Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Advertisers Gearing Up for iPad Editions of Magazines While Content Pricing Firms Up

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
51,482
13,110
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png




The Wall Street Journal reports that advertisers are gearing up for next week's launch of the iPad in the U.S. by committing to spots in iPad-formatted content from magazines and newspapers. At the same time, pricing for the magazines and some newspapers are being firmed up.
Time magazine has signed up Unilever, Toyota Motor, Fidelity Investments and at least three others for marketing agreements priced at about $200,000 apiece for a single ad spot in each of the first eight issues of the magazine's iPad edition, according to people familiar with the matter.

At Condé Nast Publications, Wired magazine is offering different levels of ad functionality depending on how many pages of ads a marketer buys, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisers that agree to buy eight pages of ads in a single issue of Wired magazine will be able to lace video and other extra features through the iPad version, say people familiar with the matter.
According to the report, while most magazines are looking at offering iPad content very similar in appearance to print editions for the time being, they are embracing more advanced media such as videos and social networking integration for their advertising spots in an attempt to lure marketing dollars. As an example, Sports Illustrated has been pitching several media-heavy ad prototypes, including one involving a Ford Mustang in a mini "arcade-style driving game" that can be steered by tilting the iPad.

When it comes to pricing for magazine content on the iPad, publishers are taking a variety of routes to incorporate advertising revenue and consumer pricing into the mix. Men's Health is reportedly offering ten free pages each from its April and May issues through an advertising partnership with Gillette, but those looking to download the full issues will have to cough up the full $4.99 newsstand price. Esquire is apparently planning to forgo advertising in its iPad versions at first and will charge $2.99 per issue, a $2 discount from the newsstand price.

In the report's final paragraph, the WSJ looks at its own situation, noting that six advertisers including Coca-Cola and FedEx have signed on for four-month ad packages with the publication costing $400,000. And in what is seemingly an afterthought, the report notes that The Wall Street Journal is apparently planning to charge readers $17.99 per month for access to the newspaper's content on the iPad.

Last month, it was reported that The New York Times' print and digital units were jockeying for control over iPad content, with the former seeking monthly subscription fees in the $20-$30 range while the latter was pushing for a $10 price point. It remains unclear what route that newspaper will be taking when its content launches on the iPad.

Article Link: Advertisers Gearing Up for iPad Editions of Magazines While Content Pricing Firms Up
 

talkingfuture

macrumors 65816
Dec 4, 2008
1,216
0
The back of beyond.
I hope that I'll be able to switch my Wired Uk subscription to it and it will be marginally cheaper than the print version. I reckon if that scenario is repeated across most magazines I will end up reading a few more than I do now.
 
Comment

zub3qin

macrumors 65816
Apr 10, 2007
1,311
0
wake up media....

Print media is thinking people are going to pay for what they were getting for free. Just because it is on an iPad, doesn't mean people will pay for it.

Time, NYTimes, etc all have content online for free now.
Just by wrapping it in a "virtual magazine flip the pages in a cool way" interface, and embedding some "added content" video clips, doesn't mean people are going to pay--

They are putting all their eggs in the wrong basket.

The model that will win will be ad based. Smart ads using gps/etc targeted to the reader, embedded in the free magazine/newspaper- read on the iPad.

People WILL NOT pay for what they were getting for free.
 
Comment

Schizoid

macrumors 6502a
May 29, 2008
842
498
UK
we love ads! more ads on the iPad, and on the Mac too! Maybe in the menu bar or Dashboard! that would be great...
 
Comment

Bodhi395

macrumors 6502a
Jul 23, 2008
817
0
I just can't see people paying between 18 and 30 dollars a month for newspaper subscriptions on the ipad. Given the fact you can get all the news you want for free through safari on the ipad, I don't think the content in either the Wall Street Journal or New York Times is that much superior to warrant charging that much for it. I can see a few diehards that love those papers paying, but the vast majority of people will just go to yahoo news or google news or any of thousands of other news sites to get their news.

To me, I think newspapers charging for content on the ipad is going to be a huge failure.
 
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Core
Jul 25, 2007
20,612
22,743
California
you currently have to pay for them now and there are ads. you do realize that subscriptions alone cannot keep a company functioning right?

Asto the first question, yes - but moving an old media business model directly to digital has not worked for anyone.

As to the second, that's not my problem. If they want to be ad supported they should cut costs or raise ad prices so they don't need to charge a subscription fee. Or they should raise the subscription fee and eliminate ads. If they go out of business, it's because their content wasn't good enough to support that structure. Some will survive, and with fewer outlets advertisers will be willing to pay more to get their message out.

Alternatively, publishers can get creative and find additional revenue streams. Charge to access archives, crossword puzzles, live stock quotes, etc.

But charging a lot of money for an ad-supported ap is going to convince people to stick to free web-based sources of news.
 
Comment

robertsammons

macrumors newbie
Aug 10, 2009
9
1
Pixel Mags

Pixel mags offers a variety of magazines now, at prices that are often 3 pound cheaper and there coming to iPad

This isn't a shameless plug for them i use there product now for iPhone so want an indication of price go look now, its just standard print at the moment
 
Comment

sassenach74

macrumors 65816
May 3, 2008
1,170
28
Spain
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

All seems a bit greedy in my opinion......have cake and eat it too.
 
Comment

swarmster

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2004
625
90
I can't wait for Wired! I've been putting off getting a subscription forever (used to have one long ago), but the iPad version will finally get me to jump.

Of course, considering their paper subscriptions are $10/year, I assume the price will be the same or less (no printing or distribution involved, but Apple takes a cut).

As long as prices are reasonable (i.e. not anywhere near individual newsstand price), my magazine reading is about to go way up. Imagine being able to get a subscription to a magazine that's actually easy to renew or cancel, and doesn't leave you with years of junk mail afterwards! Amazing!
 
Comment

gotohamish

macrumors 65816
Jul 15, 2001
1,072
3
BKLN
Oh goody. We get to pay for each issue AND see ads.

What is so offensive about an ad in a magazine? Aren't they arguably as much a sign of the times as the content? If you pick up a 1943 copy of Life or Time, I bet you say "Look at the ads!"

Curious though, and this is to EVERYONE. What do you want to see in an iPad version of a magazine? Do you NEED more, or is the quality content in a convenient package enough?
 
Comment

dwd3885

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2004
2,124
135
Just what I predicted. It's gonna cost $$ to get stuff on your iPad. Whereas you could get a laptop and browse their free websites. The reason why nobody reads magazines is not because of the format (print or digital) it's because of the timeliness. Why would I want to pay for a SI subscription, when I could just read my stories on ESPN?
 
Comment

Tones2

macrumors 65816
Jan 8, 2009
1,471
0
Since most of this content is on the Web for free now and accessible from Safari on the iPad, the charges simply seem to be the cost of not having FLASH supported on the iPad.

Tony
 
Comment

gotohamish

macrumors 65816
Jul 15, 2001
1,072
3
BKLN
Print media is thinking people are going to pay for what they were getting for free. Just because it is on an iPad, doesn't mean people will pay for it.

Time, NYTimes, etc all have content online for free now.
Just by wrapping it in a "virtual magazine flip the pages in a cool way" interface, and embedding some "added content" video clips, doesn't mean people are going to pay--

They are putting all their eggs in the wrong basket.

The model that will win will be ad based. Smart ads using gps/etc targeted to the reader, embedded in the free magazine/newspaper- read on the iPad.

People WILL NOT pay for what they were getting for free.

Interesting, only testing (and real life) has proven that people actually WILL pay for things they get free, whether it's a book of blog posts or a second digital copy of a book or DVD they already own.

Since most of this content is on the Web for free now and accessible from Safari on the iPad, the charges simply seem to be the cost of not having FLASH supported on the iPad.

Tony

Um. No.
 
Comment

paulyras

macrumors 6502
Dec 3, 2006
492
8
Singapore
No thanks. I think I'll just sign up for the $103 per year WSJ online subscription and use my 3g service on my ipad...
 
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Core
Jul 25, 2007
20,612
22,743
California
What is so offensive about an ad in a magazine? Aren't they arguably as much a sign of the times as the content? If you pick up a 1943 copy of Life or Time, I bet you say "Look at the ads!"

Curious though, and this is to EVERYONE. What do you want to see in an iPad version of a magazine? Do you NEED more, or is the quality content in a convenient package enough?

The issue is that advertisers have shown no sign that they aren't asshats. Everything from pop-over ads, to pop-under ads, to ads that are hard to skip at the start of blurays, to ads that cannot be skipped on streaming video, to television commercials that are double the volume of the actual television program tells me that on iPad, just like in every other multimedia medium, ads will be intrusive, annoying, and will detract from the enjoyment of reading the magazine. These ads will be nothing like the ads in print media.

If you are going to charge me the same as or close to what a print subscription costs, but give me a drm-riddled product that I cannot share, save for posterity, xerox copy for my kid's homework, and possibly not even copy and paste text from, you can't also subject me to ads.
 
Comment

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,055
162
Canada, eh?
Time, NYTimes, etc all have content online for free now.
Just by wrapping it in a "virtual magazine flip the pages in a cool way" interface, and embedding some "added content" video clips, doesn't mean people are going to pay--

People WILL NOT pay for what they were getting for free.

Well, I would pay a small fee for those convenience features you mentioned above. $5 a month, at most $10, seems reasonable to me.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.