On the digital front I tend to be much more focused on the details of the content and the ads for some reason I find annoying. Not sure why there is such a different perception between the two but I can see that the digital version of the paper format doesn't exactly translate the complete user experience even if the content is mostly equal.
Are you referring to animated ads that bounce all over your screen and blast your speakers? What would be the equivalent of this in printed media?
Wired is giving a free edition out for the Ipad right now.
It took a long time to download and the content was lacking much meat. You would think if they were trying to persuade you to buy, they would give a better showing.
Oh, they had a lot of bell and whistles with the content format, it was real niffy, but you got have the content. \
Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
Apple revolutionized the music industry by unbundling CDs which did three things that consumers love:
-> Most of the time you only wanted one or two songs from an album. Music companies could not longer force you to buy an entire album. Just buy the songs you want. Magazines are somewhat similar. Most people aren't interested in most of the articles in a particular issue, just one or two.
-> The $1 per song pricing put it into the impulse purchase category. You could afford to buy on a whim without making a big purchase decision. No $14 or $15 CD. The magazine parallel is obvious. If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy.
-> Instant online purchase and download means instant gratification. Perfect along with the whim purchase at a trivial impulse price. The ability to sample a song before buying, then a single click, and boom, you have it.
What Conde Nast traveler should do is work toward getting several million people to opt into a mailing list which involves a monthly email listing the new issue's table of contents along with a thumbnail description. Each major article should be priced at about 10 cents with a single click to buy (or make it free and ad supported). An issue that features Italy with multiple articles might be priced at 25 cents for the Italy bundle. A special deal might offer all of the Conde Nast articles on Italy going back five years collected together into a single download for maybe $2 (still an impulse buy).
Get 2 million readers paying 10 cents an article and clicking way. Match up the ads to their interests dynamically like Google's ad sense. If they buy the Italy bundle they get the Italy ads. Make it dirt cheap or even free. Get the high volume circulation and take that the data to advertisers.
There are some smart people in the publishing industry but they seem to be suffering from brain lockup disease when it comes to Internet marketing and pricing strategies. I suspect it's because they're fearful of their children eating the parents. They're afraid to put out an internet product that might kill off their traditional hard copy print business.
Well, hmmmmmm. Think about that. Would it be better for you to do it or to back off and let your competitor do it. Information distribution via the Internet is a steamroller quickly gathering momentum. If your children don't eat their parents then your compeitor's children will eat your children's parents as well as their own.
The problem is if they're going to deal with Apple, it ties their hands somewhat on promotional offers and the like.
Conde Nast doesn't participate in subscriptions. They don't have to operate within Apple's subscription rules.
Quote:
Apple wants their 30% for . . . well, I don't really know, but it doesn't matter. It's their playground.
Its for providing a platform and a customer that they otherwise would not have had. There is a cost to Apple for building and maintaining all of this. They are not a philanthropy.
I subscribe to the New Yorker. I'd would be very happy simply to have a straight-forward digital edition of it in place of my print edition. Problem: iPad version costs *$235* a year (47 x $5). Print edition is currently going for *$47* a year (47 x $1). I could get *5* years of the print edition for the same cost as 1 year of the digital edition. That's just stupid.
There's enough blame to go around - both Apple and the magazine publishers are being short-sighted and greedy... just like every "big content" dinosaur before them.
To be fair, many of the major newspapers update their online content "to the minute".
What is lost in the process of "up to the minute" news is the measure of accuracy and perspectives of news reporting.
It was big news in itself when many print paper had as their "banner headline" -- "Dewey Elected President of the US", or something like that.
News reports may also be easily edited to cater to pressure or populist demands after teh first version was published. What is lost in the process is the true expression of diverse perspectives of the same event that is being reported.
Onlinr news, as a result have become more generic. In the US, the socio-political and economic perspectives of the publishes have become the main distinguishing feature of news reports.
Apple Ecosystems
Quote:
Originally Posted by winstein2010
We don't need repackaged content on the tablet.
Look at how we consume content today: We browse web sites, read blogs, texting on the phones, email links to friends.
We want information NOW.
All content should be published when it is ready, not on a daily, weekly or a monthly schedule.
Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
Apple revolutionized the music industry by unbundling CDs which did three things that consumers love:
-> Most of the time you only wanted one or two songs from an album. Music companies could not longer force you to buy an entire album. Just buy the songs you want. Magazines are somewhat similar. Most people aren't interested in most of the articles in a particular issue, just one or two.
-> The $1 per song pricing put it into the impulse purchase category. You could afford to buy on a whim without making a big purchase decision. No $14 or $15 CD. The magazine parallel is obvious. If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy.
-> Instant online purchase and download means instant gratification. Perfect along with the whim purchase at a trivial impulse price. The ability to sample a song before buying, then a single click, and boom, you have it.
The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.
The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.
And I want a television that holds radio stations . . . a car that holds my horse . . . a book that holds my tablets (stone tablets, that is).
If you want something to hold your magazines I would suggest you go to Pier One and buy a wicker basket.
And you, of course, miss the point.
Readers desire that, whatever the exact nature of the new media, it be easily usable (as well as reasonably priced.) An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low. In addition the price is disconnected from reality. As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
iBooks and the many other digital book offerings, on the other hand, work more how people want them too. The prices, not so good, but the usability, pretty good. More people have accepted e-books, but when the price adjusts to where the loss of not being able to loan or give the book to a friend is reflected, almost everyone will accept them. Magazines though, are nowhere near where books are. Too stupid.
Yes. Pretty much right on, I'd say (even the parts I snipped out.)
The publishers don't yet get it. They will. Some of them not until after it's too late for them. Others though, will buy the slow ones up for pennies on the dollar, and create a fortune from the disruption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall
Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
. . .
What Conde Nast traveler should do is work toward getting several million people to opt into a mailing list which involves a monthly email listing the new issue's table of contents along with a thumbnail description. Each major article should be priced at about 10 cents with a single click to buy (or make it free and ad supported). An issue that features Italy with multiple articles might be priced at 25 cents for the Italy bundle. A special deal might offer all of the Conde Nast articles on Italy going back five years collected together into a single download for maybe $2 (still an impulse buy).
Get 2 million readers paying 10 cents an article and clicking way. Match up the ads to their interests dynamically like Google's ad sense. If they buy the Italy bundle they get the Italy ads. Make it dirt cheap or even free. Get the high volume circulation and take that the data to advertisers.
There are some smart people in the publishing industry but they seem to be suffering from brain lockup disease when it comes to Internet marketing and pricing strategies. I suspect it's because they're fearful of their children eating the parents. They're afraid to put out an internet product that might kill off their traditional hard copy print business.
The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.
The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. It's the single issue that is comparable to the CD, not the subscription. The point is that most readers have no interest in many, perhaps most, of the articles in any single issue. Put it this way. If I have to buy a subscription Conde Nast won't get my business. And if I have to buy an entire issue they won't get my business. Wired has some great articles from time to time but most of it is a waste. I'd pay a dime for an article I'm interested in but never a dollar for an entire issue.
Conde's offerings are still without subscriptions. This means:
1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.
Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.
Well said. This is my issue. I would love a subscription-based model. I even wrote them an email asking them about it. I like Wired a lot, and currently subscribe to the magazine. I asked if I could switch over to an electronic subscription (get the app monthly or w/e, and not the printed version) but they said they didn't offer it. No way am I going to pay $4 for an issue if I already get it in the mail anyway. Really hope they improve the pricing model, as it would be nice to have.
The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.
The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.
The point is flexibility and reasonable prices. Dave's scenario is one possibility, and maybe not one everybody would buy into. But the successful scenario is one where prices are in line with expectations. The NYT would do better to offer subscriptions to individuals for $3/month or $20/ year than their present proposals. At $20/ year almost everyone in the US would get a subscription. Everyone else could pay ten cents per article.
Magazines are all published electronically by their nature now. It isn't that hard to export it to a simple PDF file. Unless you think we really need all those interactive features. GIve us the digital version for the same price as the paper version. If anything, an e-magazine SHOULD cost less than a paper-based publication, as there are little if any material costs! I read the NYtimes, but only on certain days, and would love to be able to buy a digital version just on my days.
That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.
My current problem is that the publishers are simply charging way to much. We are talking a little bit but way to much.
As to an app that holds magazines that would be an excellent approach. It works out especially well for magazines you hold onto. It would however not keep me from buying some magazines as app as some are throw aways anyway.
In any event I think both Apple and then publishers are completely missing the boat here. There is nothing about iPad that compels me to buy list price magazines. Rather the expectation is just the opposite, I expect a discount over the subscription prices. Just because I have disposable income for iPad does not mean I'm fast with my money.
As to Conde Nast specifically I have to wonder how many Apple users, that is well educated people even bother with the crap Conde sells? I don't remember recently purchasing any of their publications.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. It's the single issue that is comparable to the CD, not the subscription. The point is that most readers have no interest in many, perhaps most, of the articles in any single issue. Put it this way. If I have to buy a subscription Conde Nast won't get my business. And if I have to buy an entire issue they won't get my business. Wired has some great articles from time to time but most of it is a waste. I'd pay a dime for an article I'm interested in but never a dollar for an entire issue.
I am not sure that the avid newspaper readers would be of the same perspective as you claim. The avid newspaper reader, even those online, is a voracious reader, one who is prone to explore and discover. The essence of discovery and exploration depends not so much on the headline or the lead paragraph, but in the perusal of the details of the content. The publisher will not provide you with the latter option, using the model that you prefer.
A more modest subscription rate would be much preferred by such avid readers and also by the the publishers. It would be also more affordable and more convenient for both parties - the reader and the publisher, and also Apple. For the publisher, subscription encourages loyalty, and subsequent subscriptions.
Imagine the cost and the "paperwork" burden of your proposal for a newsreader who may want to read 100 or more articles a day. Papers, like the New York Times are likely to have more than several hundreds of "current contents".
The same holds true why some people would want to have subscription music or movie, or package cable network subscriptions, a la carte or otherwise.
Netflix is an example of a successful subscription model, even if they may offer "pay per view" for other customers. It also worked for Wall Street Journal. New York Times had more than 100,000 initial paid subscribers for the first month, even at the high price it is charging; but NYT would need millions of subscribers, just to breakeven, because of its high debt exposure.
... Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy. ...
This is such a terrible idea, it's hard to believe it was actually done! This is basically the brilliant idea the newspaper industry went with, give away your content for the dime that the ad on the sidebar pays. Now, all but 5 newspapers in the country are losing money and going bankrupt. Giving it away for free is the obsolete business model.
And if your only interested in going to Italy, then do a Google search and read all the marketing materials you can for free. You are not the target market. You are never going to subscribe to a travel magazine. You are not worth the 70% of the dime you would be so generously willing to give for one article. A travel magazine is for the person who may not know where they are going next year, it could be South America, China or where ever! For that reader, there is value in the content of a magazine that writes meaningful articles about destinations around the world.
Readers desire that, whatever the exact nature of the new media, it be easily usable (as well as reasonably priced.) An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low. In addition the price is disconnected from reality. As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use.
Good luck finding research to back up this claim. Besides, how is an individual app more inconvenient than an individual print magazine?
In addition the price is disconnected from reality.
Prices are set by the publishers. You can find examples where the iPad pricing is lower than either the print newsstand or the digital newsstand. For instance, a four-week in-app subscription to Bloomberg Businessweek costs $2.99 in the branded iPad app. The same four weeks would cost you $19.96 through Zinio, the same as the print editions. So, you see, pricing is entirely up to the publisher, there is nothing that forces Condé Nast or Hearst to price their iPad editions at newsstand prices.
It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low.
I don't see how a replica edition that forces the reader to use pinch to zoom is more convenient than a native app that puts the magazine into tablet layouts. A digital newsstand issue can only be read in portrait, using landscape requires zooming in every time you what to read something.
As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
This is just as true for print as it is native apps. Wired, for instance, is struggling in print with only a circulation of 700,000. The fact that over 100,000 iPad owners downloaded the first Wired app had far more to do with curiosity than it did a desire to become a regular Wired reader. You have to remember that Apple has only sold around 16-20 million iPads worldwide, that represents a very small percentage of the entire reading public. Even if 50 million people or more own iPads by the end of 2011 this would still only represent a small percentage of all print readers worldwide – but it would be a much healthier market to sell into than what we have today.
I paid $10 for a print subscription to Wired and you threw in a free tee shirt. Wouldn't you be better off charging me the same rate for an electronic subscription. Heck, I'll be a little generous, since you have to pay Apple 30%. Make it $12 per year. For $48 a year, I'm not even remotely interested.
By the way, your digital copies weigh in at about 350 MB each. A year's subscription would use up over 4 GB of my iPad's memory. You really should give that some thought.
Comments
On the digital front I tend to be much more focused on the details of the content and the ads for some reason I find annoying. Not sure why there is such a different perception between the two but I can see that the digital version of the paper format doesn't exactly translate the complete user experience even if the content is mostly equal.
Are you referring to animated ads that bounce all over your screen and blast your speakers? What would be the equivalent of this in printed media?
It took a long time to download and the content was lacking much meat. You would think if they were trying to persuade you to buy, they would give a better showing.
Oh, they had a lot of bell and whistles with the content format, it was real niffy, but you got have the content.
Apple revolutionized the music industry by unbundling CDs which did three things that consumers love:
-> Most of the time you only wanted one or two songs from an album. Music companies could not longer force you to buy an entire album. Just buy the songs you want. Magazines are somewhat similar. Most people aren't interested in most of the articles in a particular issue, just one or two.
-> The $1 per song pricing put it into the impulse purchase category. You could afford to buy on a whim without making a big purchase decision. No $14 or $15 CD. The magazine parallel is obvious. If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy.
-> Instant online purchase and download means instant gratification. Perfect along with the whim purchase at a trivial impulse price. The ability to sample a song before buying, then a single click, and boom, you have it.
What Conde Nast traveler should do is work toward getting several million people to opt into a mailing list which involves a monthly email listing the new issue's table of contents along with a thumbnail description. Each major article should be priced at about 10 cents with a single click to buy (or make it free and ad supported). An issue that features Italy with multiple articles might be priced at 25 cents for the Italy bundle. A special deal might offer all of the Conde Nast articles on Italy going back five years collected together into a single download for maybe $2 (still an impulse buy).
Get 2 million readers paying 10 cents an article and clicking way. Match up the ads to their interests dynamically like Google's ad sense. If they buy the Italy bundle they get the Italy ads. Make it dirt cheap or even free. Get the high volume circulation and take that the data to advertisers.
There are some smart people in the publishing industry but they seem to be suffering from brain lockup disease when it comes to Internet marketing and pricing strategies. I suspect it's because they're fearful of their children eating the parents. They're afraid to put out an internet product that might kill off their traditional hard copy print business.
Well, hmmmmmm. Think about that. Would it be better for you to do it or to back off and let your competitor do it. Information distribution via the Internet is a steamroller quickly gathering momentum. If your children don't eat their parents then your compeitor's children will eat your children's parents as well as their own.
The problem is if they're going to deal with Apple, it ties their hands somewhat on promotional offers and the like.
Conde Nast doesn't participate in subscriptions. They don't have to operate within Apple's subscription rules.
Apple wants their 30% for . . . well, I don't really know, but it doesn't matter. It's their playground.
Its for providing a platform and a customer that they otherwise would not have had. There is a cost to Apple for building and maintaining all of this. They are not a philanthropy.
Are you referring to animated ads that bounce all over your screen and blast your speakers? What would be the equivalent of this in printed media?
I have no idea what you are asking that for.
That is like asking what is the digital equivalent of a scratch and sniff ad?
I subscribe to the New Yorker. I'd would be very happy simply to have a straight-forward digital edition of it in place of my print edition. Problem: iPad version costs *$235* a year (47 x $5). Print edition is currently going for *$47* a year (47 x $1). I could get *5* years of the print edition for the same cost as 1 year of the digital edition. That's just stupid.
There's enough blame to go around - both Apple and the magazine publishers are being short-sighted and greedy... just like every "big content" dinosaur before them.
What is lost in the process of "up to the minute" news is the measure of accuracy and perspectives of news reporting.
It was big news in itself when many print paper had as their "banner headline" -- "Dewey Elected President of the US", or something like that.
News reports may also be easily edited to cater to pressure or populist demands after teh first version was published. What is lost in the process is the true expression of diverse perspectives of the same event that is being reported.
Onlinr news, as a result have become more generic. In the US, the socio-political and economic perspectives of the publishes have become the main distinguishing feature of news reports.
Apple Ecosystems
We don't need repackaged content on the tablet.
Look at how we consume content today: We browse web sites, read blogs, texting on the phones, email links to friends.
We want information NOW.
All content should be published when it is ready, not on a daily, weekly or a monthly schedule.
Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
Apple revolutionized the music industry by unbundling CDs which did three things that consumers love:
-> Most of the time you only wanted one or two songs from an album. Music companies could not longer force you to buy an entire album. Just buy the songs you want. Magazines are somewhat similar. Most people aren't interested in most of the articles in a particular issue, just one or two.
-> The $1 per song pricing put it into the impulse purchase category. You could afford to buy on a whim without making a big purchase decision. No $14 or $15 CD. The magazine parallel is obvious. If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy.
-> Instant online purchase and download means instant gratification. Perfect along with the whim purchase at a trivial impulse price. The ability to sample a song before buying, then a single click, and boom, you have it.
The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.
The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.
"I want an app that holds magazines."
And I want a television that holds radio stations . . . a car that holds my horse . . . a book that holds my tablets (stone tablets, that is).
If you want something to hold your magazines I would suggest you go to Pier One and buy a wicker basket.
And you, of course, miss the point.
Readers desire that, whatever the exact nature of the new media, it be easily usable (as well as reasonably priced.) An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low. In addition the price is disconnected from reality. As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
iBooks and the many other digital book offerings, on the other hand, work more how people want them too. The prices, not so good, but the usability, pretty good. More people have accepted e-books, but when the price adjusts to where the loss of not being able to loan or give the book to a friend is reflected, almost everyone will accept them. Magazines though, are nowhere near where books are. Too stupid.
Ignore users at your peril.
The publishers don't yet get it. They will. Some of them not until after it's too late for them. Others though, will buy the slow ones up for pennies on the dollar, and create a fortune from the disruption.
Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
. . .
What Conde Nast traveler should do is work toward getting several million people to opt into a mailing list which involves a monthly email listing the new issue's table of contents along with a thumbnail description. Each major article should be priced at about 10 cents with a single click to buy (or make it free and ad supported). An issue that features Italy with multiple articles might be priced at 25 cents for the Italy bundle. A special deal might offer all of the Conde Nast articles on Italy going back five years collected together into a single download for maybe $2 (still an impulse buy).
Get 2 million readers paying 10 cents an article and clicking way. Match up the ads to their interests dynamically like Google's ad sense. If they buy the Italy bundle they get the Italy ads. Make it dirt cheap or even free. Get the high volume circulation and take that the data to advertisers.
There are some smart people in the publishing industry but they seem to be suffering from brain lockup disease when it comes to Internet marketing and pricing strategies. I suspect it's because they're fearful of their children eating the parents. They're afraid to put out an internet product that might kill off their traditional hard copy print business.
. . .
The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.
The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. It's the single issue that is comparable to the CD, not the subscription. The point is that most readers have no interest in many, perhaps most, of the articles in any single issue. Put it this way. If I have to buy a subscription Conde Nast won't get my business. And if I have to buy an entire issue they won't get my business. Wired has some great articles from time to time but most of it is a waste. I'd pay a dime for an article I'm interested in but never a dollar for an entire issue.
Conde's offerings are still without subscriptions. This means:
1. You pay newsstand price for each issue.
2. You have to buy each issue separately. With a subscription you would get a new issue automatically, no re-entering your Apple ID password every time to buy.
Conde: Maybe you can get away with selling individual issues at newsstand prices on Madison Avenue in New York City, but the majority of mainstream America isn't going to pay $47.88 ($3.99 x 12) a year for your magazines.
Well said. This is my issue. I would love a subscription-based model. I even wrote them an email asking them about it. I like Wired a lot, and currently subscribe to the magazine. I asked if I could switch over to an electronic subscription (get the app monthly or w/e, and not the printed version) but they said they didn't offer it. No way am I going to pay $4 for an issue if I already get it in the mail anyway. Really hope they improve the pricing model, as it would be nice to have.
The magazine business has always been that way. It never was like the music business. You could always go to the newsstand and browse through the magazine. If you like it you can buy a single issue. You are not forced into buying the subscription. A per article price is not very practical. It is not equivalent to single song purchase you describe. You're say that comparatively it would be like only wanting to pay for the chorus of a song not the whole song.
The digital subscription should allow the same flexibility as the newsstand. You buy one issue at a time. I don't think they are billing you a year in advance like the printed copy. I think you sign up for subscriptions, download an issue then change your subscription preference to not subscribe. That way when the next issue comes out you can choose to buy it or not.
The point is flexibility and reasonable prices. Dave's scenario is one possibility, and maybe not one everybody would buy into. But the successful scenario is one where prices are in line with expectations. The NYT would do better to offer subscriptions to individuals for $3/month or $20/ year than their present proposals. At $20/ year almost everyone in the US would get a subscription. Everyone else could pay ten cents per article.
That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.
My current problem is that the publishers are simply charging way to much. We are talking a little bit but way to much.
As to an app that holds magazines that would be an excellent approach. It works out especially well for magazines you hold onto. It would however not keep me from buying some magazines as app as some are throw aways anyway.
In any event I think both Apple and then publishers are completely missing the boat here. There is nothing about iPad that compels me to buy list price magazines. Rather the expectation is just the opposite, I expect a discount over the subscription prices. Just because I have disposable income for iPad does not mean I'm fast with my money.
As to Conde Nast specifically I have to wonder how many Apple users, that is well educated people even bother with the crap Conde sells? I don't remember recently purchasing any of their publications.
Sorry but I strongly disagree. It's the single issue that is comparable to the CD, not the subscription. The point is that most readers have no interest in many, perhaps most, of the articles in any single issue. Put it this way. If I have to buy a subscription Conde Nast won't get my business. And if I have to buy an entire issue they won't get my business. Wired has some great articles from time to time but most of it is a waste. I'd pay a dime for an article I'm interested in but never a dollar for an entire issue.
I am not sure that the avid newspaper readers would be of the same perspective as you claim. The avid newspaper reader, even those online, is a voracious reader, one who is prone to explore and discover. The essence of discovery and exploration depends not so much on the headline or the lead paragraph, but in the perusal of the details of the content. The publisher will not provide you with the latter option, using the model that you prefer.
A more modest subscription rate would be much preferred by such avid readers and also by the the publishers. It would be also more affordable and more convenient for both parties - the reader and the publisher, and also Apple. For the publisher, subscription encourages loyalty, and subsequent subscriptions.
Imagine the cost and the "paperwork" burden of your proposal for a newsreader who may want to read 100 or more articles a day. Papers, like the New York Times are likely to have more than several hundreds of "current contents".
The same holds true why some people would want to have subscription music or movie, or package cable network subscriptions, a la carte or otherwise.
Netflix is an example of a successful subscription model, even if they may offer "pay per view" for other customers. It also worked for Wall Street Journal. New York Times had more than 100,000 initial paid subscribers for the first month, even at the high price it is charging; but NYT would need millions of subscribers, just to breakeven, because of its high debt exposure.
Apple Ecosystems
... Magazine and Newspaper publishers have wild and crazy ideas about pricing. They just don't get it. They really don't. They're trying to force an obsolete business model onto the Internet. It isn't going to work. Not now. Not ever. iPad or no iPad.
If I'm thinking about an Italy vacation i might be willing to pay a dime or a quarter to read the Italy article in Conde Nast Traveler. But I don't want to be on the hook for an annual subscription. And I have no interest in the articles on Las Vegas, South America, China, or wherever. This year it's just Italy. ...
This is such a terrible idea, it's hard to believe it was actually done! This is basically the brilliant idea the newspaper industry went with, give away your content for the dime that the ad on the sidebar pays. Now, all but 5 newspapers in the country are losing money and going bankrupt. Giving it away for free is the obsolete business model.
And if your only interested in going to Italy, then do a Google search and read all the marketing materials you can for free. You are not the target market. You are never going to subscribe to a travel magazine. You are not worth the 70% of the dime you would be so generously willing to give for one article. A travel magazine is for the person who may not know where they are going next year, it could be South America, China or where ever! For that reader, there is value in the content of a magazine that writes meaningful articles about destinations around the world.
And you, of course, miss the point.
Readers desire that, whatever the exact nature of the new media, it be easily usable (as well as reasonably priced.) An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low. In addition the price is disconnected from reality. As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
An app for every magazine is not what they want. It doesn't fit into their lives. It's inconvenient to read and use.
Good luck finding research to back up this claim. Besides, how is an individual app more inconvenient than an individual print magazine?
In addition the price is disconnected from reality.
Prices are set by the publishers. You can find examples where the iPad pricing is lower than either the print newsstand or the digital newsstand. For instance, a four-week in-app subscription to Bloomberg Businessweek costs $2.99 in the branded iPad app. The same four weeks would cost you $19.96 through Zinio, the same as the print editions. So, you see, pricing is entirely up to the publisher, there is nothing that forces Condé Nast or Hearst to price their iPad editions at newsstand prices.
It's inconvenient to read and use. The quality is unacceptably low.
I don't see how a replica edition that forces the reader to use pinch to zoom is more convenient than a native app that puts the magazine into tablet layouts. A digital newsstand issue can only be read in portrait, using landscape requires zooming in every time you what to read something.
As a result, few people are buying what the publishers are offering.
This is just as true for print as it is native apps. Wired, for instance, is struggling in print with only a circulation of 700,000. The fact that over 100,000 iPad owners downloaded the first Wired app had far more to do with curiosity than it did a desire to become a regular Wired reader. You have to remember that Apple has only sold around 16-20 million iPads worldwide, that represents a very small percentage of the entire reading public. Even if 50 million people or more own iPads by the end of 2011 this would still only represent a small percentage of all print readers worldwide – but it would be a much healthier market to sell into than what we have today.
I paid $10 for a print subscription to Wired and you threw in a free tee shirt. Wouldn't you be better off charging me the same rate for an electronic subscription. Heck, I'll be a little generous, since you have to pay Apple 30%. Make it $12 per year. For $48 a year, I'm not even remotely interested.
By the way, your digital copies weigh in at about 350 MB each. A year's subscription would use up over 4 GB of my iPad's memory. You really should give that some thought.
Fondly,
A Longtime Subscriber
That's what I agree with. I don't need an app that's a magazine. I want an app that holds magazines.
I agree. Magazines should be delivered through the iBookstore.