.
Apple wants to "get it right" .... right out of the gate .. the publishers are still trying to "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks".
For my money, if I was a publisher, I'd let Apple make some money off of me and jump on their bandwagon. If, after a few years, I'm not satisfied I can always jump off .... but they better do something quick, because the clock is ticking and their customer base is shrinking on a daily basis.
i agree completely, but "well done ad's" is a subjective term - in my humble opinion [see how i bolded that and didn't abbreviate it] the iAd for the Nissan Leaf is a huge waste of time. i don't care about some story line of the 2411 peace pod antimatter chip helium on the moon teleportation space elevator electric spacecraft blah blah blah. show me what you want to sell me, why i would like it, and do it fast. if you've clicked on an iAd, you're in the middle of something [the app with the iAd]
the same goes for digital magazines - show me a QTVR instead of a still picture, give me a good hook for a headline, and give me a link for more info.
I get your point. The Nissan is for many people (count me in) over blown. But that's the nice thing, you don't have to click on it, and it shouldn't disturb you any further. And then again, some people might be impressed by the looks of the nissan ad, and that's all it needs for a successfull advertiement. So everybody ought to be happy, I guess....
You've put your finger on it, particularly in your initial comment. These companies are deliberately playing out their politics in public, in the hope that customer complaints will sway the negotiations in their direction. It's kind of pathetic. We've seen the same tactics used in the fight between networks and the cable companies over how much the networks charge. The networks run big advertising campaigns to try to persuade subscribers to essentially demand that the cable providers raise their rates. The sad thing is, it seems to work. Not in this case, I hope.
Yeah consumers are idiots and do not see what this posturing is all about. How many times have companies come out and make statements like this about what Apple doing in hope SJ will change his mind. Let see I can still buy $0.99 songs.
This is standard Marketing 101, Apple listen to the lesson which is the price is the price and you never change the price otherwise you devalue the product. All the other companies change the price than try to figure how they make money later. Magazines are the worse, when was the last time you paid the price listed on front of the magazine, that price is only for the people who have not figured out you pay less with the subscription and still have to see ads on every page.
Thank you for the informative and insightful post.
Magazines are not just about "info". If you want raw info, disable styles in Safari or check the stock quote listings in the daily paper. Magazines are heavily visual - photos, illustrations, charts, etc. - packaging all that visual content (along with article text) into a particular page size & orientation takes skill & work. The iPad has two orientations, so two sets of layout considerations & constraints. Even iOS apps have to have two sets of UI layouts.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me for SI (or any other publisher) to restrict their layout to one orientation.
- Jasen.
Hmmm, it's just that I actually do not have an opposing opignion to what you are stating. I just extrapolate from the picture given by AI (landscape only) and the info accessible on the SI webpage design and come to the conclusion, that design and quality are of a standard, where usually nobody should make a big fuss. The Idea of having a landscape only digital magazine needs to be a desicion made by the graphic designer which I do respect without question.
Nix everything after printing. Because the rest is done by wholesalers and the cost to the publishers is minimal
All of the costs that the wholesalers and the rest of the distribution chain incur are built into the wholesale price which then is built into the retail price by SI .... directly or indirectly, SI, and then the consumer pays for it all.
Comments
It eliminates three costs:
- the cost to acquire and print paper
- the cost of shipping and distribution
- the cost of reclaiming and destroying left-over copies
However, the costs for design and programming the digital editions, plus the costs of acquiring extra content that are necessary for digital editions that have added value FAR OUTWEIGH the costs savings mentioned above. I know of one publication that has over 100 people working on the iPad digital edition. At $40K each (and it's probably much more), that's a $4 million salary investment. the team will probably be reduced in size over time, once the application matures, but still...
So publishers, already hit hard, are proceeding cautiously. I've worked with some publishers and rightly or wrongly, they feel that Apple wants too big a piece of the pie and they're all looking at alternate platforms.
Because they haven't figured out how to do it properly. And it probably won't be the large publishing houses that get the right mix for electronic delivery anyway - they are (as I mentioned earlier) too entrenched in traditional print. But then paradigm shifts are never friendly to the entrenched parts of the system now are they?
Really. I hope the Susquehanna hat company never makes an iPad app.
OMG that's hilarious but 1. Most here probably have no idea what you're talking about and 2. Your showing your age. Btw I was just by Susquehanna this weekend lol
Here's the clip for those not in the know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=i5dnCvGdnr0
If you use PDF it's no problem with portrait or landscape. Portrait gives you the single page, landscape the whole spread. You can password-protect PDFs. And link to videos etc. in them. Adobe intended this to be a good platform for publishing - I think they should be able to develop it into a full-fledged subscription platform as well. (Maybe they just got too absorbed in the Flash-thingy though...?)
I totally agree, I just found the concept of a 30% larger file size to support portrait orientation very strange. I would have thought (hoped) that SI would have figured this out - whether you deliver an encrypted bundle data bundle with an HTML5 driven viewer maybe, PDF as you suggest, etc., there are definitely ways to NOT have that issue.
True for now, but this segment is brand new. Just as Android has made huge inroads in the smartphone market and is iOS's biggest threat, we'll see the same issue with tablets. No matter how great your device is, if you have weaker content it'll eventually peter out. Not today, not this year, but a couple of years down the road you'll find yourself in second place or worse.
If the business models for Google and Apple were closer - I would say you might be correct - but they are worlds apart. Just as Apple's and Microsoft's business models are worlds apart as well. The problem with other tablets is they don't have an established infrastructure to support them like the App Store. It will be fragmented from the start as some go on Android, some go on ChromeOS, some go on H-P/Palm WebOS and some go on some variant of Win7. Look at how Sansung is delivering their little tabbies - subsidized by a two year 3G/cell-data contract by the carriers. Each carrier will deliver a different, locked-down version of the Galaxy Tab using Android. Remember, Google came out and said they didn't think Android would be a good fit for tablets, but hey, its free, so why not stretch it a bit and make it fit. And you are basing your comments on one publisher's grumping about making the transition. Unless the tablets are driven down the same road as the smartphones with the carriers, they won't go anywhere, and will become another also-ran device prized by idiosyncratic geeks. Like the Apple Newton for example. The tablet market and the smartphone market are different beasts altogether, unless the carriers figure out a way to monetize them via celldata contracts. The iPad is platform independent, except if purchased with 3G service availability. And may still be in the near future if it opens up (in the US) to all carriers. It's just a 1st gen device.
And to prognosticate a couple of year's down the road based on SI's grumpiness is a far reach when you consider the changes that have taken place over the last couple of years - wouldn't you say? I mean, three years ago, there was no iPad, tablets were a sorry little niche item in the PC world - just a hardware format and little else. Apple is not an entrenched player because they remain nimble and keep moving the playing field forward. Moreso than most of the players like Microsoft.
Dell didn't revolutionize the tablet/slate format did they? More importantly, neither did HP. Or Microsoft. Yeah, you had the "Courier" and the Surface, but where did they go? Surface is limited issue, quasi-commercial entertainment device and Courier died in concept. So you can't look to these companies for the right level of vision for the future. They are entrenched and committed to support the existing formats and platforms, and will change only if the market requires it of them. And consumers won't change, because they have no idea what that future might be.
It will be interestingto see which publishing house "gets it" first. The ones that step back listen a bit to their subscriber base, and build a foundation for future publishing. It's not just what the consumer wants - which is an immediate need, but also understanding how electronic delivery is different from print delivery - and not just throwing animations and vids in the mix as well. Likewise advertisers will need to rethink how they deliver *within the context of electronic media* which, it appears, was/is where Apple was trying to take them with iAds. Like any intrenched industry (like automobiles switching from petroleum to electric for example), it will be the nimblest and least intrenched that will score first, the more intrenched will refuse to buy into the paradigm shift, or delay so long that they will lose relevancy, and perhaps fold. Find the blend of consumer desire, ad delivery, subscription rate and formatting and you've found the holy grail. Fail that and end up at the Castle Aaaauuuggghhhh, or lose it trying to cross the Bridge of Death.
Wow you're good slinging that BS. We as consumers don't know what we want that's why there's advertising and then we're led to believe we want something. I do believe tablets are the future and these publications will eventually all be most read digitally but until then they do not have to bend over for SJ. He is no saviour, he's only a prophet when there's a PROFIT in it for him. I'd rather have Howard Stern as the king of all media before SJ.
so you think i should pay $10 a month for access to any publication? who gets what % of the money [other than Apple taking 30%
Why not offer a package plan for, say, $20.00 per month. The subscriber gets to choose 5 different subscriptions for $20.00 (the "A" plan) ... maybe 10 for $15.00 (the "B" plan) etc. The advantage of packaging Ã* la carte would be to increase the value to each subscriber and to each content provider by piggy backing with other content providers, thereby, increasing your sales ... and don't forget, each increase in sales makes the adds on each page more "valuable".
It's time for these people to give up on a marketing approach that is showing them, by decreasing sales, that it doesn't work in the digital age.
It's time to be bold and "think different" or keep watching your industry slowly die.
Yes it's that simple. it has nothing to do with how much they HAVE to spend, or if they're losing money by creating a portrait version, they should just spend more so you can rotate your iPad.
Adding value to your content and giving customers "what they want" is never a bad policy.
so you think every content provider should do this for free? great business model.
Free radio uses ads ... free tv uses ads .... the print media uses ads. The biggest hurdle is trying to establish the difference between "free", "affordable" ..... and "greedy".
There are a few things that we know for certain:
One: The business model that the print media is currently using does not work anymore.
Two: There is a lot of "free" content on these same media websites .... that they willingly put there ..... using their own digital age business model .... maybe it's time to listen to and work with someone else that has a proven track record in this new age (Apple) .... and stop worrying about how much money Apple might make on this venture and start worrying about the very survival of their industry.
IMHO : If you are going to experiment with delivery don't do it by taking away the most familiar viewing angle for users and say if you want it back then ask for it. Why? If any percentage of the user community is like me they will just write you off... maybe forever.
Aside from that I'm not going to pay the same price or more for digital format. No way is it more expensive to give me the digital version than the print version for which no one pays newsstand price anyway. (Do they?)
I'm not saying that the providers have to work with Apple. But they can't operate as if this is 1973 only now content is delivered electronically.
Agreed.
the SI page format in paper is portrait, but they say the best way to read it on the iPad is landscape. I have a fundamental problem with designers who say the default behavior on the iPad is going to be different than the default behavior on print.
IMHO : If you are going to experiment with delivery don't do it by taking away the most familiar viewing angle for users and say if you want it back then ask for it. Why? If any percentage of the user community is like me they will just write you off... maybe forever.
Aside from that I'm not going to pay the same price or more for digital format. No way is it more expensive to give me the digital version than the print version for which no one pays newsstand price anyway. (Do they?)
Do any flying lately? Those airport newsstands are always very busy aren't they?
If the publishers offer too high of a subscription price then the consumer should be the one to decide if it's worth it and not Apple.
The problem, as I see it, is that the current digital business model, that the publishers themselves created, (free content on web) is not working. surprise, surprise
Apple has a history of waiting until they think they have all of the kinks worked out before they introduce something ... and have a track record that suggests they are pretty good at what they do.
Apple wants to "get it right" .... right out of the gate .. the publishers are still trying to "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks".
For my money, if I was a publisher, I'd let Apple make some money off of me and jump on their bandwagon. If, after a few years, I'm not satisfied I can always jump off .... but they better do something quick, because the clock is ticking and their customer base is shrinking on a daily basis.
i agree completely, but "well done ad's" is a subjective term - in my humble opinion [see how i bolded that and didn't abbreviate it] the iAd for the Nissan Leaf is a huge waste of time. i don't care about some story line of the 2411 peace pod antimatter chip helium on the moon teleportation space elevator electric spacecraft blah blah blah. show me what you want to sell me, why i would like it, and do it fast. if you've clicked on an iAd, you're in the middle of something [the app with the iAd]
the same goes for digital magazines - show me a QTVR instead of a still picture, give me a good hook for a headline, and give me a link for more info.
Naw. I usually reserve those for when people try to put words in my mouth. I object to that.
Stop objecting ... their words are an upgrade that you should welcome.
You've put your finger on it, particularly in your initial comment. These companies are deliberately playing out their politics in public, in the hope that customer complaints will sway the negotiations in their direction. It's kind of pathetic. We've seen the same tactics used in the fight between networks and the cable companies over how much the networks charge. The networks run big advertising campaigns to try to persuade subscribers to essentially demand that the cable providers raise their rates. The sad thing is, it seems to work. Not in this case, I hope.
Yeah consumers are idiots and do not see what this posturing is all about. How many times have companies come out and make statements like this about what Apple doing in hope SJ will change his mind. Let see I can still buy $0.99 songs.
This is standard Marketing 101, Apple listen to the lesson which is the price is the price and you never change the price otherwise you devalue the product. All the other companies change the price than try to figure how they make money later. Magazines are the worse, when was the last time you paid the price listed on front of the magazine, that price is only for the people who have not figured out you pay less with the subscription and still have to see ads on every page.
What does SI consider "a reasonable price"?
They will know it when they see it.
Thank you for the informative and insightful post.
Magazines are not just about "info". If you want raw info, disable styles in Safari or check the stock quote listings in the daily paper. Magazines are heavily visual - photos, illustrations, charts, etc. - packaging all that visual content (along with article text) into a particular page size & orientation takes skill & work. The iPad has two orientations, so two sets of layout considerations & constraints. Even iOS apps have to have two sets of UI layouts.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me for SI (or any other publisher) to restrict their layout to one orientation.
- Jasen.
Hmmm, it's just that I actually do not have an opposing opignion to what you are stating. I just extrapolate from the picture given by AI (landscape only) and the info accessible on the SI webpage design and come to the conclusion, that design and quality are of a standard, where usually nobody should make a big fuss. The Idea of having a landscape only digital magazine needs to be a desicion made by the graphic designer which I do respect without question.
Nix everything after printing. Because the rest is done by wholesalers and the cost to the publishers is minimal
All of the costs that the wholesalers and the rest of the distribution chain incur are built into the wholesale price which then is built into the retail price by SI .... directly or indirectly, SI, and then the consumer pays for it all.
IMO - SI is waiting for the chicken, Apple is saying, lay the egg.
Eggzactly!
Or use Apple's Pages & PDF Shrink!
I'd rather have Howard Stern as the king of all media before SJ.
I second the nomination. But satellite radio hasn't been doing that well, has it?