Like a lot of people, I was really excited about the potential availability of quality magazine content on the iPad. The iPad presented a terrific portability and access to quality writing without killing a bunch of trees. Even the publishers were looking forward to the iPad as some kind of industry savior.
Unfortunately, 90 days after the iPad’s debut, I see a big disconnect between what publishers want to charge and what users are willing to pay.
First, let’s clarify something for the consumers. It is a gross misconception to assume that all publishing costs magically disappear with the advent of the iPad app for any specific magazine. It is simply not true that publishers are “saving on print costs, retail space, cost of paying staff and contributing writers” or on anything else. The publishers’ costs remain the same (or may even increase for a time) because they are still printing a version of their magazine for current subscribers.
Additional costs are related to actually creating the app, selling the ad space, and on and on. Yes, eventually these costs will be amortized, but initially they can be quite high.
As the sale of an iPad app or subscription relates to the publishers, know this: If publishers want to actually drive customers to the iPad version of their magazine, they must first offer the app for free. An alternative to this option would be the cost of the app as the annual subscription price. However, I have no expertise in how subscriptions might be renewed using this method.
Also, an app clearly marked as $11.88, for example ($0.99 per month subscription), is probably less attractive to iTunes customers than a free app with a clearly stated $11.88 annual subscription cost.
Another important point I would like to make here is that users of electronic magazine versions will not and should never be expected to pay the same as a print subscription. If a print magazine subscriber wants to convert their current subscription to an electronic version, they should be able to. Whether it’s on the web or through a reader device (iPad, Kindle, or other), that subscriber should be able to convert the subscription for the remainder of the year they have already paid for. They simply will no longer receive the print version.
After their print subscription runs out, the subscriber would be able to renew their subscription at the reader-app subscription price. Same great content for consumers, ad sales dollars and reasonable subscription fees for publishers, and no dead trees.
Publishers’ biggest disconnect is, I believe, in thinking that they are going to save costs right off the bat. They will not convert all of their customers to the electronic reader version of their magazine immediately. What is impressive now is the new opportunity to get their magazine to 3 million potential customers. I am one of them.
Over the years, I have ended a large number of print subscriptions for the simple fact that I hate the waste of such a huge volume of paper month after month. I would love to have the opportunity to get reasonably priced subscriptions to Wired, Fast Company, Consumer Reports, and yes, Cook’s Illustrated and Gourmet. I’ve even dreamed of a conversion app wherein I can click on a recipe in the electronic version of a magazine and have that downloaded into a recipe collection app right on my iPad.
Someday! In the meantime, perhaps publishers should start polling iPad users to see what they are willing to pay for the electronic content. One of the first apps I downloaded was the New York Times. Originally, it was rumored that NYT would charge more for the iPad subscription than for the print and web combined subscription. The app is now free. The content is amazing, the ads are clearly selling. And you know what? This newly hooked customer would happily pay a $12-a-year subscription for it. How about the rest of you 2,999,999 iPad users?
No comments yet.