PDA

View Full Version : Time Inc. Begins Offering Digital Magazine Subscriptions in Newsstand




MacRumors
Jun 14, 2012, 09:22 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/14/time-inc-begins-offering-digital-magazine-subscriptions-in-newsstand/)


As noted by AllThingsD (http://allthingsd.com/20120613/apple-time-inc-solve-their-subscription-squabble/), Apple and Time Inc. appear to have settled their long-running differences over digital magazine subscriptions, with Time launching iPad-only subscriptions for its magazines through Newsstand. According to a press release (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120614005691/en/Time-Launches-Digital-Subscriptions-iPad) from Time, the offering addresses all 20 of its consumer magazines, which include Fortune, People, Sports Illustrated, and Time.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/sports_illustrated_ipad_subscriptions.jpg


Time was prepared to launch (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/28/apple-squashing-ipad-magazine-subscription-plans/) iPad subscriptions for Sports Illustrated two years ago, but Apple refused to allow Time to bill subscribers directly rather than going through the iTunes Store mechanism where Apple would keep 30% of the revenue and limit publisher access to subscriber information. As a result, iPad users were initially limited to purchasing titles on a single-issue basis.

Nearly a year later, Apple and Time reached an agreement to allow print subscribers (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/apple-and-time-inc-reach-deal-to-allow-print-subscribers-free-ipad-access/) to receive free access to the iPad editions of the publisher's major magazine titles. But digital-only subscriptions remained off the table even as other major publishers such as Hearst (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/05/hearst-magazines-join-apples-in-app-subscription-program/) were accepting Apple's subscription terms and rolling out their own offerings.

AllThingsD notes that it is unclear what changed between Time and Apple to now allow full-fledged digital subscriptions, including whether Time simply relented or if it was able to obtain some concession from Apple. It could be as simple as Time Inc. trying to boost sales, which haven't been stellar recently -- a slump at its People magazine title is particularly troublesome for the publisher. Or perhaps parent company Time Warner got some other concession from Apple for one of its other units, like HBO or Turner.Digital subscription pricing for Time titles varies, but a flagship title like Sports Illustrated is being offered at a $3.99 monthly rate or a $38.99 annual rate, a significant discount from the $4.99 single-issue pricing for the weekly magazine.

Article Link: Time Inc. Begins Offering Digital Magazine Subscriptions in Newsstand (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/14/time-inc-begins-offering-digital-magazine-subscriptions-in-newsstand/)



Apple...
Jun 14, 2012, 09:31 AM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

rhett7660
Jun 14, 2012, 09:35 AM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

Nope. I think there are a few who still don't. I have it for just a few magazines that are not offered via zinio. I like it, no complaints. Wish the prices were a little better than their printed version. But that is for another topic. :)

jonathanbruck
Jun 14, 2012, 09:37 AM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

I think the majority don't use it. I keep looking at iTunes o see if anything pops up that want to subscribe to, but its a lot of fringe/garbage magazines. I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

Apple...
Jun 14, 2012, 09:42 AM
Nope. I think there are a few who still don't. I have it for just a few magazines that are not offered via zinio. I like it, no complaints. Wish the prices were a little better than their printed version. But that is for another topic. :)

I think the majority don't use it. I keep looking at iTunes o see if anything pops up that want to subscribe to, but its a lot of fringe/garbage magazines. I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.
I was just wondering. The only magazine I read from time to time is Reader's Digest, but I get the print version of it in the mail.

UnSainted
Jun 14, 2012, 09:43 AM
I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.



Greed...

mw360
Jun 14, 2012, 09:44 AM
I think the majority don't use it. I keep looking at iTunes o see if anything pops up that want to subscribe to, but its a lot of fringe/garbage magazines. I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

Probably because the value to you is pretty much the same, possibly even higher than the print version.

Newfiebill
Jun 14, 2012, 09:46 AM
Probably because the value to you is pretty much the same, possibly even higher than the print version.

Good Old "Business 101"... nice!

HobeSoundDarryl
Jun 14, 2012, 09:52 AM
I think the majority don't use it. I keep looking at iTunes o see if anything pops up that want to subscribe to, but its a lot of fringe/garbage magazines. I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.

Or, another way to think about this: if Apple took 5% or 10% instead of 30%, the pricing offered to us could be cut by 20-25% and Apple could still make money being a digital distributor for these companies. 30% of gross is a LOT of new cost.

Rocketman
Jun 14, 2012, 09:56 AM
It was a negotiating position on the part of Time and the Apple ecosystem is too pervasive and fast growing to ignore now.

As a former magazine publisher myself I can clearly say a 30% fee for all the services Apple offers is cheap:

Hosting (printing)
Distribution (mailing)
Prospect visibility (mailing lists and postage)

About the only thing Apple does not provide within the 30% is differentiating advertising and off network promotion, but Time sure better have a 15%+ budget for that above the 30%. Since they are in a transition right now they have the entire print ecosystem cost and the entire digital ecosystem cost. Adobe has been making dual format software for almost a decade now so we are probably in an era of make once, output several.

To me the prime advantage of online sales is library titles discovering a new life and revenue as a result of searching and recommending.

I have been selling online since 92 and I still have 30% of my user base who transacts offline, probably after at least some exposure to our online visibility since we no longer print and mail a catalog.

If you work for a university or instrument company, buy a rocket and fly it.

One of the key benefits to Apple for the Facebook integration is recommendations among your friends and groups to help you separate the wheat from the chaff on stuff you actually care about. We'll see.

Rocketman

SmokyD
Jun 14, 2012, 10:00 AM
I think these digital subscriptions would attract more readers if prices were lower. They seem to be using old school pricing strategies, as though people valued a digital version as much as the traditional print. But they generally don't. There is so much digital content out there that most people just jump between free sources and still have too much to read.

People also don't keep digital files like heirlooms or collector's items like they might have for older print magazines.

Digital magazines would be much better off pricing these as the throwaway experiences they are. People will flip through and then move on. As such, I'd probably only pay $0.99 for monthly subscription. But at least they'd get something. As it is, I wouldn't pay $4.99 or $3.99 for any of this stuff and I suspect most people wouldn't either.

NAG
Jun 14, 2012, 10:02 AM
Honestly, it isn't the cost keeping me away. It is the stupid format they use. They're all huge images that are enormous in size (and hence take a long time to download). Even the digital only magazines are doing this (and the layouts are essentially static/pretending to be print).

Basically, I'll pay the price but only if you don't treat me like a second class citizen/after thought to try to get a few more dollars.

outz
Jun 14, 2012, 10:06 AM
can you also get the swimsuit mag?

Tiger8
Jun 14, 2012, 10:11 AM
I was just wondering. The only magazine I read from time to time is Reader's Digest, but I get the print version of it in the mail.

I second that, I can still subscribe to most magazines for $6 a year (Details, Spin, Fast Company, GQ, etc...) and a little more for weekly ones, why would I pay 1000% more just to see it on my iPad?

notabadname
Jun 14, 2012, 10:12 AM
Finally, at a fair price too. I am all digital on my subscriptions now. But 4 of them are at Zinio. Some, such as Car & Driver are truly enhanced over the print edition, even though significantly cheaper. Car & Driver has really taken advantage of the iPad (like the Daily) and enhanced the content, instead of just providing a PDF of the print issue like most due.

I will get this magazine, and it will join Consumer Reports (which is also iPad enhanced) as my only 2 Newsstand issues.

peterdevries
Jun 14, 2012, 10:18 AM
I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

Well, some magazines such as Wired and Empire Movie Magazine actually offer a lot of interactive stuff, so production is more cost intensive, but you definitely have a point in distribution. And I assume that the publishers try to recover part of the 30% that Apple takes for hosting and distribution from the customer, hence the higher price..

QCassidy352
Jun 14, 2012, 10:27 AM
I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

These are nice discounts though. I'd think about SI or time for 4 bucks a month.

----------

BTW: With MobileMe ending soon - there is a petition to save some of the soon-to-be-lost features:
http://savemefeatures.wordpress.com/

Just complete the poll to register your vote!

Nice idea, but galleries are gone - photo stream sharing is the new galleries. Good point in the petition about time wasted arranging, but that decision isn't getting changed.

Ditto iDisk. And frankly, once you go Dropbox, you'll forget iDisk existed.

The hosting is another matter though. That's one they should really find a way to save.

Robin4
Jun 14, 2012, 10:38 AM
Very interesting. This may mean that Time Warner, the parent company, is beginning to negotiate with Apple. Do you suppose they will also start talking about tv content i.e. HBO? It seemed impossible just a few weeks ago.

Mad Mac Maniac
Jun 14, 2012, 10:41 AM
I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

Oh really? Do you work for one of these companies? Can you really attest to that? There are a lot of extra costs that go overlooked like developer cost, the 30% cut to apple, etc. You really can't say which is significantly more expensive, unless you know.

EssentialParado
Jun 14, 2012, 10:47 AM
Some magazine prices are pretty good. You can get one month subscriptions to Wired for just $1.99, which will usually run into the next month and give you two issues for that price. That's a great bargain!

Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.

Or, another way to think about this: if Apple took 5% or 10% instead of 30%, the pricing offered to us could be cut by 20-25% and Apple could still make money being a digital distributor for these companies. 30% of gross is a LOT of new cost.
The print industry's business model is not based on the sales price. It's the opposite actually. After you remove the store profit margin (35%), and the distribution, transport, and printing costs, you've easily eradicated the entire cost of the magazine. The company does not "rely on 100% of the selling price", they make all their money from advertising. The selling price merely covers the printing and distribution.

So these companies should technically be able to sell the iPad versions for free, or at the very least much cheaper.

I think Apple's 30% is quite fair compared to traditional retailer's 33-35%, don't you think? Especially when you consider Apple are not just acting as the retailer, but also as the printer, distributor, and transportation.

charlituna
Jun 14, 2012, 10:49 AM
Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.
.

I would love to see a real breakdown of production costs to see if that 30% is an issue. Apple allows you to do things like Netflix off a website and my comixology account from pre iPad was no issue.

Personally I suspect the real issue was that Apple wouldn't give up demographic info to Time. They need that to command better ad revenue. They can get it when folks subscribe directly by asking the customers for it, but Apple won't do the same for iTunes bought stuff. And since that's where the real money comes from

fruitpunch.ben
Jun 14, 2012, 10:54 AM
does anyone know the yearly cost of the iPad only subscription for Time Magazine? I have been almost burned before by companies that provide free iPad subscription with the paper magazine, but then still make the iPad only subscription the same price as the paper one!

CodexMonkey
Jun 14, 2012, 11:02 AM
Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.

If, as a publisher, you publish a hardback or paperback novel priced at 9.99, Waterstones (as an example) will not pay a penny more than 50% of the cover price to buy it from you, And, in a lot of retail chains, including the larger franchises of newsagents, the same applies. Consequently, Time will get nowhere near 100% of the net price for a printed magazine, more like 50% (the newsagent pockets the rest), plus they STILL have to fund printing and distribution. Consequently, Apple only taking 30% starts to look very inviting indeed.

Rocketman
Jun 14, 2012, 11:07 AM
In the process of creating a magazine you collect a bunch of useful and interesting content you have no room or format to print.

The huge advantage to websites and eZines is you can include all content you want since the format is not length or volume limited. Further you can publish a thumbnail photo or video and click to see a full size version which does not bog down the browse mode.

Only when content makers utilize the format advantages of eZines will picky internet users be willing ot pay a premium for the "magazine", which for all practical purposes is a bite sized subscription website.

But there does need to be a way to monetize actual physical travel reporting and professional press in order to maintain the considerable advantages of a fact based and smart and investigative press. It is critical to our form of government and lifestyle.

As far as Apple's cost basis for the services they deliver for 30%, it is very low marginal cost and high fixed cost, but a small fraction of the take. Therefore Apple will evolve further services they offer for the 30% as they cover the capital costs. About the only marginal costs is bandwidth which is trivial for a single use or download item, but non-trivial for something where you also have streaming and restreaming rights. That bandwidth is paid for twice. The sender and the receiver both pay provisioning costs.

Rocketman

kyjaotkb
Jun 14, 2012, 11:08 AM
"#1 content providing media conglomerate worldwide" VS "leading mobile OS platform in need if quality, exclusive contents to keep its advance vs Android and Amazon and Windows and soon in need of exclusive premium TV contents"


I guess those 30% are smart and CAN shrink to more moderate figure.

Plus Bewkes is really pushing the Contents Everywhere initiative.


I guess it is a win-win, good to see competition avoiding us the pain of an Apple hegemony.

prhammer
Jun 14, 2012, 11:12 AM
It would be interesting to see if you still get the free Jacket that they offer through the subscription on their website (which also provides both print and digital).

rlogan814
Jun 14, 2012, 11:23 AM
I think this is great news. Not sure why people are complaining about the price. SI is a weekly mag and the monthly News stand subscription is 3.99. Doesn't that add up to .99 cents an issue for a 4.99 print mag? I don't subscribe to the print version so I'm not sure how much a year it is, but .99 cents per issue for the iPad version seems more than fair.

ristlin
Jun 14, 2012, 11:32 AM
Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.

Or, another way to think about this: if Apple took 5% or 10% instead of 30%, the pricing offered to us could be cut by 20-25% and Apple could still make money being a digital distributor for these companies. 30% of gross is a LOT of new cost.

Sorry but you are incorrect. Almost 100% of the magazine's cost goes to printing and distribution. The profit comes from advertisements.

The biggest reason why magazines haven't dropped the prices comes from these companies' inability to convince advertisers to pay print ad costs on an electronic platform. Most advertisers see digital distribution as a bonus, nothing more.

Tinmania
Jun 14, 2012, 11:56 AM
Probably because the value to you is pretty much the same, possibly even higher than the print version.
If so that will prove a costly mistake on their part.

The "digital" newsstand is well-stocked with no-cost options--sometimes in a different form of the very same product. That wasn't the case in the non-digital arena. Factor that in and the value (to me) goes in the toilet.




Michael

MimiHome
Jun 14, 2012, 12:15 PM
Cool! I think this is a wonderful thing! Digital subscriptions are wonderful for user to easily take with him anywhere he goes. It is much better for the earth, too!

Thanks for the update!

ericrwalker
Jun 14, 2012, 12:19 PM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

Start a poll to see how many use it here. I think most people still don't use it.

Apple...
Jun 14, 2012, 12:25 PM
Start a poll to see how many use it here. I think most people still don't use it.
Request granted (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1386968).

gaagaagiw
Jun 14, 2012, 12:45 PM
It's worth noting that you can subscribe at SI.com and get a one-year subscription to print AND digital (iPad, iPhone, PC) PLUS a jacket for the NFL team of your choice AND a T-shirt for that team.
All for ... $39.00.
In other words a penny more than buying digital-only from Apple.

senseless
Jun 14, 2012, 12:53 PM
Electronic newspaper and magazine delivery are still just a novelty, because the pricing structure makes no sense. As an example, I use Pressreader to get my local paper. The cost per issue is $1, same as print. An ongoing monthly subscription is $30 per month; big deal. So, there is no incentive to subscribe and I only wind up manually downloading a few per month.

Print magazines by mail are very inexpensive. Rolling Stone or Business week, are good examples. The print format is better, it's portable and can be easily saved. So, why should I pay much more for a digital subscription?

spazzcat
Jun 14, 2012, 01:06 PM
Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.

Or, another way to think about this: if Apple took 5% or 10% instead of 30%, the pricing offered to us could be cut by 20-25% and Apple could still make money being a digital distributor for these companies. 30% of gross is a LOT of new cost.

I'm pretty sure the real newsstands take the standard 30-40% retail markup....

LethalWolfe
Jun 14, 2012, 01:09 PM
I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.
How is the production cost for a magazine like Time drastically reduced? Moving to digital distribution doesn't reduce the cost of producing content (sending reporters & photographers across the globe, fact checking, copy editing, etc.,) and the cost of producing content is much more expensive than printing and shipping a physical magazine.

It's like with digital downloads of movies. If a movie cost $200mil to make and $70mil to market the cost savings of a digital download vs stamping it onto a plastic disc that costs $0.15 isn't dramatic.


Lethal

Tinmania
Jun 14, 2012, 01:18 PM
It's worth noting that you can subscribe at SI.com and get a one-year subscription to print AND digital (iPad, iPhone, PC) PLUS a jacket for the NFL team of your choice AND a T-shirt for that team.
All for ... $39.00.
In other words a penny more than buying digital-only from Apple.

That is because the print advertising is worth much more than digital.

In a way old media was/is not that much different than the newer social media. Subscribers weren't the true customers then, and aren't now--advertisers are the real customers.




Michael

class77
Jun 14, 2012, 01:19 PM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?
I didn't use it until today when my People and this Old House subscriptions was moved from it's own app to Newsstand. I actually had a couple of subscriptions that I subscribe to at home(thus getting a digital copy online) and this morning they got transferred to Newstand without me doing a thing. All that was left was an empty folio where I had originally gathered them all on my iPad

Tinmania
Jun 14, 2012, 01:31 PM
I didn't use it until today when my People and this Old House subscriptions was moved from it's own app to Newsstand. I actually had a couple of subscriptions that I subscribe to at home(thus getting a digital copy online) and this morning they got transferred to Newstand without me doing a thing. All that was left was an empty folio where I had originally gathered them all on my iPad
Ironically, I used to use the NT Times app regularly. Once it was sucked into Newsstand I have used it maybe once or twice.

I have a folder for news apps. NYT is no longer in it. See ya'!




Mike

Navdakilla
Jun 14, 2012, 02:10 PM
They definitely need to make more iPad enhanced magazines, with interactions and videos.. until then my money will stay in my pocket! haha

tigress666
Jun 14, 2012, 02:12 PM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

Why when you can use Flipboard for free?

Flipboard is nice enough for my news/interests needs.

BJMRamage
Jun 14, 2012, 02:22 PM
I could buy Parents Magazine for around $20 a year for iPad/Digital subscription.

Or via a nice deal I found, buy the print version for $12 a year, getting 2 extra years for FREE and it comes with the digital version.

So, rather than pay $20 /year digital
I am paying $4 /year digital and with a paper version if I want to read while someone else is on the iPad.


as far as SI subscription I thought it was high but after reading here I see it is comparable.

stevegt87
Jun 14, 2012, 02:41 PM
I like newsstand, but I wish the content was more tablet friendly. My main gripes are small fonts low resolution and poor navigation. Price can be an issue but at least you know that up front.
Steve

charlituna
Jun 14, 2012, 03:59 PM
Start a poll to see how many use it here. I think most people still don't use it.

It's a bad question in a way, because the app has to be coded for it and many aren't. So even if you wanted to use newsstand you couldn't

MrMoore
Jun 14, 2012, 04:34 PM
I've been getting Time and Sports Illustrated through their apps because I am a print subscriber to both magazines.

Nice to be able to get it through Newstand once my subscriptions expires. The way I do it now, the magazines get tossed in the recycle bin the minute they come in the mail. :o

Having electronic only is going to be a nice perk. Also the apps are now in Newstand with my other mags.

mjtomlin
Jun 14, 2012, 05:36 PM
I think the majority don't use it. I keep looking at iTunes o see if anything pops up that want to subscribe to, but its a lot of fringe/garbage magazines. I just don't understand why digital editions of newspapers & magazines cost as much as print when they have nowhere near the production and distribution cost.

Volume. The price will eventually come down when the numbers go up. You have to make $X amount to produce something. They sell enough paper at current prices to produce and distribute them and make a profit (shrinking as it may be). Digital uses different layouts not to mention media types, so you need people to make that happen. Publishers need to start making a profit before they'll be willing to drop prices. This isn't Microsoft, they can't use one cash cow to fund another, as they're original money maker is sinking as well.

mjtomlin
Jun 14, 2012, 05:46 PM
Ummm, Apple is adding a 30% right off the top as a new cost. The magazine's business model is based upon getting 100% of the net price of the magazine. Yes, some of that 100% goes to printing & distribution but traditional printing & distribution delivery doesn't involve giving Apple 30%.

Or, another way to think about this: if Apple took 5% or 10% instead of 30%, the pricing offered to us could be cut by 20-25% and Apple could still make money being a digital distributor for these companies. 30% of gross is a LOT of new cost.

You don't know how these businesses are run, do you?

Apple doesn't add anything. They take 30% of whatever the publisher charges. Even if they only took 5%, the publisher would probably still charge the same. The price of the subscription has nothing to do with how much the distributor gets. It has do with volume and advertising. Publishers make money from getting their clients advertising in front of as many eye balls as possible. If the numbers are high, the advertising space is more valuable.

To further complicate the digital form, it's usually copy protected, which means those ads only reach a 1:1 ratio, whereas a printed magazine may be looked over by a dozen or so people before tossed in the garbage. So every single printed version equates to dozens of views.

Tinmania
Jun 14, 2012, 06:34 PM
You don't know how these businesses are run, do you?

Apple doesn't add anything. They take 30% of whatever the publisher charges. Even if they only took 5%, the publisher would probably still charge the same. The price of the subscription has nothing to do with how much the distributor gets. It has do with volume and advertising. Publishers make money from getting their clients advertising in front of as many eye balls as possible. If the numbers are high, the advertising space is more valuable.

To further complicate the digital form, it's usually copy protected, which means those ads only reach a 1:1 ratio, whereas a printed magazine may be looked over by a dozen or so people before tossed in the garbage. So every single printed version equates to dozens of views.
Exactly. Publishers love that you can pick up and borrow newspapers and magazines.

The difference in advertising's effectiveness between print and online is huge.

Last year an article in Business Week stated that a NY Times print reader was worth 228 times that of an online reader.
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-print-versus-online-2011-5



Michael

maroontiger2k9
Jun 15, 2012, 12:56 AM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

if you have an ipad w/o newstand, thats literally a SHAME :eek:

EssentialParado
Jun 16, 2012, 12:24 AM
You don't know how these businesses are run, do you?

Apple doesn't add anything. They take 30% of whatever the publisher charges. Even if they only took 5%, the publisher would probably still charge the same. The price of the subscription has nothing to do with how much the distributor gets. It has do with volume and advertising. Publishers make money from getting their clients advertising in front of as many eye balls as possible. If the numbers are high, the advertising space is more valuable.

To further complicate the digital form, it's usually copy protected, which means those ads only reach a 1:1 ratio, whereas a printed magazine may be looked over by a dozen or so people before tossed in the garbage. So every single printed version equates to dozens of views.
While the basic premise of your argument is true, there's no way that "every single magazine" is "seen by dozens of people". That's stretching the truth quite a bit.

Simplicated
Jun 18, 2012, 08:34 AM
Am I one of the few that still doesn't use Newsstand?

Nope. A lot of friends of mine just put it on the last page of the home screen. I do however on my iPad as it's my primary magazine reading device.