Publisher Hearst debuts on Apple's iPad with Esquire app
Another big-name publisher has debuted on the iPad, with Hearst offering a digital version of its Esquire magazine at the newsstand price of $4.99 per issue with no subscription option.
The new Esquire iPad app (iTunes link) from Hearst Communications was released on Friday. Version 1.0 is 88.9MB, and at $4.99 it includes the latest issue of the magazine.
The digital edition also includes exclusive features, like a "moving cover" featuring actor Javier Bardem, an interactive explanation of how the new World Trade Center is being built, and videos accompanying some of the biggest stories from the issue. Users can also copy, save and share articles, quotes and photos.
The magazine represents the first real foray into the iPad digital publishing world for Hearst, one of the largest publishers in the world. The company previously experimented with a single "interactive edition" of Popular Mechanics (iTunes link), but that application has not been updated to reflect recent issues since it debuted July.
According to Peter Kafka of MediaMemo, for now Hearst plans to stick with a standard newsstand price of $4.99. The company has considered offering subscriptions, but one doesn't appear to be in the cards anytime soon.
For those who think the $4.99 asking price is too much, Kevin O'Malley, publisher of Esquire, said publications have to "reshape expectations" for pricing of digital content.
"Unlike many apps, Esquire doesn?t provide a literal translation of the print copy," Kafka wrote. "So it can?t count app sales as newsstand sales, but O'Malley seems fine with that. The upside for the reader is that Esquire doesn?t need to include every ad from the print edition, and instead features just two ads from a single sponsor ? Lexus."
Recent reports have indicated that Apple is working on a standalone digital newsstand which would offer subscriptions to print publications. The rumored application is said to be similar in approach to iBooks, the downloadable storefront for e-books run by Apple and available for the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch.
A major issue for publications on the iPad has been a desire to obtain information about readers to share with advertisers. While such data is a necessity in the print world, Apple does not allow software on its App Store to collect such information.
Reports have suggested that Apple could allow to offer an opt-in function that would let subscribers agree to share their personal information with publications. Such a deal could be a part of subscription plans through the rumored newsstand application.
The new Esquire iPad app (iTunes link) from Hearst Communications was released on Friday. Version 1.0 is 88.9MB, and at $4.99 it includes the latest issue of the magazine.
The digital edition also includes exclusive features, like a "moving cover" featuring actor Javier Bardem, an interactive explanation of how the new World Trade Center is being built, and videos accompanying some of the biggest stories from the issue. Users can also copy, save and share articles, quotes and photos.
The magazine represents the first real foray into the iPad digital publishing world for Hearst, one of the largest publishers in the world. The company previously experimented with a single "interactive edition" of Popular Mechanics (iTunes link), but that application has not been updated to reflect recent issues since it debuted July.
According to Peter Kafka of MediaMemo, for now Hearst plans to stick with a standard newsstand price of $4.99. The company has considered offering subscriptions, but one doesn't appear to be in the cards anytime soon.
For those who think the $4.99 asking price is too much, Kevin O'Malley, publisher of Esquire, said publications have to "reshape expectations" for pricing of digital content.
"Unlike many apps, Esquire doesn?t provide a literal translation of the print copy," Kafka wrote. "So it can?t count app sales as newsstand sales, but O'Malley seems fine with that. The upside for the reader is that Esquire doesn?t need to include every ad from the print edition, and instead features just two ads from a single sponsor ? Lexus."
Recent reports have indicated that Apple is working on a standalone digital newsstand which would offer subscriptions to print publications. The rumored application is said to be similar in approach to iBooks, the downloadable storefront for e-books run by Apple and available for the iPad, iPhone and iPod touch.
A major issue for publications on the iPad has been a desire to obtain information about readers to share with advertisers. While such data is a necessity in the print world, Apple does not allow software on its App Store to collect such information.
Reports have suggested that Apple could allow to offer an opt-in function that would let subscribers agree to share their personal information with publications. Such a deal could be a part of subscription plans through the rumored newsstand application.
Comments
Even better is that there are no annoying gazillion advertisements in between articles like the paper version. There are only two ads from Lexus and Audi and they're both interactive.
Even better is that there are no annoying gazillion advertisements in between articles like the paper version. There are only two ads from Lexus and Audi and they're both interactive.
That would explain the price point.
Are these iAds? I have yet to see an iAd and oddly will pay money right now just to use one of these ads.
Esquire sounds like a fine magazine. I'm sure it will do very well. But the price. I would have expected online content to be cheaper than the printed version. It seems to me that there would be less overhead in distribution.
If the sales were equal and the content identical with advertisers contracts holding for both distribution methods I would expect the iPad version to yield them more profit.
Esquire sounds like a fine magazine. I'm sure it will do very well. But the price. I would have expected online content to be cheaper than the printed version. It seems to me that there would be less overhead in distribution.
From limited experience in publishing, by far the greatest expense is for content and composition of the content. The cost of paper and distribution is minor compared the above. Wurm5150 indicates it is not just a pdf version of the paper copy, which means the composition costs for the ipad version are separate from those of the paper version.
It will be interesting to see over time how prices adjust to expenses vs demand.
Esquire sounds like a fine magazine. I'm sure it will do very well. But the price. I would have expected online content to be cheaper than the printed version. It seems to me that there would be less overhead in distribution.
Savings which are then cancelled out by new wages for designers, servers. Same price is fine, especially with less ads. You pay for the content, not the method of delivery.
That would explain the price point.
Are these iAds? I have yet to see an iAd and oddly will pay money right now just to use one of these ads.
No. But they're decent ads. Not static and not boring.
Well if you really want to see an iAd download the AP and NY Times app and go the Tech section. Guaranteed you'll see one.
Esquire sounds like a fine magazine. I'm sure it will do very well. But the price. I would have expected online content to be cheaper than the printed version. It seems to me that there would be less overhead in distribution.
The way they did their iPad mag I can tell Hearst spent serious money developing it and producing the content. So I think there's a counter argument with this app. Yes there's no overhead cost with printing and distribution but they did spend money reimagining, developing and producing the digital version. Like I've said they definitely did not just digitally convert the paper version. You can really tell they put a lot of work to it. Plus it has barely any ads on it.
But I'm still hoping for discounted subscriptions. I mean who wouldn't right?
Oh and I heard this magazine is HTML5 based.
You can really tell they put a lot of work to it. Plus it has barely any ads on it.
In the print version of these types of magazines, I find the ads to be some of the best parts of the publication. Full page ads from top brand companies are usually very beautiful and creative. Of course, I'm in advertising, so when I watch TV, as soon as the feature show comes back on I click to find another advertisement since that is where the real genius is, not in the sitcom.
"Opulence, I has it!"
In the print version of these types of magazines, I find the ads to be some of the best parts of the publication. Full page ads from top brand companies are usually very beautiful and creative. Of course, I'm in advertising, so when I watch TV, as soon as the feature show comes back on I click to find another advertisement since that is where the real genius is, not in the sitcom.
"Opulence, I has it!"
I'm in multimedia design so just like you I'm a sucker for good design. The problem with digital ads is that it shouldn't be static. I like well designed paper magazine ads but when you put those same static ads to something digital it's just not the same. I hate most online ads because they don't do anything and that's why I like iAds.
So you buy an app for 4.99 and get one single issue? So you have to re-buy the entire app every month? What did I miss?
They're all confused, inexcusably, like they didn't know this product (iPad) was coming years ago. Hopefully they'll catch up soon.
Of course we would all hope for subscriptions with this store but even putting all newspapers and magazines in one place would be much more convenient and I think it would drive sales in the area I was originally most excited for with an iPad.
This is still all messed up. I subscribe to The New Yorker and while that includes credentials to view their ipad-formatted web edition it doesn't include the iPad app version for offline reading.
They're all confused, inexcusably, like they didn't know this product (iPad) was coming years ago. Hopefully they'll catch up soon.
It actually isn't the publishers fault here. The hang up is Apple. From what I have read the publishers want to charge for subscriptions on the iPad but they are very uneasy with paying Apple part of those monies from subscription sales and also they are uneasy about loading that content on Apple servers which gives Apple free reign on user data. If I was a publisher I would be wary too.
But at $4.99 an issue for the digital copy? Nope not in my budget.
Is it possible they could launch a new stand alone newspaper/magazine store with 4.2?? I just think this would be perfect timing for Apple allowing for an even better holiday season and then hopefully doing well 2011 Q1 with iPad 2 and whatever else.
iBooks is an App Store download so I?d expect any periodical app to be the same. It might require 4.2 as the minimum install, but I?m sure it wouldn?t be included. Also, I?d expect an event that demoed this and had plenty of partners on board so I?d say the earliest would be January.
It actually isn't the publishers fault here. The hang up is Apple. From what I have read the publishers want to charge for subscriptions on the iPad but they are very uneasy with paying Apple part of those monies from subscription sales and also they are uneasy about loading that content on Apple servers which gives Apple free reign on user data. If I was a publisher I would be wary too.
But at $4.99 an issue for the digital copy? Nope not in my budget.
I can see that - and I'd be wary too. But what part of any of this is a surprise? That's what I'm saying - they knew it was coming and it doesn't do the publishers any good to look like they're clueless. They've sent a message to early adopters that they're gouging, and that doesn't help anyone.
As for paying Apple - well - they pay to distribute physical media. Now they need to pay Apple. I haven't thought much about the subscribers demographics and who gets access - I don't know anything about how that stuff works. It's interesting though.
The right move would have been to throw print subscribers a bone. In that light at least the New Yorker lets print subscribers access the content online and with an iPad specific version. But not everyone does. Contempt for your loyal customers is never a good thing.
It actually isn't the publishers fault here. The hang up is Apple. From what I have read the publishers want to charge for subscriptions on the iPad but they are very uneasy with paying Apple part of those monies from subscription sales and also they are uneasy about loading that content on Apple servers which gives Apple free reign on user data. If I was a publisher I would be wary too.
But at $4.99 an issue for the digital copy? Nope not in my budget.
No. The blame for the hold up falls on both Apple and the publishers. Apple already owns users data. iTunes accounts. Its those accounts that the publishers wanted so badly to serve ads. The publishers want access to users information which Apple is reluctant to give away.