After initial success, magazine purchases on Apple iPad decline

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 69
    That's because no one is going to pay $4.99 an issue for Men's Health when you can get a year's subscription for $25.
  • Reply 22 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.



    iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream



    Are you starting to see the pattern?



    Great observation/point. If Apple wants the iPad to become the de facto e-magazine/e-paper device, make the deal with publishers so good they won't even look at other options. Apple being a loss leader early on in this race could lock them in for a long time.
  • Reply 23 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    That's because no one is going to pay $4.99 an issue for Men's Health when you can get a year's subscription for $25.



    The "e" version should be on par or cheaper with it's printed cousin, unless it offers some spectacular improvements over the print version.
  • Reply 24 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.

    People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.



    Apple is completely missing the boat on this.



    If Apple created software (Pages?) that would allow anyone to created iPad publications - and a store that allowed independent publications to shine (like the app store), then you would see a resurgence in desktop publishing.

    1) there would be lots of bad publications - but a lot of new and innovative ideas as well that would rise to the top - let people decide what they want to read.

    2) there would be increased interest in iPad publications as people would want to explore (like they do apps)



    Let publishing companies pick their own advertisers. Trying to control all the content on a digital device is both futile and a completely ridiculous business plan.



    Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.

    Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.



    Rain - I think you have hit the nail on the head. Apple makes it very easy to Export Pages documents to epub/iBook format. It works very well if you follow a few simple rules when you create the Pages document. However, Apple makes it impossible to publish your newly created documents on iTunes. They force a small publisher, like me, to go through a middle-man publisher. After Apple's cut and the middleman's cut I end up with around 35% of the retail price. Just not worth my effort to publish on iTunes. It would be a different story if Apple would allow me to publish my books directly to iTunes so I wouldn't have to share with a middleman that collects 30% for doing nothing but pass my work on to iTunes. A 70/30 split with Apple is worth my while. Anything thing more is not.



    Plus, Apple also limits the amount you can charge for iBooks. Amazon lets me publish directly to Kindle. No middleman. And, Amazon charges me less.
  • Reply 25 of 69
    djsherlydjsherly Posts: 1,031member
    I must number among the few which would simply like the paper content put on the screen and delivered to the application displaying it to me.



    I don't care too much for the discovery and extra multimedia content that devices like the iPad can offer. Sure, there's a time and a place for all that interactivity but with a magazine I just want to read the thing.



    I'll take the ads - even the ability to click through to their respective products if it catches my eye.



    It then boils down to price for me. I'll be using zinio to purchase my next magazine because a 12mo sub is going to cost me less than two single issues. Sub discounting isn't as deep in Australia as it seems to be in the USA
  • Reply 26 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.

    People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.



    Apple is completely missing the boat on this.



    If Apple created software (Pages?) that would allow anyone to created iPad publications - and a store that allowed independent publications to shine (like the app store), then you would see a resurgence in desktop publishing.

    1) there would be lots of bad publications - but a lot of new and innovative ideas as well that would rise to the top - let people decide what they want to read.

    2) there would be increased interest in iPad publications as people would want to explore (like they do apps)



    Let publishing companies pick their own advertisers. Trying to control all the content on a digital device is both futile and a completely ridiculous business plan.



    Treat the publishing industry like they do the app industry - and you will see similar success.

    Give publishers their own SDK and a vehicle to market it.



    Nonsense. I feel pretty sure it's just the opposite. I believe most people would be happy to get a mag that's not much different from the paper version, except that the links would be live, and could reference what's on their site as well. The problem we're seeing now is that the mags think they need to do very expensive and complex digital editions that they have to charge $5 a month for. That's why people aren't interested. We don't need editions that are 500 Mb in size.



    This should be simple. At Least at first. Get more complex slowly. Walk before they run. Look at most web sites. They aren't that complex. AI isn't that complex. Why do they think their mags need to be? It's nuts!



    I understand why Apple doesn't want to have all our data given away. They've got enough problems with that now. The only thing I see as a problem is the 30% cut. How would Apple tell developers of other apps, because that's what mags are, that they're waving that cut for them, but not for anyone else, except possibly for newspapers? That wouldn't fly. The only way that could work would be the way the WSJ does it now, but that's not what we're talking about.
  • Reply 27 of 69
    Question: how many of you subscribed to Wired before the iPad edition came out? or GQ? or Vanity Fair?



    Wired has a circulation of a bit over 700,000. Of that, single copy sales range between 75K and 120K per issue. The new iPad edition is bringing in 22,000 or more per issue. That represents a 17 percent (or more) gain in single copy sales. No circulation manager would be unhappy with that.



    So let's say Wired continues to see its sales decrease a bit over the next few months -- but Apple will continue to sell iPads, right? (And then there are those new Android tablets to come in 2011 -- Wired will presumably release an Android version of its tablet edition at some point). By the end of 2011 the market for tablet publications will what . . . double, triple, quadruple?



    Anybody complaining about the sales numbers at this point is crazy. This is just the beginning. Most of those who are buying magazine apps are just trying them out -- just like buying a magazine at Borders or at the airport, few end up being regular subscribers.



    What Wired and the rest of the magazines with apps have done is get a head start on all the other publishers who were late to the web, late to smartphones, and are now late to tablets. Wired and the the magazines now have almost one year of real sales numbers it can present to advertisers -- those who are waiting to release their first apps will not have real numbers to sell until 2012 or 2013.
  • Reply 28 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Price won't make a difference.

    New and innovative publications to match a new and innovative digital device would.



    Of course price makes a difference. It's the main thing that's holding things back. I've got a few subs from Zinio. Not great, but not that bad either. It's also pretty cheap. I've eliminated some paper subs because of that.
  • Reply 29 of 69
    The National Geographic Magazine via Zinio on the iPad is excellent.

    NG is obviously experimenting with this new digital media by slowly adding new features. It will take time for publishers to figure out the best ways to effectively design with interactive media. The one year digital subscription to NG costs half the price of the print version.

    ALSO, those looking for a way to custom publish their own magazine should look at magcloud.com This is a virtual marketplace where a customer can preview, purchase and order custom magazines. The designer sets the price and magcloud handles the fulfillment. This is run by Hewlett Packard so it is a viable enterprise.
  • Reply 30 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by juandl View Post


    Apple will also have to reduce their cut in the process.



    Magazines, will be a little different than Books. And will be a lot different than Apps.

    Those guys can survive with the 70% cut that they get.



    But, magazines will be different. They come out weekly. It is a constant thing. And it will

    take a little creativity to make them popular and attractive to keep buying.

    Sure newspapers continue selling, but not like they used to. And for some people, it is just

    the old feel of it that keeps it attractive.



    Also, the Publishers know that Apple makes their money in selling the Hardware.



    Apple should accept that as a reality also and give them a break.



    I don't know how Apple would tell some small developer that they were waving the cut for a billion dollar publisher but not for them. Many mags, if not most of them come out twelve times a year, not fifty two. The cut has nothing to do with how many times a year it comes out. Each issue has to stand on it's own. It's a separate product. A subscription is a separate product. The cut is more of an issue there. But still, Ads pay for almost every mag. What consumers pay is just a small part of that. It's getting the advertisers to want to pay full price for those Ads that's the problem. And that's where the fight is.
  • Reply 31 of 69
    jm6032jm6032 Posts: 147member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    Apple has created an ecosystem that is extremely unfriendly to 'new' and 'revolutionary' ideas where the iPad and publications are concerned.

    People don't want old publications in digital form. They want new and fresh ideas. Like when the world wide web came out and people started creating websites. It was a new renaissance in publishing.



    rain, not reposting your entire piece, but I'm missing something with most of the posts here, but you come real close. If I understand, what you're describing is the WWW. It is still the new paradigm.



    Yes, publishers do seem bent on reproducing their print products and app stores seem to be imposing various restrictions, but, isn't the WWW still a new medium? Why would a publisher want to endure the restrictions of various distribution methods when the WWW is already there? Why have an iPad app, an iPhone app, an Android app? Why not a HTML app? Complete freedom of form, complete freedom of advertising, complete freedom to fill your pages with whatever content and whatever ads and all the platforms I mentioned already have the app to read it.



    Cultivate content producers that create content people want to read, or look at, or whatever. Then find advertisers willing to pay you to reach the eyes of your readers.



    Maybe I'm old fashioned, actually, I am old fashioned, but all this hype and hoopla about having to do things any particular way seems just outrageous. Printed newspapers and magazines survived many decades with the differentiation being the content and the content creators. The medium simply disappeared as you immersed yourself in the content. Everyone knew how to read and everyone knew how to hold a magazine or newspaper and that's what everyone did.



    I think too much is being made of the gathering of reader information. I believe that this constant bombardment of portal pages demanding your information simply gets to be too much. I, and I assume many people, just stop and go somewhere else.



    I agree that I don't see a subscription model doing well for almost all content. I do see a way for creative content creators to use the WWW and HTML to deliver their content and have people pay to be seen (advertise) on their pages. I read yahoo and cnn every day for my news. I don't pay anything to them to do it.



    Perhaps the real problem is the massive amount of information already available from the massive number of free sites. Perhaps if these mega publishers really wish to make a mark, they should offer something few others do: their expertise in their field and their reputations and their integrity (ok, I don't want to dive into that can of worms).



    Maybe publishing should be more like an OSI stack. Just a level or three above the physical layer a different driver should be used.



    What am I missing?
  • Reply 32 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    That's because no one is going to pay $4.99 an issue for Men's Health when you can get a year's subscription for $25.



    Wrong!

    You can get a 2-year print subscription for $24.

    http://landofmags.com/usersearch.asp...O=21139&CAT1=7



    So, emag at $120 or paper at $24? We report, you decide.
  • Reply 33 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.



    iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream



    Are you starting to see the pattern?



    No, I really don't. Those have nothing to do with magazine subs or issue pricing. We're not talking about amateur work, but with professional publications. Your examples are of no importance here.
  • Reply 34 of 69
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Great observation/point. If Apple wants the iPad to become the de facto e-magazine/e-paper device, make the deal with publishers so good they won't even look at other options. Apple being a loss leader early on in this race could lock them in for a long time.



    I don't see a single thing in his post that's relevant to what we're talking about, which is professional publishing.



    If we want to discuss amateur publishing, that's for another thread.
  • Reply 35 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Banalltv View Post


    See Comment No15 here:

    http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/...pper-required/



    "...about 6 years ago, I purchased an archive edition of the National Geographic that used closed proprietary software to present the magazine. The pages can't be opened or viewed on a modern computer now. If you're buying an archive like this, make sure that it uses tech that will be accessible in 10 or 20 years. HTML/CSS will. PDF probably will. Some weird proprietary software probably will not."



    Exactly.



    Is the web somehow broken?



    Apps for mags just aren't a good fit. At a newstand the price of the printed mag barely covers the cost of printing and distribution, both irrelevant to electronic delivery.



    The cost of producing the content is paid for by advertisers, and that still costs what it costs no matter how it's delivered.



    So just put it on a web site and be done with it. Making OS-specific apps for every device that comes along seems a bad business move.



    The web isn't broken. Use it.
  • Reply 36 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rain View Post


    YouTube: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Flickr: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Facebook: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    Apple App store: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    World Wide Web: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    MySpace: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    eMail: Lets people create their own content and share it.

    the Mac: Lets people create their own content and share it.



    iPad: Only lets massive publishing titans re-hash their product with no control over their own advertising revenue stream



    Are you starting to see the pattern?



    The pattern I see is: "Let the populous at large sprout forth as if they're experts on any and every subject under the sun. You'll find a few gems, certainly, but an awful, awful lot of dross, and can waste an entire lifetime wading through it all" versus "An established media industry, where people who knew what they were talking about used to work their way up through the organisation and try to make a career out of it, but now are struggling even to be heard above the noise, let alone make a living any more."



    Welcome to progress. That dull metallic thud you hear in the distance is the noise of whoever's won the race to the bottom.
  • Reply 37 of 69
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    There is something very elegant about printing on high quality stock that gets lost on the digital version. I know I really enjoy the printed version more, plus, I get to pass it on when I'm finished with it.



    I love the smell of ink in the morning!



    I tried a couple of magazines that were poorly done. Couldn't zoom in on text etc. I didn't purchase more.
  • Reply 38 of 69
    I would be surprised if publishers get any where near 70% of the newsstand price. Distributors and retailers probably take half the price.
  • Reply 39 of 69
    Apple could create a digital newsstand for publishers - magazine and newspapers. Part of the iBookstore. I think I'll patent this 'idea'.
  • Reply 40 of 69
    rainrain Posts: 538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    No, I really don't. Those have nothing to do with magazine subs or issue pricing. We're not talking about amateur work, but with professional publications. Your examples are of no importance here.



    So the only apps that have sold on the App store are from behemoth software development companies? I wasn't aware of that



    What is your definition of a 'professional publication'? Content? Units Sold? Advertising Revenue?



    My whole point is maybe we should be talking about 'amateur work'. How many people have gone from rags to riches and launched their career on YouTube? Beiber, John Lajoie, Ray William Johnson...

    It's what keeps people publishing to YouTube, it's what drives people to YouTube to explore content. People want to explore.



    The article talks about low numbers for publications for the iPad... we are talking about why the numbers are low. If you don't understand that Melgross... then I don't know what to tell you?



    You sound like a music executive that hasn't realized that media has become social.



    Apple didn't invent the Mac only for massive publishing companies, so why the iPad?



    If the iPad is intended as a 'Media Consumption Device' - why limit or restrict the media?

    Apple once embraced the publishing industry. Now, it appears they want to control it and I don't see that as a viable business plan.
Sign In or Register to comment.