Apple, Publishers Still Miles Apart on iTunes Subscriptions

I guess I don’t understand their sticking points well enough. If you can do in-app sales and if Apple indeed does add the in-app ‘push’ for new issues, and they can opt-in to collect the customer contact info … what difference does it make if they don’t have the credit card info in hand? Of course, they always want as much as they can get, but really, seems like a good deal for them for a simple and effective distribution system. Also, they don’t like Apple getting 30%? What does it cost them now for printing and distribution?

… because, like, you know, magazine publishers are in such a powerful position right now. And they have such a viable revenue model. And there are so many Android iPad alternatives available. “No, I don’t want that life raft because it’s the wrong color.”

As a publisher myself it is helpful to have “statistical information” on subscribers, such as address, income information, some of which is inferred by the type of credit card they use, and some by using known information to use data miners to associate the remainder. One thing Apple could do is rather than tendering the data, tender the answers they require, included in the 30% price because it is a software application. Given Apple tends to release “features” a bit at a time, it may simply be a matter of Version 2 or 3 of the system to really get all the “services” the publishers rightly require.

The legacy publishers who are spending their time arguing over these points are simply missing opportunities. Print distributors charge 50% to publishers to get copies out to newsstands and retailer who sell the magazines don’t share customer data (if they have it)

New models are appearing all the time – FlipBoard and Pulse are two great examples. Brands are looking more and more to customer publishing opportunities and may simply bypass the traditional publishers. The jury is still out if the repeat audience for traditional magazines on an iPad / media tablet is that large.

This is now a customer centric world not a publisher centric world – publishers need to take the best of their brand and look distribute the right content within an great user interface and experience taking account of the environment in which the consumer is engaging with the content – print, mobile phones, mobile tablets and even the TV are all very different environments – but to date the emphasis has been for publishers to take a print magazine and try and fit it into an iPad – I’m not convinced that is the correct approach. Instead publishers have a great opportunity to take trusted brands and to expand their reach and deliver content in new and exciting ways to expanded audiences. It will require some bold moves. The clock is ticking. I don’t think Apple believes the traditional magazine category is important enough to change their business terms – as much as publishers would like to believe otherwise. However, the opportunity for publishers on media tablets is very significant but it may require completely new models.

There is a third subscription option not mentioned (that never seems to get mentioned):

Send the user to the publisher’s website to pay for a subscription which is then delivered to the user’s app. This is what Zinio does. And the The Economist. This allows publishers to keep 100% of subscription fee and get all the user data.

Why is this option never mentioned in these “publishers won’t accept Apple’s terms” pieces. I’d really like to know from the publishers why they won’t do this third option.

What is the problem? Seems like a simple choice: If you want to sell subscriptions through iTunes (using customers’ apple ID’s and linked credit cards) then you take the terms of 70% and limited subscriber access.

But if you don’t want to do that, no problem. Just send the user to your website from the app and sell the subscription yourself.

Why is their solution to have NO subscriptions at all and just sit on their hands? And why do they think it will be any different on Android? From what I’ve seen of the Android store it will be very difficult to do in-store subscriptions in the way they are talking about.

Again, the solution will be to have people pay online at their own website and then deliver the issues to the app on their phone/tablet.

That’s why Android is supposedly taking over the world. The media is fabricating all kinds of figures and FUD to:

1) make it appear as the Android phones are popular so you should go out & buy one;

2) make the two platforms appear equal when in fact they’re far from equal

3) give the impression that every developer that developed a popular iphone app will develop the same Android app.

4) overlook the half baked tablets like the Samsung’s Galaxy & Dell Streak- like these things are buggy and really for the market.

Addressable device delivery stats, are the benefit of the advertiser as much as the publication. There are some people in apple that think iAds inside national brand publications is even viable, while at the same time others act like privacy managed stuff like creditcard on file is a serious resonant feature based on trust that cannot be abrogated by the likes of some interested publishers.
They are both less than half right and the vast majority of important dollars is on the impact to ad revenue management.

Peter, correct, we’re totally browser-based. I hope that you’ll take a look at the first issue we published since the introduction of our browser at http://bit.ly/igPCsD (I think you’ll find page 7 especially interesting).

We can adapt our software for many revenue scenarios, including pay walls and subscription sign ups. Right now that’s not a priority for Automotive Traveler because we believe that our publication will have to be supported by traditional display-type magazine advertising, adapted to our horizontal orientation. (A traditional double-page spread translates to a single page in our format as on page 8. A traditional full-page vertical ad translates to a half-page ad in our format as seen on page 23. This keeps things simple for advertisers who are used to advertising in print.)

Beyond the simple fact that we’re designed from the ground up to be presented on computer, laptop, and netbook screens as well as tablets oriented horizontally, one of the advantages we offer is simplicity in production and speed in presentation. It’s a very magazine-like presentation that can be viewed on almost any device. And if the device features a screen nine inches or larger, each page can be “read” without zooming or scrolling.

We’re a small publisher and my background is primarily as an editor of print publications. With this print perspective and POV I believe many readers want a simple, intuitive interface without the interference of too many bells and whistles except for where they enhance, rather than get in the way of the content. I’m watching carefully the reaction to Branson’s Project. From what I’ve seen, the initial reactions to Project are mixed. I’m certain that each coming issue will address feedback they receive. But it is a decidedly different and less-inclusive approach than ours.

Richard Truesdell
Editorial Director, automotivetraveler.com
Partner, BCT Publishing

Zinio is fantastic. Subscriptions go to a centralized place, are easily manageable on device and web, are less expensive than the print version in most cases and all magazines use the same elegant user interface.

The issue here is the publishers are trying to position themselves to profit more on digital subscriptions than print ones, that are a fraction of the cost to produce.

The customer should be the focus, if sales are the desired outcome and Zinio does that quite well.