Peter Kafka

Recent Posts by Peter Kafka

Apple Brings Conde Nast Aboard the Subscription Bandwagon, Starting With the New Yorker

Apple is winning over the big publishers. Last week, Hearst Corp. said it planned to start selling its magazines using Apple’s new iTunes subscription service. Now rival Conde Nast is actually doing it, via the publisher’s New Yorker title.

An updated version of that magazine’s iPad app lets users subscribe to the weekly magazine for $5.99 a month, or the equivalent of a $1.50 an issue. That’s a steep discount from the app’s old model, which only sold individual issues for $4.99 a pop.

Conde Nast is selling an annual subscription to the iPad app for $59.99; a yearly subscription to the print version of the magazine costs $69.95. Very important: Conde says print subscribers will get iPad access for free.

At least, I think that’s the case. I’m basing all of this off the New Yorker app’s description in iTunes, but I haven’t been able to get the updated app to work yet on my iPad. The information syncs up, though, with what both AdAge and the New York Post reported last week. (UPDATE: After some futzing about, I’ve got it to work, as advertised. The app still allows you to buy an individual copy for $4.99.)

Assuming Hearst goes through with its plans, Time Warner’s Time Inc. will be the most conspicuous magazine holdout. Time Inc. and Apple just agreed to a deal that allows print subscribers to get app versions of Sports Illustrated, Fortune and Time for free, but they still haven’t agreed to subscription terms–which they’ve been stuck on since last summer.

Other big print publishers who have agreed to Apple’s terms include the New York Times, which has said it will start using iTunes to sell subscriptions in June. In February, Conde also announced it would sell digital editions of its magazines for Google’s Android platform, but has yet to do so.

Publishers–and other media companies–have previously balked at both Apple’s proposed cut–it will take 30 percent of each sale–and its control of subscriber data, including credit card information.

But it’s possible that Apple has backed off some of its original terms. Last week Hearst suggested it had gotten Apple to modify at least some of its conditions. And if that’s the case then Apple may be offering revised terms to all subscription partners. I’ve asked Apple and Conde Nast for comment.

The notion of iPad apps enthralled magazine executives a year ago, but sales have been underwhelming for many titles. One common complaint: Publishers have sold the digital titles at the same price as paper-and-ink versions, while most customers have expected to buy them at a steep discount, and to get them free with existing subscriptions.

Now that big publishers are starting to actually do just that, we’ll see if sales improve.

UPDATE: Just got some clarity on the agreement Conde hammered out with Apple. Apple’s fundamental proposition hasn’t changed, but the publisher has gotten a few concessions out of Steve Jobs and Co. Examples via people familiar with the publisher:

  • Apple still controls crucial subscriber information, and only allows Conde Nast to ask for name, zip and email. But the publisher now has two chances to ask for user’s email: The first as a standard opt-in screen, and then again on a screen that asks for email and a password in order to get exclusive content.
  • Conde has more flexibility on pricing than Apple originally offered. For instance, at one point, Apple didn’t want the publisher to be able to offer a print+digital bundle at a $10 premium to digital-only, but wanted all prices to be the same (which they will be when GQ offers subscriptions later this month: $19.99 a year for digital-only, or digital + print).
  • The agreement extends to international markets, etc.

Small stuff, but important to the publisher. Meanwhile, Apple gets what it wants without giving up much it cares about. Steve Jobs wins.


comments so far. Add yours.

  • http://www.about.me/liamdaly Liam

    So I hope Wired now becomes free for print subscribers as it is bloody annoying having to purchase something twice if I want to read it on my iPad with interactive media.

  • http://www.informationworkshop.org Mark Hernandez

    Yay, New Yorker! Tablet customers do not want to feel like they’re being ripped off when EVERYONE knows that electronic delivery is cheaper and greener and having to pay more for that is a direct insult. I hope we’re turning the corner on all that.

  • Anonymous

    Should be very interesting to see how that turns out.

    http://www.totally-anon.at.tc

  • http://twitter.com/markmcc Mark McClusky

    It will be free for print subscribers, starting in June.

  • http://twitter.com/CamilloMiller Camillo Miller

    Fatality?

  • http://www.informationworkshop.org Mark Hernandez

    Isn’t it interesting how initially big publishers charged more than print, got a poor response, and now are playing along with Apple and the consumer? Things that make you go “hmmmmm.”

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

    They charged more or same as print in part because they were holding out for the ability to sell subscriptions, which Apple actually hindered until recently.

  • http://twitter.com/tobico Tobias Cohen

    You get your content inked onto pages made from felled trees, and delivered right to your door at significant environmental cost, and you don’t even want to read it that way? If you don’t want it in print, don’t get it in print. I can’t understand your position at all.

  • http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/baudis.html Michael Baudis

    Actually, The New Yorker’s original (high) pricing was introduced after Apple enabling subscriptions. The outcry was about Conde Nast not using this opportunity for some reasonable model, like they do now.

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

    Nope.

  • Anonymous

    Your second point on the Update makes no sense. Conde Nast is not being given more flexibility by Apple on pricing Print+Digital. The problem here is with the ‘premium’ word: “Apple didn’t want the publisher to be able to offer a print+digital bundle at a $10 premium to digital-only, but wanted all prices to be the same” Depending on what you mean by ‘premium’. Apple will not let CN sell the combo at $10 less than the digital. This would be a ‘premium’ for the consumer and it might be something that CN would like to do (that way they control the cheapest price) but Apple wont let them do it. So the ‘concession’ of “allowing” CN to price the Print+Digital at the same level as digital only, is already within Apple’s rules and is not a concession. Apple no doubt does not want all prices to be the same, but would be happier if CN priced the digital-only at a discount to the print, but if CN chooses to make digital-only the same price as digital+print that has always been within the letter of the Apple rules. As of course has the option of pricing at Digital+$10, which would be the normal way of understanding ‘premium’ in your sentence. Apple is not giving flexibility here.

Google’s Cable TV Lineup: A Wishlist

February 22, 2012 at 3:29 pm PT

Hello, Goodbye. That Will Be $1.29.

February 22, 2012 at 6:30 am PT

Resonate Raises $22 Million for “Values” Ads

February 22, 2012 at 4:00 am PT

Sponsored Topic

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

Hon Hai has a workforce of over one million worldwide, and as human beings are also animals, to manage one million animals gives me a headache.

— Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou, who went on to say that he wants to learn from the director of Taipei Zoo regarding how animals should be managed