“Time magazine has signed up Unilever, Toyota Motor , Fidelity Investments and at least three others for marketing agreements priced at about $200,000 apiece for a single ad spot in each of the first eight issues of the magazine’s iPad edition, according to people familiar with the matter,” Ovide and Vranica report. “At Condé Nast Publications, Wired magazine is offering different levels of ad functionality depending on how many pages of ads a marketer buys, according to a person familiar with the matter. Advertisers that agree to buy eight pages of ads in a single issue of Wired magazine will be able to lace video and other extra features through the iPad version, say people familiar with the matter.”
“Time Inc.’s Sport Illustrated has been showing advertisers three video-heavy ad prototypes, including one for a Ford Mustang that includes an arcade-style driving game using the tilt-and-turn capability of the iPad. With a few touches to the screen, readers can pick paint colors and wheel styles for cars they might want to buy,” Ovide and Vranica report. “‘Some of the things you can do are just mind blowing,’ says Steve Pacheco, FedEx’s director of advertising. ‘You are taking something that used to be flat on a page and making it interactive and have it jump off the page.'”
“It’s unclear how many iPad magazine editions will be for sale when the tablet launches. It appears none of the biggest magazine publishers in the U.S. have been allowed to use actual iPad devices to test their applications before launch, relying instead on Apple-supplied simulators,” Ovide and Vranica report. “By contrast, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times are working with test iPads, according to people familiar with the matter. Six advertisers, including Coca-Cola and FedEx, have agreed to advertise with the Journal, and a four-month ad package costs $400,000, according to these people. Coke and FedEx declined to comment on terms. The Journal plans to charge subscribers $17.99 a month for iPad subscriptions, according to a person familiar with the matter.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Andrew W.” for the heads up.]
$17.99? NO THANKS.
Yeah, I was thinking $17.99 was a bit spendy (considering the cost of delivery).
Good luck with that catchin’ on!
I wonder how many people will pay WSJ that much monthly? Seems expensive
It’s about 10 bucks cheaper than paper subscription. You don’t have to wast trees, ink, printing machines burning power. You get more content, visual, perhaps auditory and interactivity. Whats wrong with that? Nothing. It’s cheaper, better and green for the environment.
LMAO! that’s more than print, more than online and more than print AND online. Whatever. I don’t see many justfing this price point. Must be a ploy.
Yeah…I’m thinking I might consider paying .35 cents an issue and/or $10.00 a month…and that’s being generous.
You trolls!!!! I can’t help it if you’re all “too poor” to pay $17.99 a month. The iPad is just so “elegant” and the WSJ will look so “Delicious” on it’s “gorgeous” screen…
I skate to where the puck is going to be and as Apple fans, we should be happy to buy everything available for this “magical” device. Steve said this is the best way to experience media, and who are we to think for ourselves???
Historically (with really, just a few exceptions) it’s been foolish to bet against Apple getting it right.
They have been working with publishers for some time and understand exactly what they are doing.
What many seem to miss is that
1. High end customers will pay for convenience. (The truth is that everyone pays for convenience…you could after all bake your own bread, grow your own lettuce, even make your own potato chips)
2. Advertising online does not work very well, largely because people are not motivated to action simply by showing them a product name. You need something more compelling (space permits headlines, text and the ipad permits video, animation and
better design)
3. We’ve lived for years at variance with form factors. That simply means your computer monitor is not a full screen device for the widest used format the 8.5 x 11 aspect ratio. Trust me, there are more pieces of paper like that in the world than there are computers. Now they are more fully compatible
LMAO $17.99 for WS OBAMA?!! I wouldn’t pay that for a year! Costs r very disincentivising! O M G!
I would definately pay the $17.99. I like to make money and the Journal has helped me make a little of it. People who don’t like to see their money make money think the price is too high. Of course these are the same people who bitch about gas and oil prices and refuse to see how owning Exxon/Mobile will offset+ any rise in oil prices leading to higher at the pump prices.
MDN word ‘nature’, It’s human nature to not want to spend more money, isn’t that why we all use Mac’s?
If true, $17.99 saves you $30 per year on a print subscription. Did someone write WSJ Obama? Have you looked at the “Review & Outlook” section? That alone is worth the price.
MDN word- green. No kidding
I’ll bet that the people who post they wouldn’t pay the $17.99 aren’t really people who’d buy the print or any edition no matter the price… because they just aren’t WSJ type people. Considering the articles, the content and information stuffed into the WSJ every business day, $17.99 is not so unreasonable.
When you want to know about something to do with the financial industry or the news that affects it, it’s usually there and written fairly extensively most times.
Actually, I’d like to see an annual discounted subscription like I get for the print edition (through my Brokerage) and the price point Mr. Flish made is ideal. $120 a year would be an awesome deal, especially for people not taking the print edition… especially if they are searchable… because a daily print paper can sometimes pile up and it’s easy to fall behind on reading… at least for me.
If the iPad edition is even more compelling than the print edition (and it’s searchable), the price is easily justified by the increased VALUE to those like me who’s time is valuable.
You should know better than to consider PRICE alone without considering VALUE before coming to a conclusion. I’m going to wait and see, but I’m really liking the idea of getting the content where ever I am and consuming it whenever I choose.
Consider this: Ever wish you had the paper at your fingertips but it was somewhere else? That’s definitely worth something to me and I’m sure to a lot of others too. Hmmm, get your WSJ delivered to the office but your at home? or vice versa? or maybe you’re on a trip? Hmmm. I beginning to see even greater value and justification for a portable electronic edition that doesn’t require a bulky laptop.
@Jubel:
No, $17.99 is MUCH more on a yearly basis than the print version.
@iMakI:
Also NO! The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch. As such, the WSJ is probably the most anti-Obama newspaper in the US.
you can get the wsj delivered for about $9 a month (just checked the wsj web site). so they want you to pay twice as much for an electronic copy when they don’t have as many associated costs?
@surfcity, very good point. I agree it’s more fair to consider what actual subscribers (or even those interested) might pay vs. many of us non-interested people.
I don’t pay for WSJ now. I’m just not interested. But those journalist don’t work for free… and the everything’s free web model is not sustainable.
For magazines/papers I do read, I might move over to the iPad if the experience is cool. Although, I mentally feel I should pay less because it’s electronic. I know that’s not necessarily rational but it’s true and I bet a set consumers will feel the same way.
The value is less to me because it’s less portable (e.g., can’t read it sitting on the steps of the pool), I can’t pass it on to a friend/colleague, it’s made of vapor not paper, etc.
Also, the “good enough” alternatives will come into play. As long as there are free online sources, people will weigh that heavily… that’s why print media is getting hammered today. Is USA Today online as good as the cool WSJ iPad app — it depends on the consumer, but that may cause price pressure down.
Uh, My math was faulty. It’s at or close to the yearly price. Dum Dum.
@ABQ Peter
I can tell you from having worked in both print and computer graphics and television production not to mention the web since 1993 that the costs of production will be HIGHER for an electronic magazine. Yes, printing and distribution is costly. But so are the people who can execute the daily design and production miracles. Look at any daily newspaper that is well designed (the Las Vegas Sun comes to mind). Now quadruple the complexity. Some elements will be repeatable, some won’t. The core coding will be flexible enough in most cases to reduce cost over time but starting up is a bitch.
The truly killer app for the ipad will be a package that is a blend of InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, and will generate blended html 5 code for electronic publication production. You won’t need all the print centric components of those apps for this new age of publishing and to the degree certain functionality can be made modular it will revolutionize production and lower costs.
But we’re not there yet.
@pr
well, we get either or both the ny times and wsj delivered to our house, along with our local abq journal, so we read a lot of papers and don’t mind paying for them. i read the ny times on line and my wife reads the physical copy. she is getting an ipad, so i am interested in getting the wsj for her as a subscription she can read on the ipad. there are a lot of advantages to this for her especially. i also realize the 80% off sale on the wsj website is a really, really good deal. i was hoping they would have a better introductory offer for the ipad. we might still get it anyway. i use, and have used, quark, indesign, frame, illustrator, photoshop about as long as they have existed (back to my mac se in the 80s anyway) so i know what it takes to design stuff (esp. design well). i am hoping there will other advantages to the electronic version that haven’t been announced yet.
but, to paraphrase you, we shall see.
Rupert Murdoch has lost his marbles. If this is an example of what the print industry is about to attempt with iPad pricing, it’s in for a pitched battle with consumers.
iPad Journal $215.88 annual ($4.15 per week/$17.99 per month)
Online Journal: $103.48 annual ($1.99 per week)
Print Journal: $119.08 annual ($2.29 per week)
Both: $139.88 annual ($2.69 per week)
It has been estimated that the costs of paper and ink, printing and postage (delivery) account for about 35 percent of a typical magazine’s expenses. Subscriptions fees pay for a portion of production, advertising pays for the bulk of these costs. Print newspapers publish far more often than print magazines, but on cheaper paper and ink. The cost to produce and deliver an electronic edition of a newspaper or magazine may be high initially, but these costs will be greatly reduced once the basic design format is finalized. Even when accounting for some digital production and delivery costs, it would seem that digital publication prices should be lower than print prices.
How much lower? The Journal’s initial cost may be set high because Apple is taking 30% off the top of each subscription for the delivery system. But Journal executives seem to have overlooked the fact that the customer now is paying for the modern version of the printing press (the iPad).
My wild guess is that the cost of an electronic newspaper subscription should be at least 20% lower than what we’re seeing in this initial Journal rate. I say, boycott the iPad edition of The Wall Street Journal until prices are reduced.
“Rupert Murdoch has lost his marbles. If this is an example of what the print industry is about to attempt with iPad pricing, it’s in for a pitched battle with consumers.”
Again, I’m sorry that your just too poor to pay for it. This is NOT the print version – this is the version of the magical iPad! Have you even seen it?? It’s just gorgeous and oh so elegant!!!
Don’t buy it Troll!!! I would gladly pay $100 a month to read the WSJ on this innovative and magical device (and so would the majority of “True” Apple fans here)…. WOOOO HOOOO GO STEVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It may be cheaper, but it’s not cheap enough.
The Journal plans to charge subscribers $17.99 a month for iPad subscriptions
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAAHAAAAA (gasp) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
…and I thought April Fool’s day wasn’t for another month!
WSJ print edition 1 yr subscrip costs $249 at Amazon….
wouldn’t pay that either….
$5 month for ipad edition….done deal; $10 month….maybe
WS Obama???? who are you kidding? it is more like WS anti-Obama
How about free seeing as it is add supported?