Peter Kafka

Recent Posts by Peter Kafka

Time Inc.'s iPad Problem Is Trouble for Every Magazine Publisher

Time Inc. likes to show off its iPad apps as a symbol of the company’s future. But inside the publisher, the digital editions have become a source of hair-pulling frustration.

That’s because the magazine giant has been unable to get Apple to let it sell and manage subscriptions for its iPad apps–much to Time Inc.’s surprise.

Last month, the publisher was set to launch a subscription version of its Sports Illustrated iPad app, where consumers would download the magazines via Apple’s iTunes but would pay Time Inc. directly. But Apple rejected the app at the last minute, forcing the Time Warner (TWX) unit to sell single copies, using iTunes as a middleman, multiple sources tell me.

Since then, Time Inc. executives “have been going nuts,” trying to figure out how to get Apple (AAPL) to approve a subscription plan. One of the more desperate suggestions, which apparently didn’t get traction: Pulling the publisher’s apps out of the iTunes store altogether.

Subscriptions, whether they’re for ink-and-paper magazines or their digital editions, are a big deal for Time Inc. and every other magazine publisher. They value them in part because they provide recurring revenue, but primarily because they provide a treasure trove of data.

The ability to control digital subscriptions also gives publishers the ability to make their existing print subscriptions more valuable, by bundling the two together. Imagine a scenario where existing Time or Sports Illustrated subs get the digital version free, or at a very steep discount.

No other magazine publisher has approval sell their own iTunes app subscriptions, either. But Apple and Steve Jobs had made a point of reaching out to Time Inc. executives and editors before the iPad’s launch, and encouraged them to build digital editions for the platform.

And Time Inc. executives tell me they had been communicating with Apple throughout the spring as they developed their subscription plans, and had been told that Apple approved.

So what happened? The Time Inc. insiders I talked to don’t have a clear answer, presumably because they can’t get one from Apple itself. One theory: Apple is concerned about the publisher’s plans for the consumer data it would collect with each subscription. A darker one: Steve Jobs loves the idea of digital magazines and wants to control the market for himself.

Time Inc.’s official comment on the topic is oblique: “We are working with a number of partners and potential partners and hope to offer in-app subscriptions some time later this year.” And so is Apple’s: “We have two platforms that we support for apps of all types, including magazines: HTML5 provides an open platform for developers to create and distribute whatever they want, and the App Store which is a curated platform offering customers the largest offering of apps for any mobile device with over 225,000 apps and 5 billion downloads.”

Confusing the issue even more is that Apple already allows a handful of app makers–like Amazon (AMZN) and the Wall Street Journal, which like this Web site is owned by News Corp. (NWS)–to bill customers directly. Amazon itself, meanwhile, has been sparring with publishers over subscriptions for its Kindle platform. Jeff Bezos keeps most of the data and money that those transactions generate, too.

Industry trade magazine Folio: first reported on the Sports Illustrated app’s rejection.

As far as I can tell, Time Inc.’s competitors have yet to even submit subscription apps to Apple. Hearst says it plans to sell iPad subscriptions to its Esquire and Oprah magazine apps when they debut later this year, but they’re not really subscriptions in a conventional sense. Instead, the publisher will sell a bundle of magazines as a one-time purchase, and iTunes will keep 30 percent of the purchase price and all of the billing data.

Hearst Magazines Executive Vice President John Loughlin says he’s not happy about the arrangement, but says it will have to do for now. He hopes that competition from the likes of Google (GOOG), which has announced plans to sell its own magazine apps, will force Apple to relent.

Condé Nast, meanwhile, hasn’t talked about subscription plans except to acknowledge that it has some. Newly appointed President Bob Sauerberg says the company may have more to say about the matter within a month. But others at the company say the problem is a vexing one. One executive at the publisher offers this summary: “Don’t get me started.”


comments so far. Add yours.

  • http://www.digitaltonto.com Greg Satell

    I’m a big Apple fan (as well as a shareholder), but I really don’t see how the company benefits from the ire Steve Jobs provokes.

    It doesn’t help them build better products or win them new fans, it just ensures that when they eventually stumble (and everybody does in time) everybody will be aligned against them.

    In fact, it seems eerily similar to the behavior that got him into trouble 25 years ago. For anybody interested, I wrote about it here: http://www.digitaltonto.com/20.....teve-jobs/

    - Greg

  • http://michaelkpate.com Michael K Pate

    Maybe Steve Jobs prefers the web versions to the magazine apps?

    http://mediamemo.allthingsd.co.....-approval/

    And hasn’t Condé Nast had their own problems with Apple?

    http://mediamemo.allthingsd.co.....-magazine/

    http://mediamemo.allthingsd.co.....rsion-2-0/

    http://mediamemo.allthingsd.co.....the-teeth/

  • http://twitter.com/murphymac MurphyMac

    Very interesting – and very difficult to see how Time could be so deep in the dark given their coverage of Apple in the past.

  • http://twitter.com/lafemmefollette Elle

    I don't understand, Peter: Why do publishers want to sell magazines as apps through the iTunes store? Why can't they just get everything they want by developing a GUI for a digital subscriber that makes use of the iPad's graphical functionality but just uses a web connection and also goes through their data-mining process?

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    They do want to sell digital mags through other venues — Google, for instance, and they're partners in a joint venture which is supposed to create a sales outlet owned by several big publishers.

    But: For now, and for the foreseeable future, digital magazine market = iPad app, and only way to get onto iPad is via iTunes.

  • http://twitter.com/dpgj dpgj

    A brighter answer: Apple does not have any idea how to make subscription works without impact to the App Store model. On the other hand, there is API for in-App-purchase, or one can fire up web page or download updated content inside the App, which mean in-App-subscription is technically feasible even without Apple's help.

  • http://twitter.com/ntrienens Nathanial Trienens

    Isn't the Wall Street Journal iPad app essentially offering a subscription model and using their own payment gateway to transact it? Any idea what the difference is here in Apple's eyes?

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    That's exactly what the Time Inc. folks asked Apple.

  • http://medialoper.com/ Kirk Biglione

    Also, Amazon is not selling Kindle books through the Kindle App. Users are redirected to the Kindle store on the Amazon website to make the purchase.

  • http://medialoper.com/ Kirk Biglione

    But that’s not the way the Kindle app works. Transactions take place *outside* of the app on the Amazon website.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3R5XFGDBT2PF22D2XHEPZOFKDY Marcos

    I am an Apple fan. Have been for 20 years. I really do not like content creators being bullied by distributors. Digital was supposed to change this and I am surprised Apple is not helping the matter.

  • JamesKatt

    The publishers can create an app – much like the Kindle app. It is simple. Amazon cut out Apple as the middle man for books bought through the Kindle service. Time can do the same.

    Within the app, for example, Time can show a webkit-based browser that directs the user to Time's own special website so that the user can then purchase subscriptions for the magazine on that website. The subscription information is then both shown and emailed to the users a a receipt. The subscription information is then captured by the the app.

    This allows the app to then download individual editions of the magazine to their magazine app, just like the Kindle app does.

    Then everyone is happy. The user purposely gives their data to Time via an online website. They can then download to their magazine app's directory the magazine, which they can read via the app. Time can then track their subscriptions.

  • zato

    It seems to me that magazine publishers want “business as usual”. They want that subscriber list because there is big money in selling it, I would guess. It may be their big money maker. The magazine is just the lure, to get the big list they sell to marketers who fill your mailbox with junk mail and call you at supper time.

  • RayzorAim

    Time Inc's mission is to continuously grow the subscription bases of its portfolio of magazines, thus maintaining a steady stream of revenue. They seek innovative, financially advantageous (to Time Inc) channels of distribution…who has been in a Best Buy only to be hit up by the cashier with a 6 – 12 month subscription for only $X. The costs are minimal but the potential revenues are huge for Time Inc. Even if the cost per transaction are slightly more by distributing via iTunes, scale will lower those cost per transaction in the long run thus making the investment very profitable to Time Inc. It will just take a little longer to realize those profits.

  • rbradbury

    And if Apple refuses to allow this app?

  • http://mturro.com mturro

    “download the magazines via Apple’s iTunes, but would pay Time Inc. directly.”

    Maybe this has something to do with it? I would imagine that other apps that do have in app shopping that they control (Wall Street Journal, Zinio, Amazon, etc) are serving up the purchased content and handling all the transactional and customer info through their own infrastructure. Sounds like maybe Time is trying to get off on the cheap by using Apple's infrastructure, but pocket all the data and money.

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    No, that's the point of the story. Apple didn't allow Time to structure an app this way, even though it does so for other developers, including Amazon and the WSJ.

  • kylekramer

    I pretty sure music labels could have told Time this was coming.

  • http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

    In-app purchase already includes a subscription function, although it's primarily designed for access to features rather than delivery of individual content packages (“issues”) over time. However, you could use it to do so.

    The big issue isn't subscriptions, though, but ownership of customer data: Apple's in-app purchasing keeps all the customer data to itself, sharing nothing with the vendor. For magazines, which thrive on customer data, this is a big issue.

    The reason that print magazine subscriptions are so much cheaper than individual issues is purely down to this data. The more you know about the demographics of your readers the higher your advertising page rates. No data, no discount on subscriptions.

  • http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

    From what I've heard from developer/Apple sources, the (unwritten) rule appears to be that if you're selling content that's already being sold in the same form, and you're using your own existing back-end fulfillment system, Apple will be OK with it. So Amazon is selling the same Kindle-format books, with its existing back end, so that's OK. The FT has an existing subscription system, which is selling access to the same content, so that's OK.

    What they don't want you to do is to build a new fulfillment system just for content which is only delivered by iPad/iPhone – effectively, replicating the features that are already available via in-app purchasing.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZSTMCVBYDFCCRJUGMBOLW57MSI Tony D

    Doesn't Apple need Time and other content creators to really sell the iPad to the mainstream? Eventually as pointed out by other commenters Apple will not be the show in town. I think a 5 year forward view of the porters 5 forces model would be interesting in this space

  • intosh

    As the, now popular, saying goes: you gotta be flexible when dealing with Apple, because you have to bend over often.

  • http://mturro.com mturro

    The question of whether or not Apple's position here is wise is debatable – I surely don't really know or have an opinion on that. Though it's hard to argue with their logic based on past performance.

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    I think you're on to something, Ian – I've heard the “existing system” argument as well. But that seems a little arbitrary — why are systems built prior to the iPad launch OK, but not new ones? More practically, if that is really Apple's stance, why be crystal-clear to all publishers in advance, and let them know they won't be able to move forward with sub plans?

  • http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

    James, that's precisely what Time was trying to do. It's also something that's explicitly forbidden by the iOS Developer agreement, unless you have Apple's prior written permission – which obviously Amazon (and the FT) have got.

  • http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/ PKafka

    Yes, nicely put.

  • jsmith1234

    To the contrary, avoiding Apple's in-app purchasing would save Time the 30 percent of the sale they have to kick to Apple. The question is whether Apple would approve such a system (the answer appears to be no), and how many potential subscribers you lose by forcing them to re-enter payment information on a web page as opposed the one-click buy of an in-app purchase.

  • http://www.technovia.co.uk Ian Betteridge

    It's not about selling it – it's about understanding the demographics of your readership in order to increase the page rates of your ads. If you know who your readers are, you can charge a premium for advertising to reach those readers. If you don't, you can't, and you have low-yield ads.

    This is especially important to magazines like (say) Vanity Fair, which sell ads on the basis of reaching a high-value, high-spend audience.

  • http://mturro.com mturro

    @PKafka – I imagine the problem is with systems built for the specific and only purpose of bypassing iTunes in-app purchasing.

  • Ted_T

    There may be a pro consumer way of reading this: what WSJ, FT, etc. have in common is a paywall that affects everyone equally.

    What Apple is trying to avoid is charging iPad users for data that non-iPad users are getting for free?

  • rbradbury

    @Pkafka – longer term, Apple wants to be the gatekeeper. It can't yet overturn the FT or the Journal's subscription mechanisms (two of the only digital subscriptions to have any success), but it can say that new entrants must play by Apple's new rules.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_O7U774NU4AR2G62E3JQFNKLT3E BertC

    Magazine subscriptions already exist in the App Store. Take a look at Zinio.

  • rbradbury

    Nope. People have an infinity of web-based content to access on their iPads. Apple could care less which publishers survive the current industry meltdown and which die out. For now Apple holds all the cards, and even after cheaper Android tablets start appearing, it will still be a long time before the Android Marketplace [tablet] revenue opportunity comes close to that the App Store [iPad].

  • Anonymous

    You’re surprised?? I’m not, the writing has been on the wall for a long fracking time. Apple wants to own the whole fracking channel from top to bottom. The only thing they won’t own is the consumer.

  • Anonymous

    And who gets this written permission??? Multi-billion dollar companies I am assuming.

  • http://twitter.com/Luminence Luminence

    I think their design is flawed from the start. What they needed to have done is design a universal GUI that can load magazine issues as data content. What they did is that for every issue, an app is created. very wrong concept. There’s nothing like magazine market = iPad app. It’s the way they built their technology model; too rigid.

  • rbradbury

    But will these take off in time, before most traditional media outlets go out of business? Most consumers seem to have no interest in paying for reading material. I think we'll have to wait a couple of years: 80% of old-school pubs will be dead, and among quality outlets it will be “last men standing”. Only when the supply side contracts drastically will widespread paywalls be viable. Today, with so much content for free, it is almost impossible to upsell consumers on paid apps on a consistent basis.

  • http://twitter.com/empg Jeanniey Mullen

    Peter,

    Zinio has been on the iPad with 2400 titles since day 1, happily selling subs and single issues. Apple has been very aware. In fact, we are seeing 80% of our sales are for subscirptions. Seems like there is a whole new area of opportunity here.

  • http://twitter.com/stanford37b Stan Friedman

    It's just the digital gods' way of punishing them for pulling their content off of Nexis and Factiva.

  • http://twitter.com/lafemmefollette Elle

    Ok, but what I really don’t understand, Peter, is how the entire digital-magazine market can be borne aloft on a gadget that did not exist one year ago. It seems the entire, legitimate purpose of the internet is to deliver content directly to a consumer, and magazines are much more well-positioned to pull this off than book publishers — who are dealing with someone else’s content — and the publishers of news dailies.

    I feel like I must be missing some vital nugget of cultural-industrial information (and am asking you to offer it, if you have such) that explains how something so simple has been made so complex. I mean, people want to read things on the internet, on their desktops, on their handhelds of all sizes, so why wouldn’t a smart publisher hire a development team to make their website bring their content for a payinf readership, without all the porting ephemerality of an “app.” They could call it a “blog” if they thought that would make it more appealing. [insert sly, winking emoticon.]

  • http://twitter.com/Luminence Luminence

    Then make the app launch an external safari browser, capture payment and relaunch the app, which will connect to server and verify your subscription against your email or something and download an issue for you.

    I feel their structure is just faulty and they’ve depended too rigidly on apple and it’s backfiring.

  • http://twitter.com/lafemmefollette Elle

    This is kind of heavy on the jargon, Mr Betteridge (no offense), but it answers the question I hold before falling into the canyon of total nerdout. (As above.) Thanks to you.

  • rbradbury

    I'm curious, Jeanniey: does Zinio disclose revenues/subscriber numbers? I hope you succeed but fear the iPad is not the silver bullet publishers were hoping for.

  • eur

    Nonsense. Zinio sells digital magazine subs, bypassing iTunes Store.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y4AJEC7WSC22KKCYIH6ANZ43CM Mile L.

    My sense is Steve is waiting for the big September iTunes event to finally bring electronic “subscriptions” to the masses. Apple has been slow to mechanize magazines into the iTunes datastream. I blame Steve for most of that, but it's more of a tactical move than technical. Sadly, we are going to lose most pulp based magazine over the next 10 years no matter how this turns out… But on the bright side, the iPad is wonderful, so let's hold on as the transition to digital continues.

  • peteo

    It sounds like time inc wants to use apples built in system to have user purchase subscriptions with out the 30% apple fee. If Time, like zinio, amazon, wsj made the user buy their subscript from the times web site, and then have them log into the app, I'm sure apple would not stop them

  • http://twitter.com/kptkarl Karl Sandin

    Why do they use apps vs. iBooks, Kindle or something similar for magazines? I don't like the magazine app magazine. Would rather it have pages to flip and such. Would the epub format not be easier to port existing content too. Or an HTML5 site that requires subscription. Bypass the over blown/crowded app store.

  • JohnDoey

    What decade will it be when print people stop inventing new ways to stab themselves in the eyes? These people have college degrees, right?

    I have a Netflix app I got from App Store and I have a Netflix subscription. What is so hard?

    Or they could sell a year of TIME in one app. If you want $30 per year you do this:

    TIME 2010 – $30

    And inside the app you have a list with all 56 issues in it that lets you choose which issue you want to read, just like an email app has a list of message to read. The issues that are in the future are grayed out. When each new issue is available, the app downloads it automatically and puts a badge on the app showing there is a new issue to be read, same as an email app shows unread messages. If you want user data, offer to send them a free gift and take their information within the app. Just like you have a subscription card in the print edition. Or put an iAd in the app and get their information that way.

    If you can't make money in App Store then you truly deserve to go out of business. These are desktop class native C apps with extremely sophisticated user interfaces and connectivity. You can show a Web browser view at any time. The sky is the limit. There are more users with an iOS device than all of the newspaper subscribers in the United States. Man up and get it done! Sheesh.

  • http://twitter.com/HarryMonmouth Ro Atkinson

    The answer is simple, charge a premium above the print magazine price to account for Apple's cut and give reduced prices for any electronic versions on platforms that do not charge Time for the pleasure. Other magazines would follow suit if they had any sense and Apple would have to relent, Apple are just bluffing because they aspire to megalomania.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZSTMCVBYDFCCRJUGMBOLW57MSI Tony D

    @rbradbury I guess that is my point about Apple holding all the cards FOR NOW. I remember a time that if you wanted a computer with a decent web browser and operating system you had 1 option too. I am not advocating that Apple give the store away, but it is clear that they are creating a market opportunity that a competitor will surely grab. The growth of the Android Marketplace will be something to watch. Every week I see a new Android device appearing.

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

When I first heard about Facebook, in 2005, I thought it was really stupid. And the same with eBay 20 years earlier.

— Reed Hastings, in a talk with Wired staff at its London offices