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

[alent1234]

Oh goody. We get to pay for each issue AND see ads.

don't forget $500 to $1000 on the gizmo just to read the magazines

 

[talkingnewmedia]

I would rather pay a small yearly fee to avoid in content advertising all together.

Also, one more thing. What happens to the advertising revenue when someone develops an ad blocker for the iPad?

True for news, but many readers buy their magazines because of the ads. Can you image Vogue, GQ or bridal magazines without the ads? What's a Mac magazine without the ads?

I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine who was in advertising at an alt weekly newspaper many years ago. He got into an argument with the editor when he said that 50% of the readers picked up the newspaper for the ads. The argument got heated until the publisher stepped. The publisher turned to the ad guy and said "you're wrong. Our surveys found that 75% of our readers pick up the LA Weekly for the ads!"

This was many years ago, but I doubt things have changed much.

 

[alent1234]

before the internet, there was some monthly 500 page computer magazine that was 99% ads. i used to buy it almost every month

 

[Tones2]

Apple and Oranges. Advertising revenue for television shows has been falling because people are now able to edit out the advertisements with devices like Tivo, which means that there is now more in show advertising. There's also all of those annoying pop ups during the show.

Given the lack of specifics about how the content is going to be provided, it's pointless to speculate about exactly what kind of advertising people would accept.

I would rather pay a small yearly fee to avoid in content advertising all together.

Also, one more thing. What happens to the advertising revenue when someone develops an ad blocker for the iPad?

By all reasonable indications, a lot more thought has been put into this development. A lot more thought than you've displayed so far.

Advertising in media - it's EXACTLY the same thing. Both TV and internet ads can and have historically financed content. Both can be tuned out by various means. Both struggle to get attention by using increasingly intrusive measures because of the efforts to ignore them. Both TV and internet news content will continue to exist for FREE because advertisers are more clever and have more experience in getting their point across on more unique ways. Whether someone prefers to pay for no advertising or not is a personal choice. I happen to LIKE some advertising - if it's meant to be informative, so I'd rather have a free site. I would NOT pay for content that was previously free.

BTW - Nice choice with the personnel insults there. I assume I'm dealing with a 10 year old here - Right?

Tony

 

[alent1234]

[JGowan's 2¢]

This isn't MAD MAGAZINE trying to get $18-30 a month, it's the NYT and WSJ.

Let's take the New York Times...

Right now you get 12 weeks of service for Daily Service (including Sunday) of actual paper for $7.40 a week if you pay by credit card. That's 50% off for the first 3 months... then it jumps to $15 a week (or $60 monthly) -- that's real trees, real ink, delivery drivers galore and finally someone to deliever it to you. So basically, if NYT wanted to charge $30 monthly, they'd be letting you have the introductory price for now on. Sounds fair. I think $10 would be fairer and here's why...

Right now, Ads in the paper --> are they even looked at? They're glanced at and if it's something you're not not interested in, you turn the page. The iPad is a new breed of Advertising because of the possibility of the page "coming alive" and all of the social networking aspects. Most people are going to pay a lot more attention to them, I believe. I certainly will. But the advertisers will have to get clever quickly. Also, if the product is able to be bought on the internet, they could link to the product with a discount for buying from the ad itself. This could really be a boon for retail.

So $10 is a better price mainly because the ads have a better chance of being seen. There's no physical costs. Also, chances are, at least initially I believe, you're not going to have a many people canceling their home service to get the digital version. Some yes. I think what this will do, if it's priced right is get subscribers by the thousands and eventually the hundreds of thousands who normally would never subscribe to the paper. Ever. I would imagine that the average subscriber and reader of the Times is 55 at least and probably 60 and over. They consume the news differently and always have. That's why the newspaper is dying. Not because people are getting all their news from TV or the internet. Mostly yes, but... it's because it's more convenient. People are willing to pay more for what they want if it takes the hassle out of the situation. Convenience Stores on the corner are a perfect example.

Enter the iPad --> people will pay for content. People want to be informed. Most do anyway. I want to be able to simply never have to throw away my magazines ever again, but look forward to the day when, with Spotlight, I can search my Magazines for a certain subject and up pop all of the entries from past issues. Oh -- this just occurred to me. What if a month after you saw an ad on your iPad in one of several magazines that you subscribed, you suddenly needed a certain product. Few people would hunt through real issues, but if you could Spotlight the product and it would instantly deliver that ad complete with link to a discounted product -- wow. Suddenly your advertising is worth so much more.

[/JGowan's 2¢]

i read the NY Times a few days a week via the iphone app. if they charged for it there are a million other ways to get the same news for free. some days i don't even read the articles but scan the headlines via a twitter list i set up for news

 

[benpatient]

It doesn't matter how much they charge. Only a very small percentage of people are willing to pay for news or articles online. Why buy what you can easily get for free from a news aggregator? I worked for a magazine for 6 years, and watched as advertisers "suggestions" for content were "considered" by the management and passed on to the editorial staff as assignments again and again.

I love magazines in the same way that I love books...they are "slower" than digital media. If you put a magazine or a book into an online-fed environment, it takes away much of the experience that makes it special. I have 3 magazine subscriptions right now that I think I spent a total of 30 dollars on between them. I expect to see a lot of ads, and they are there. I ignore them for the most part, but I know they pay the bills. I also know that National Geographic is holding itself to a pretty high standard of content. The photographs were taken by photographers and not "fixed" in photoshop. Someone thought about the words and how they were ordered. It's just classy and good.

But I wouldn't pay 1 dollar an issue for a digital version. If they haven't sold me on this, then there is no business model for it. Media is changing. Bloggers work for almost-free most of the time. Most magazines are crap anyway, honestly. Newspapers are worse. Everything is pulled from larger sources. I don't care what Rupert or Gannett think about things. I certainly won't be paying to find out. If they can't operate in a world where people aren't willing to pay for news or their content, whatever it may be, then they will go away. I don't care if newscorp is profitable. That's not my problem. If they are, then fine. If not, close up shop. Nobody needs USA Today. Let old people pay for that crap if they want to, but nobody buying an ipad is going to pay a monthly fee more than their 3G monthly rate just to read a custom version of a news story they can get for free with little to zero effort.

 

[Erwin-Br]

At least we can block the ads with... Oh wait.

 

[JGowan]

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?

I think this is a very short-sighted view. I think these news sources are looking to pull these free services as soon as they can and with tablets looking to become very popular, this might become the end of the free lunch.

 

[JGowan]

Question

It seems to me that if a person owned TWO iPads, they could sync all of their content to both devices, essentially giving you two copies of a newspaper, book or magazine.

Is this correct?!

 

[cmaier]

I think this is a very short-sighted view. I think these news sources are looking to pull these free services as soon as they can and with tablets looking to become very popular, this might become the end of the free lunch.

You are bootstrapping. If no one will pay for the paid services because they get the free services for free, pulling the free services won't suddenly make people pay. It will just drive readers to those publications that are still free. The cycle continues until some free publications have enough ad revenue to be able to afford being free.

The cycle might be defeated by someone offering a paid service that is BETTER than the free alternatives - there are a couple of publications that can get away with it because of unique content - but in general what the publishers are proposing is worse:

1) more obnoxious, more intrusive ads
2) no freedom to lend, give away, re-sell, copy, etc.
3) some publishers will prevent even using the copy/paste mechanism to clip excerpts (I know this because I had a major publisher propose that I write their app in this way).
4) some publishers will have expiring content - you won't be able to save for posterity

In exchange we get some swooshy UI's and a little bit of multimedia.

 

[alent1234]

I think this is a very short-sighted view. I think these news sources are looking to pull these free services as soon as they can and with tablets looking to become very popular, this might become the end of the free lunch.

as far as i know in print the money was made on advertising. the newsstand or subscription price was just to cover the printing/distribution costs. why would i pay for this stuff including 30% to apple? the media companies screwed up their business models by ignoring online.

 

[Mebsat]

$17.99/month for WSJ... Have they gone mad?!

Normal online subscription prices work out to $8.62/month for WSJ.com.

The idea that iPad content is worth more than twice current prices is hard to understand.

Are they going to prevent iPads from accessing the regular subscription website? Can you spoof your browser on an iPad?
The walled garden rears its ugly head.

The iPad version of Safari will probably not load content meant for a regular Mac or PC on these subscription sites if that's what the publishers want.

Murdock probably figures he can get more out of all the early adopters.

Not a good start if we have to pay more for iPad content than the dead trees edition and be subjected to ads that are impervious to Click-to-Flash.

 

[citi]

don't forget $500 to $1000 on the gizmo just to read the magazines

right, because that's the only thing these "gizmos" will be used for.

 

[JGowan]

You are bootstrapping. If no one will pay for the paid services because they get the free services for free, pulling the free services won't suddenly make people pay. It will just drive readers to those publications that are still free. The cycle continues until some free publications have enough ad revenue to be able to afford being free.

Bootstrapping? I wiki'd this and am still confused....

No matter...

You're acting as if all content is equal. It isn't. The writers for my local newspaper aren't quite in the same league as the NYTimes (sarcasm x 1,000,000). Photography, writing ---> all contribute to what makes a newspaper or magazine great. If I love a magazine and they suddenly make it known on their website that they are removing free content, I'll look at the avenues they have to continue getting the content for a price. If it's fair, they'll continue getting my money. But that's me. Others might be the proverbial Barnacle, attached to anything they can suck the "free" out of. Oh well, ... big deal... they were freeloaders in the first place and not generating any income in the first place.

-----
JGowan's Flipside: About the most I'll pay for a mag is about $12-15 a year, even if it's weekly. Why? Because Time and EW both offer these deals and I take them up on it. At the end of the year, I'll get the "time to renew" cards and they're always $19.99 or $24.99 and I just ignore them and let the subscription lapse. 6 months go by and they send me a "we miss you" card and welcome me back for the $12 I'm willing to pay. They're getting their Advertising money. That and $12 is all they're getting from both of us.

 

[hugodrax]

Cost of Subscription for print covers the cost of printing,delivery,materials etc..

To keep charge the same rates for a subscription when the cost of delivering the same content drops drastically is a stupid move on the print media companies.

They want to pocket the spread. Why not cut the costs of subscription down to realistic levels.

 

[rtdunham]

The issue is that advertisers have shown no sign that they aren't asshats. Everything from pop-over ads...to television commercials that are double the volume of the actual television program

Yeah, what'll they do next: exaggerate?

I for one do not subscribe to cable TV since I find it unacceptable to pay $100/month for the privilege of watching commercials! Similarly, I absolutely refuse to pay for the privilege of watching adds on the iPad!

Do you ever go to the movies? They charge admission and then show ads. Drives me crazy: I used to loudly object, try to get the audience involved--you know, I imagine leading the audience out of the theatre to confront management, which succumbs to the masses' demands and stops imposing the ads on us. Guess what: didn't happen. I'm quiet now (on the outside) and endure the ads (not "adds" btw). So do you go to the movies, or have you cut yourself off from that part of pop culture too? I've elected not to be so extreme in my idealism that it disserves me. Print ads don't bother me at all because i understand the economics. The economics of online news is in for some big changes.

 

[djrobsd]

http://www.theonion.com/video/how-will-the-end-of-print-journalism-affect-old-lo,16909/

 

[Robin4]

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?

It depends, there are some magazines that would benefit so much with MORE. Sports magazines come to mind. Also, I can't wait to see a National Geographic or Traveler magazine with video and all that imagination can bring. You are right, there are some that content alone will attract me.

 

[TheSlush]

Again, I fear the half-baked nature of Apple's rushed iPad launch coupled with Apple's not-fully-fleshed-out approach to content on the iPad is going to result in a mess for users. We're going to end up with a thousand different UI standards, a thousand different navigation standards, and a thousand different approaches to advertising -- many of which are likely to offer a poor user experience. Isn't such a cluttered bazaar what we already have with the web?

The fact that "most magazines are looking at offering iPad content very similar in appearance to print editions for the time being" is almost an inexcusable shame for this device.

This lack of focus is going "rescue the publishing industry"??

 

[JGowan]

don't forget $500 to $1000 on the gizmo just to read the magazines

I think Apple's customer gets a whole hellava lot more for their hardware money than just an eReader. C'mon ... get real with your crappy one-liners.

i read the NY Times a few days a week via the iphone app. if they charged for it there are a million other ways to get the same news for free. some days i don't even read the articles but scan the headlines via a twitter list i set up for news

What's your point? That you're cheap and not very well informed?

 

[citi]

Again, I fear the half-baked nature of Apple's rushed iPad launch coupled with Apple's not-fully-fleshed-out approach to content on the iPad is going to result in a mess for users. We're going to end up with a thousand different UI standards, a thousand different navigation standards, and a thousand different approaches to advertising -- many of which are likely to offer a poor user experience. Isn't such a cluttered bazaar what we already have with the web?

The fact that "most magazines are looking at offering iPad content very similar in appearance to print editions for the time being" is almost an inexcusable shame for this device.

This lack of focus is going "rescue the publishing industry"??

What "EXACTLY" is wrong with offering a digital print version as a stop gap? That's like arguing that an ebook version of Harry Potter is inexecusable because I can't I watch the movie as I read. Supplying a digital hi resolution emagazine will be just as good for the majority of people that don't want to lug around magazines, or worry about getting the latest edition because it is updated automatically. Let the magic happen later.

 

[Niko03]

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.

it has only been free for a brief time, since the widespread adoption of the Internet.

Somebody always has, and always will, have to pay for the content.

I'd say that the only reason so much content was free was because the traditional print media didn't know how much to provide for free and how to ensure a steady stream of revenue to support what they do.

It hasn't been as critical until know when so many people turn to the web for free sources of information. This is quite evident with the increasing rate at which traditional print media sources are folding. If something doesn't change pretty soon there will be a lack of choice for professionally done news and information.

I don't mind paying for my periodical content as long as it provides me with more and better.

 

[marksman]

There's no cost to distribute. Why are there both a subscription fee and ads?

Apple takes 30% what are you talking about?

I can't believe the negative on this.

What were people exactly expecting?

How many of you work for free (except those of you on 2 years of unemployment)

Magazines have charged and had ads forever. So have newspapers. This is bringing them to you in a way that is different and perhaps even more convenient. IN some cases it seems also more affordable.


People really didn't think everything was going to just be free. Given the desire of people to shoot themselves in the foot by using ad blockers most content on the internet is ultimately going to end up pay as well.. because people simply don't know a good thing when they see it.

 

[marksman]

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.

You seem to be under the mis-guided perception that all these publications will continue to provide similar based publications online for free.

 

[marksman]

As someone who makes his living writing in newspapers and magazines, I believe wholeheartedly in the pay wall model and will happily be buying subscriptions to the publications I want to read. By getting rid of the cost of print distribution, though, I'd like to see pricing be reasonable, though, to be sure, there are many costs in producing and distributing a digital edition, as well.

All these publications are guessing right now. If you look at the handful of pricing options mentioned, all of them are different. So they are just trying to get a starting point and see what works.

I think we will see the industry evolve substantially as it makes use of these new devices and pricing will change, and likely become more affordable for the readers.

Plus I am sure some publishers will offer special deals to regular subscribers and things like that very quickly.