It costs right around $1 per magazine to print, design and mail for very large circulations. Magazine not newspaper. Take out the printing and mailing and you're probably looking at about $.75 costs. Sell it for $.99 on the ITMS and Apple takes $.33 and they lose money. Magazines have very little wiggle room price wise.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Conde Nast Slowing Plans for iPad Magazines Amid Weak Sales
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It costs right around $1 per magazine to print, design and mail for very large circulations. Magazine not newspaper. Take out the printing and mailing and you're probably looking at about $.75 costs. Sell it for $.99 on the ITMS and Apple takes $.33 and they lose money. Magazines have very little wiggle room price wise.
I downloaded one issue after I got my iPad 2. It's a beautiful app -- functional, readable, decent multimedia, feels like the New Yorker brand, etc. -- but $5 a week is WAY too much.
The iPad-optimized Safari version is not completely awful, but I'm probably not going to continue it after the four-week free trial. It's basically a PDF version of the magazine but is clunkier and less readable than a PDF.
I cancelled my print subscription a couple of years go because the pile got too high, but I would get an iPad subscription if it wasn't more than $60 or $70 a year.
For what it is worth, it's my understanding you can technically get a digital version of the New Yorker, it is just the extra features of the iPad app that cost extra. I just looked into this myself with the New Yorker. While I haven't started it yet, the digital version looks like a digital copy of the print version while the iPad app brings interactive videos, expansion on stories, etc.
And amazon is taking at least 30%, I would be shocked if the cut was that small.
BS, see above or join any large affiliate program that has accounts with major magazine publishers. Apple is about their cheapest avenue because they even process the payment for them.
WSJ pays 30% for each new subscriber you bring if you are on the CJ program. They pay MORE to higher volume affiliates. Almost all of the publishers are in the 25% to 35% range.
If they can't get all of their ads into the online version, that is a personal problem they should work out. The iPad readers are automatically the top of their Demo too, no reason any of their advertisers would purposefully shun them.
The Wired App is just two stars. For the free edition.
Overall, the app sits at 2.5 stars for all versions.
That's one good reason for Conde to tap on the brakes.
Overall, the app sits at 2.5 stars for all versions.
That's one good reason for Conde to tap on the brakes.
I would say it's unlikely that they make images at such higher PPI, at least not in the final app. It increases the cost, the file size, the app complexity with no obvious gain. I'm highly skeptical.
I still dont get why I would want to use my iPad to read when my laptop is sitting right next to me and is a lot more comfortable to use and not much bigger (13 MBA).
I think Apple is executing the entire category poorly. Actually, I think Apple needs to really re-vamp how things are organized in iTunes period. You would think periodicals would have their own category... nope. Most are tossed into "news" which is buried under apps and filled with misc things in the category. Unless you search for something specific, it's not easy to browse what is available. (They really need to clean up the entire app store. iPad books for example... subcategories with children's books or educational would be a welcome fix.)
I also have noticed a lot of Magazines not available for subscription and only single issue purchases. Perhaps it's that 30% cut Apple demands of the publishers? That's why you'll never see Wired for $10 a year for the iPad. The periodical industry doesn't make money off the news stand copies, it's the advertisements that really pay their bills which are based on circulation. It was interesting to see advertisers concerns as part of their reasoning for scaling back. It will be interesting to see as Android tablets pick up pace how options on that platform might differ in pricing and subscription availability as Google only takes 10%.
It's a shame because digital magazines really have the potential to re-energize the entire industry and offer something more interactive over a print edition.
I agree with your sentiments on how cheap people are becoming, but the rest of it is a little misguided.
Periodical Business 101: 1) Sell ad space which price is determined by how many copies circulate each week. 2.) Subscriptions guarantee a year of circulation, so these are pushed at cheap prices to help lock in higher advertising rates. 3) News stand prices maybe net 1-5% of their cover if at all in profits as unsold copies are paid for by the publishers but help with circulation which boosts ad rates/revenue. (Just like it costs more than 75 cents to print 1 newspaper) The 1-5% profits that come from non-ad revenue would not cover printing costs let alone paying for your staff and facilities costs.
Why do they want your data? They don't sell your info for money. If they do anything, they simply encourage you to renew, or push you towards other periodicals that they own to keep up circulation. (And anything they know about their subscriber base can help them in content decisions) The newspaper industry has been dying a slow and painful death because... circulation has died with the internet. Magazines are teetering. The publishers would rather you buy a year subscription for $20 a year vs. paying $85 a year buying issues at the supermarket because they actually make more money off of your $20. Guaranteed circulation and no waste. Because magazines sell mostly at a break even or a loss, that's why digital subscriptions are problematic when a 30% chunk is taken away. These companies are all on the endangered species list.
There are a lot of posts about how it costs $1 to print a magazine, etc. but none of those are taking into account expenses beyond printing. Just like people, companies have to pay bills (and people) too.
I understand what you are saying, but offer this as a response: As a consumer why should I care? I want it cheaper.
Note this response is probably why Walmart is doing so well...
Wrong again. You do realize that when you buy a magazine from a store they get some money too don't you? About 30%. Plus, there is a middle man in magazine distribution. They get paid too. So, when you add it all up, the 30% to Apple is less than they pay today.
So they FINALLY figured out no one wants to pay more for an electronic copy than a print copy. I was expects about 1/2 the cover price for electronic copy. when that did not happen I lost interrest
correct.
the cost of the mag should be lower, not higher or the same.
no paper = less cost to produce and distribute.
It's the other way around - the cover price more or less covers the cost of paper et al, and the major revenue comes off advertising. Even if it costs only 1% of the paper price to create the e-version, the firm isn't going to accept $1 or $2 from your subscription in lieu of the maybe $3-5 it makes (per copy) from selling the ad space.
The economist offers ipad access free with the print subscription, so now my print editions sits largely unread and I read it on my ipad which is always with me and up to date with latest issues even when I'm on the road, and with the latest update I can quickly start a discussion with friends on interesting articles.
I used to subscribe to wired ( 25 USD per 2 years If I recall ? ) .. and currently get the New Yorker.. but expecting you to pay 5 Dollars a issue, is a joke, with almost zero distribution costs, after the initial investment in a app platform is made, I'd expect ipad only version to be cheaper.. but even if it was the same price I'd switch.
I suspect magazine publishers are betting on the fact that we'll eventually forget how cheap printed magazine subscriptions used to be -- kind of like how we forgot that phone bills used to be around $20/month and a cup of coffee was 50 cents. When customers reject a new price point, companies simply pull back and patiently wait till our memory fades a little more.
Assuming that your numbers are correct, then why not charge $2.49/issue - 75 cents to Apple (30%) = $1.74 back to the publisher. They cover their cost and make some money. But $4.99 per issue?
If magazine publishers have existed and profited all these years there is no reason why they cannot apply the same pricing ratios to a digital format at a reduced cost (to compensate for the lack of physical printing costs). Charge a higher rate for individual issues and a reduced rate for subscriptions. The key is for them to keep it simple and not try to reinvent the wheel in terms of design/delivery. A simple .pdf style without a bunch of embedded bells and whistles seems like it would make the most sense. I can't imagine it would take that much time/money to produce digital versions so long as you're not embedding interactive froo froo crapola.On your couch at home perhaps, but how about on the train? Or on the bus? In a car? A Plane? Doctor's office? Waiting room at the mechanic? Should I keep going or
Amazing how everyone else trying to make money is "greedy" but when Apple charges a perceived premium the knee jerk response is "dont buy it troll".
Content doesnt just appear out of thin air. Creatives deserve to earn too.