May 25, 2012 - 05:30 PM EDT — AAPL: 562.29 (-3.03, -0.54%) | NASDAQ: 2837.53 (-1.85, -0.07%)

The Motley Fool’s Beyers: Apple’s iPad might be a winner for digital newspapers

Thursday, March 11, 2010 · 5:05 pm · 11 Comments

“Google’s chief economist, Hal Varian, writes in a recent blog post that readers of online newspapers spent just 70 seconds [per day] doing so, while physical newspaper subscribers spend 25 minutes per day with their favored fishwrap. Accordingly, Varian writes, less than 5% of newspapers’ ad revenue derives from their online editions,” Tim Beyers writes for The Motley Fool.

“The message? Form factor matters when it comes to attracting and keeping newspaper subscribers, and advertisers will only pay for captive readers,” Beyers writes. “Steve Jobs must love data like this. It means Apple’s forthcoming iPad and peers from Hewlett-Packard, Barnes & Noble, and Sony have a low bar to hurdle when it comes to lifting digital newspaper engagement.”

MacDailyNews Take: Tim needs to have his head checked if he really believes that whatever Hewlett-Packard, Barnes & Noble, and Sony have are “peers” to Apple’s iPad which, seriously, has no equal. Things like user interface, broadness and depth of platform, software (including how it interacts and compliments the hardware), attention to detail, third-party accessory support, etc. really do matter, Tim. It’s not just about piece of hardware that’s generally shaped like an iPad. Sheesh.

Beyers continues, “Publishers should also be happy. Even a modest uptick in engagement would allow The New York Times and others to raise digital ad rates, filling some of the crater caused by the decline of print.”

Full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader "David E." for the heads up.]

Categories: All Sites, News

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

♥ Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition DVD (65171323) only $249!
♥ Blowout: Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro i7/4Core/2.0GHz/4GB/500GB (MC721LL/A) only $1,549.99 + Free Shipping from MacMall
♥ Mac Madness Save 25% on Parallels Desktop 7!
♥ 15% Off Compatible Ink. 10% Off All Others (excludes OEMs). Free Shipping over $55. Coupon: 123BLOSSOM, Expires 6.18.12
♥ Save up to 60% at the Hammacher Schlemmer Special Values Sale-While supplies last.
♥ Dragon Dictate for Mac 2.5 - New! Simply Smarter Speech Recognition
♥ Up to 30% OFF Accessories from Verizon Wireless
♥ Limited Time Offer: Get free ZAGGsmartbuds when you buy a ZAGGsparq!

Comment Feed

11 Comments

ChrissyOne

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 6:58 pm · Reply

So I’m guessing I know what the topic was in the Motley Fool meeting room this morning…
Basil Ganglia

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:00 pm · Reply

I’m not sure he’s arguing that HP & pals are “peers” of the iPad in all respects, just that they also can display newspapers in a similar digital format — a format designed by the papers themselves. I think that might be true. Obviously, the iPad will have many unique advantages in other realms.
Predrag

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 7:15 pm · Reply

Basil Ganglia,

Not so. In another article today, Motley Fool writer argued that iPad will sink into the sea of tablet devices, once HP and others come out with Windows 7 -enabled touchscreen portables. Apparently, Motley Fool has been tasked today to do some major astroturfing on behalf of HP.
spatlantean

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 8:40 pm · Reply

1 more day till preorder! I can’t wait. I’ll take 3 please, 32 gig wifi only
Rot'nApple

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 9:23 pm · Reply

“Beyers continues, “Publishers should also be happy. Even a modest uptick in engagement would allow The New York Times and others to raise digital ad rates, filling some of the crater caused by the decline of print.”"

The jury is still out on whether receiving newspapers or magazines in digital format will increase as the decline of print continues.

I have in mind why I am getting the iPad and what specifically I’d be using it. And who knows, maybe some iPad apps will increase the functionality by adding more value, but, in my case, I’m not getting it just to get a digital format of some newspaper or magazine subscription that I currently have or don’t have.

I personally believe the iPad is not the Holy Grail to stop the hemorrhaging of print media IF the media goes to the iPad by offering a subscription by subscription basis for individual content. I don’t buy the New York Times newspaper because I know what I would be getting. If I avoid the print version because of personal preferences, going digital won’t cause those preferences to change just because it is now “Made for iPad”! And another person could say the same thing about the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post or USA Today, or TIME, or Newsweek, or People, Sports Illustrated or Oprah, or what have you.

But if each of these “content players” that offer an iPad subscription would be smart and ‘pooled’ their content collectively and sold tiered content subscriptions. I might be interesting in checking out something I otherwise would have had no use for and would not have subscribed to. One price and you can choose “x” amount of content from the pool, a higher “x” amount gives you even more selections of content, etc. If one had to pay a rate for this subscription and then another rate for that subscription, pretty soon they will have maxed out their ability to “buy” into subscription services. If one liked the NY Times in print, they would probably be the ones to cancel print and subscribe digitally and the same for others who cancel their print subscription version of their favorite magazine or newspaper in favor of keeping it by subscribing to the digital format. But if one had to pay a subscription for every content provider every time they turned around, they would be going for what they know and like versus not trying something they don’t know or know and don’t care to subscribe to. It all depends on whether the subscription content providers do it smart or get out of the Titanic (a sinking condition) and into the Lusitania (and be torpedoed by their dumb choices).

It’s up to them. In the meantime, I’ll be enjoying my iPad, my first ever Apple mobile platform device regardless of how the content subscription battle plays out.
aka Christian

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 9:38 pm · Reply

I foresee newspapers breaking up their departments and selling only the parts people want to read ala carte. I only want local and entertainment. You may only want sports and business. Why have to pay for the whole dang thing? Just like cable television, most of us just want to pay for the parts we use. In the digital age, why can’t we?
Artist

Thursday, March 11, 2010 - 10:17 pm · Reply

I’m watching the Incredibles, anyone else notice the iPad in the movie?
Macrelated

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 12:33 am · Reply

@Rot’nApple

I disagree that people who don’t subscribe to a print newspaper (or magazine) now won’t subscribe to the digital version.

One reason I don’t subscribe to some newspapers currently is that, by the time the print edition arrives it is “old” news in a bulky format that I have to dispose of. A digital format allows for more current stories and updates with better images along with videos. I can just delete it when I am done. No trees or ink wasted. Less energy to produce. Breaking news more timely and done better. I don’t have to cancel the paper if I am away. The digital version will be less expensive and more competitively priced in some cases. It also provides an opportunity for newcomers to compete with old line publications in another format.

Those make it more attractive to me.
SixnaHalfFeet

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 1:52 am · Reply

@Artist
woa – anything we can learn from “Up”?
byronic

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 3:10 am · Reply

@Rot’nApple

I agree, but for a different reason – I cannot subscribe to a print edition of the NY Times or WSJ because they are not printed in Australia. Despite their childish editorials, the WSJ provides very good financial news. I can elect to avoid the right wing nonsense and get only the news. The NY Times is currently free – I read less of it because their site is less well organised than the WSJ. I also read the Economist – as good for Euro news as the WSJ is for American news (and without the childish editorials – though still right wing). I sometimes read the Sunday Times online – though it has de-intellectualised itself to the point that it might as well be a print edition of Fox News. Which, I suppose, it is – since they are both owned by Murdoch.

But the author of the article is making a good point. An iPad is a good vehicle for a “full newspaper experience” in a way that an iPhone (with its tiny screen and clumsy scrolling isn’t).

I also agree with Rot’nApple – though I would suggest that news consolidators, such as MDN, already provide a filtered view of news from many sources.

@aka Christian: just local news and entertainment? I wonder then whether you excuse yourself from any debate on national or world events, government policies or politics in general? Do you vote? I should hope not…
Derek Currie

Friday, March 12, 2010 - 4:19 am · Reply

“iPad might be a winner for digital newspapers”

Oh wow. Hadn’t thought of that. That prediction is worthy of Bill Gates! This Beyers guy must be another genius.

Seriously. What is it with The Motley Fool living up to their ‘Fool’ name lately? Do these guys ever say anything of any importance?