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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,463
17,799



125314-conde_nast_titles.jpg

Ad Age reports that Conde Nast, one of the early iPad supporters in the magazine industry, is slowing down its plans to bring more titles to the platform, citing slow sales of its existing titles."It's a shift," one Conde publisher said. "The official stance was we're going to get all our magazines on the iPad because this is going to be such an important stream. The new change is maybe we can slow it down. In my opinion it makes Conde look smart because we have the ambition, but we're not rushing."

"They're not all doing all that well, so why rush to get them all on there?" the publisher added.According to the report, development of iPad applications is now up to the individual publishers for each magazine, shifting away from a concerted effort by the conglomerate to push forward on all titles.

Conde Nast is said to be increasing its focus on sales of existing titles and generating unique iPad applications that don't mimic the print editions and instead offer "exclusive" content. Ad buyers are also reportedly still looking to see the distribution scale and metrics that will drive that market forward to sustain the digital magazine model, a position that is no doubt influencing Conde Nast's strategy to focus on scaling existing titles.

Article Link: Conde Nast Slowing Plans for iPad Magazines Amid Weak Sales
 

Lesser Evets

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2006
3,522
1,284
Didn't read them then, won't read them in future.
Useless publications of the old age where magazines were catalogs with fluff articles. In the internet age they better supply real content and not half-ass excuses for information.... they'll tank, no doubt: their focus is on sales, not service.
 

bmat

macrumors 6502
Nov 24, 2004
457
4
East Coast, USA
I'd get the New Yorker in a minute if it was even remotely priced the way it would be for a print subscription. I'd pay even more--due to the convenience factor, but not $5 an issue.

The demand is not there because their prices are unrealistic.
 

johnnymg

macrumors 65816
Nov 16, 2008
1,317
6
Classic statement from CN. Their cr@p publications aren't selling so they blame someone else. Go figure!

JohnG
 

JAYnLA

macrumors newbie
Aug 17, 2010
20
0
Los Angeles
Price Price Price

I'm not a thrifty person by nature, so it says plenty that I refuse to pay the prices they're asking for these mags on the iPad. It really is that simple. Make them $1.99 and sales will go through the roof.
 

seamer

macrumors 6502
Jul 24, 2009
426
164
The prices for e-equivalents of established magazines is just unfeasible. Even with Apple taking 30% of the cut, it would still be profitable to just lower the sale price. E-sales mean less resources (ie paper, ink), lower transport costs, and less % to the store who sold the physical magazine. Keeping the magazines at print prices is pure gouging, and the slow sales reflect that.
 

Ambrose Chapel

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2002
1,141
3
Massachusetts
I'd get the New Yorker in a minute if it was even remotely priced the way it would be for a print subscription. I'd pay even more--due to the convenience factor, but not $5 an issue.

The demand is not there because their prices are unrealistic.

Especially having to pay twice if you are already a print subscriber. Why? :confused:
 

nbw

macrumors newbie
Jun 30, 2007
5
0
I'm not a thrifty person by nature, so it says plenty that I refuse to pay the prices they're asking for these mags on the iPad. It really is that simple. Make them $1.99 and sales will go through the roof.

Yea, the value for the price is not there. You can get the paper version of Wired for $10/yr via Amazon. Why would you pay the crazy prices for the digital version, if anything it should be even cheaper.

It's not Conde Nast being smarter its Conde Nast not knowing how to execute a digital strategy that works.
 

goshgoshers

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2010
3
0
I'd get the New Yorker in a minute if it was even remotely priced the way it would be for a print subscription. I'd pay even more--due to the convenience factor, but not $5 an issue.

The demand is not there because their prices are unrealistic.

Agree! I love the New Yorker but the digital edition on the iPad should be free with my subscription.

People bash traditional media because they prefer their intake of information in short, quick doses instead of in-depth features. I think that the market could exist with both, but people today hardly give great magazines like the New Yorker a chance.
 

gwangung

macrumors 65816
Apr 9, 2003
1,111
88
The prices for e-equivalents of established magazines is just unfeasible. Even with Apple taking 30% of the cut, it would still be profitable to just lower the sale price. E-sales mean less resources (ie paper, ink), lower transport costs, and less % to the store who sold the physical magazine. Keeping the magazines at print prices is pure gouging, and the slow sales reflect that.

Talk about unfeasbile. I'm not sure any of the claimed statements here about economics have any connection to reality.
 

Full of Win

macrumors 68030
Nov 22, 2007
2,615
1
Ask Apple
I've grown to dislike reading magazines on the iPad for several reasons.

1. PPI of iPad too low
2. Appification of magazines (why have an app for each?)
3. Not passing along the cost savings saved in printing/shipping to us.

All I want is a subscription that cost less than the Amazon.com price, uses a common app (e.g. like Zinio) and a screen whose PPI is near the DPI of magazines.
 

levitynyc

macrumors 65816
Aug 19, 2006
1,117
3,402
Overpriced or half assed.

The NY Daily News iPad app is a great price, but the whole thing is a piece of junk. Its like reading a blurry pdf.

The NY Post is optimized for iPad, but is expensive.

Guess which one I bought?

Neither.
 

purd002

macrumors member
Jan 29, 2008
62
0
Offer a reasonable subscription price and people will buy it. I refuse to pay $3.99 an issue for wired. Read the comments on the app store, most people are holding out for fairly priced subscriptions before they will spend anymore money.
 

angrynstupid

macrumors regular
Jan 26, 2010
131
0
Michigan
Magazines are dead

Both print and digital. What's the difference between a website and a digital magazine? Nothing. Stop wasting your time and money creating special electronic editions and apps and just make a damn website. And why charge anything for the digital version? You don't have to print it and you don't have to distribute it and you're already making money from online advertising.
 

mxpx5678

macrumors member
Feb 11, 2008
49
0
Real Problem is strategy.

I love being able to read my magazines on the iPad.

However I hate the fact that if I subscribe to Wired I have to repurchase it on the ipad. There is no unified subscription.

Also you cannot subscribe to a digital only version, you have to pay 3.99 for each issue, and after i purchased an issue when the app upgraded it forgot that i purchased it.

Digital magazines could be successful if they allow subscriptions. I would even be ok if the digital sub was a little more than physical since I always loose or destroy the physical magazine.
 

jeffereyj

macrumors member
Aug 8, 2007
63
0
if i'm paying for a digital subscription, there's no reason why i should also have to look at ads.

i can see why there are ads for a print edition, due to printing costs, paper, and shipping, but none of those exist for a digital edition.
 

Intarweb

macrumors 6502a
May 30, 2007
561
0
I've grown to dislike reading magazines on the iPad for several reasons.

1. PPI of iPad too low
2. Appification of magazines (why have an app for each?)
3. Not passing along the cost savings saved in printing/shipping to us.

All I want is a subscription that cost less than the Amazon.com price, uses a common app (e.g. like Zinio) and a screen whose PPI is near the DPI of magazines.

What they're saving from not printing is being largely consumed by Apple's 30%.
 

rsbagga

macrumors newbie
Apr 3, 2010
28
0
Too much money

Yep, i agree with the sentiments above. Far, far too much money being asked for. I've been a GQ subscriber for years. I pay maybe 20 bucks for an annual subscription. Why would I pay $3-4 an issue, especially when there are no additional features? Its literally just a PDF of the magazine. Not worth it guys. Want us to get iPad magazines? Make it cheaper, or justify the additional price with content!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.