Eddy Cue repeatedly visited Washington Post, New York Times in failed Apple News+ bid
Apple was adamant about securing the New York Times and Washington Post for Apple News+, and put intense pressure on the heads of both papers, according to a behind-the-scenes telling.
Efforts began last spring, not long after the company announced its takeover of Texture, Vanity Fair sources said. Apple News+ effectively absorbs Texture's all-you-can-eat magazine subscriptions while adding a handful of newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal.
"They put a tremendous amount of pressure on," one source claimed. Eddy Cue -- Apple's senior VP of Internet Software and Services -- was allegedly "in and out" of Post and Times offices, his main pitch being "We'll make you the most-read newspaper in the world."
A sticking point was that Apple wanted the complete content of both papers instead of a narrow selection. To make this more appealing it offered flexibility on when the publications could withdraw from News+, as well as some form of exclusive presence.
"You'd be protected against a competitor coming in," a source explained. "If this thing was really successful and everyone else came back to the table, there was a period where you'd have exclusivity."
Earlier reports indicated that both the Post and the Times were opposed to Apple's rumored 50 percent revenue cut. Both papers already have legions of direct subscribers, making News+ unnecessary and possibly even a profit drain.
"Our focus is on growing our own subscription base, so joining Apple News+ did not make sense for us at this point," said Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti. "Apple has been a very good partner -- we will continue collaborating with them on other ongoing projects and expect to do many things with them in the future."
Times COO Meredith Kopit Levien said merely that journalism and business benefit more for a "direct relationship" with readers.
Even the Journal's News+ offerings are relatively limited. Only an assortment of general news and editorial articles are being promoted via Apple, and everything else has to be searched for, further limited to a history of three days. Business- and investment-focused readers will likely still want to pay for the paper's normal subscriptions.
Levien did suggest that the Times could come to News+ if it proves popular.
"I do not rule out that there will be an opportunity with one or more platforms, in which we say, 'Oh, this is really good for our business and for getting journalism to play a bigger role in many more peoples lives.' Thus far, we have not seen something that makes us say that," she explained.
Efforts began last spring, not long after the company announced its takeover of Texture, Vanity Fair sources said. Apple News+ effectively absorbs Texture's all-you-can-eat magazine subscriptions while adding a handful of newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal.
"They put a tremendous amount of pressure on," one source claimed. Eddy Cue -- Apple's senior VP of Internet Software and Services -- was allegedly "in and out" of Post and Times offices, his main pitch being "We'll make you the most-read newspaper in the world."
A sticking point was that Apple wanted the complete content of both papers instead of a narrow selection. To make this more appealing it offered flexibility on when the publications could withdraw from News+, as well as some form of exclusive presence.
"You'd be protected against a competitor coming in," a source explained. "If this thing was really successful and everyone else came back to the table, there was a period where you'd have exclusivity."
Earlier reports indicated that both the Post and the Times were opposed to Apple's rumored 50 percent revenue cut. Both papers already have legions of direct subscribers, making News+ unnecessary and possibly even a profit drain.
"Our focus is on growing our own subscription base, so joining Apple News+ did not make sense for us at this point," said Post spokeswoman Kris Coratti. "Apple has been a very good partner -- we will continue collaborating with them on other ongoing projects and expect to do many things with them in the future."
Times COO Meredith Kopit Levien said merely that journalism and business benefit more for a "direct relationship" with readers.
Even the Journal's News+ offerings are relatively limited. Only an assortment of general news and editorial articles are being promoted via Apple, and everything else has to be searched for, further limited to a history of three days. Business- and investment-focused readers will likely still want to pay for the paper's normal subscriptions.
Levien did suggest that the Times could come to News+ if it proves popular.
"I do not rule out that there will be an opportunity with one or more platforms, in which we say, 'Oh, this is really good for our business and for getting journalism to play a bigger role in many more peoples lives.' Thus far, we have not seen something that makes us say that," she explained.
Comments
And when News+ is making publishers more money than their crappy alternatives, I would charge the dinosaurs 60% for being late to the party.
I pay the NYT $20 a month for unlimited digital access. That funds high-quality reporting that is exclusive to that organization. If they give it away on Apple's platform they will have nothing unique and will be getting far less than now.
I really do not know exactly why Eddy Cue still has a job considering his track record with music and video.
If you take the time to read the NYT CEO’s response it becomes clear Mr. Cue’s competence had nothing to do with the decision.
And by doing that the NYT is cutting itself off from the general population. The “upscale demographic set” just means they and the NYT will be circle jerking each other’s left leaning genitalia in a "preaching to the choir" orgy. Yet more division and Us vs Them.
There are a lot of arguments against that simple statement. If a magazine is now charging $20 a year, it may seem that some undefinable percentage of $9.95 a month is a good result. But it might not be. We have no idea as to what that percentage would be. If it were 10%, then that would be $12 a year, half of what they now get per subscriber. But it won’t be that, will it? It could be 1%, maybe even 2 or 3% for a major publisher. So maybe $1.20 to $3.60. Hmm, not so good. What about a smaller publisher? That’s over 300 magazines and papers. We could figure the average would get just a third of a percent from that $9.95. That’s really tiny. Some could get a lot less.
but wait, more people will be reading it. Estimates are that, on average, twice as many might. Still, not great, if most of them discontinue their regular subs. So maybe if ten times as many read it, that would work. But will they? What will they get if we read just one article, rather than the publication?
this whole thing is up in the air right now. I’m on the trial subscription, so I’ll see how it goes.
NYT and WaPo would bleed current subscribers to cheaper News+.
I subscribe to both and if I could save money I would switch and save $25 per month. This would only drive high value direct customers to a low value aggregator.
Heh. I’m pretty sure you don’t think that oil comes from dinosaurs.