“At Time Inc.—which already has launched apps for Time and Entertainment Weekly—the vibe among upper management is of sheer enthusiasm,” Fell reports. “By upper management, I’m referring specifically to CEO Ann Moore.”
Fell reports, “During parent company Time Warner’s “Investor Day” last week, Moore updated attendees on the division’s recent performance (it reported an operating income of $50 million during the first quarter 2010, versus a loss of $32 million during the same period last year) and gushed about providing paid content through mobile and portable devices. In addition to the Time and Entertainment Weekly apps, Moore said the company is readying several more from its other magazine brands, including a People app and food, beauty and cleaning apps for Real Simple.”
Full article, featuring soundbites from Moore’s presentation and the Q+A session that followed, here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Brawndo Drinker” for the heads up.]
My wife would love a People app. I of course would hate it as it would increase competition over using this magical device. I would only implore Time to get it’s head straight on pricing structures and subscriptions. If this isn’t corrected the red ink will be gushing once more and not Ann
$4.99 a pop ?! Forget it.
Publishers are going to have to accept the need for them to foot the bill of development during the transition from full print to full electronic. They should be rewarding those willing to buy the hardward (iPad/iPhone) to consume electronic media, not penalizing them with exorbitant prices. Yes, they are spending money for a relatively small group of buyers now, but they need to create the PULL for people buy the hardware to make reaching the critical tipping point possible. No guts, no glory publishers.
Unfortunately, publishers think that all these iPad users are going to pull their bacon out of the fire but they don’t realize that there will be a few people buy their magazines at first, as a nolvolty item, but no one in their right mind is going to keep paying WAY for for an electronic version of a magazine than a paper version. They just as well need to start thinking along those lines and prepare for it becasue Mac users aresn’t so stupid that they’ll continue to pay premium prices for an ad filled electronic version of a cheaper paper product.
Translation: Our old bandwagon fell apart thanks to our own stupidity so now we need to jump on a new one! We’re also really, really excited because we think we can put a brand new digital bow tie on all of our old fishwraps, charge $5 an issue, tie some old articles together into a pretty new app and sell those at a ridiculous price, and get people to suddenly want to buy it all despite the fact that we couldn’t almost give any of it away before in fishwrap form.
But what do I know. I mean, look how well all that money they spent on AOL worked out, right?? Come on, say it together now: Synergy!
The price I’m willing to pay depends on value, not some mythical number pulled out of some north-bound poster’s south end. If the eMag is electronically indexed with individually savable articles AND has interactive parts of real value (unlike the incredibly lame Flash slideshows that eWeek is in love with that hides their lack of research and content), then I may be willing to pay more than $5 an issue. I regularly read the Economist and would welcome an eMag from them rather than the paper that piles up each week in the recycling bin. For technical/scientific/academic work, an eMag would be wonderful.
The problem with paying premium prices for digital versions of newspapers and magazines is you can’t line your bird cage with the digital version after you’ve read it. Maybe the app could include a print function to let you print cage liner?
@ ob1spyker
For People, $5 is way too low—they’d have to *pay* me a lot more than that to read that drivel.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
@ lurker
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
You also can’t use a digital version as packing material when you move.
This could have severe ramifications in the future.
Don’t sweat it. As soon as products become digital, then market forces take charge. Sellers pretty quickly find their “sweet spot” at which pricing point the volume of sales produces maximum profit. That, by definition, becomes the “market price”.
Consumers factor in their “value” considerations, such as convenience (mobility), useability, ecological considerations and quality of content. The market will sort it out…but prices WILL go down, compared to the paper price.
I wouldn’t read Time if it were free, let alone $4.99 a pop.
A total waste of Time.
It’s going to take some time (no pun intended) for publishers to get the hang of this new technology and find ways to add value that distiguishes the digital version from the dead-tree one. Audio/video clips embedded in the product and other interactive features will be the way to go (imagine reading a review of a new album and being able to hear a sample within the publication…and a link to the iTunes Store so you can download it right then). There are endless possibilities for those publishers with the foresight to recognize them, but it won’t happen overnight.
Ad rates are determined by two things – how many and who. Two million iPads subscribing to one mag for say, $12 annually (one buck a month for a Time, or EW (the latter which I would definitely purchase) would boost ad rates MORE than enough to cover any supposed “development” costs.
The problem is that publishers want BIG money because they want in on the money that electronics creates. Like the Record companies wanted a piece of each device based on use, Publishers are thinking the same thing.
That’s okay. We all die. It’s just a question of when. (Elmore Leonard from Hombre)
-justme2-
There’s already a distinctive difference and you noted it – paper vs vapor. Sure, cool links and popups and videos, that’ll come. No rush. I’m just fine with having the same print version under my iPad glass, so little more than html or pdf is required.
Publishers are making a huge mistake not going for volume, specially in troubled economic times like ObamaTime.
Say goodnight, Irene…
Pray that they don’t use the Adobe PNG package!
Printed versions can be left behind and read by many people. Printed versions can be read by people in waiting rooms.
Digital versions on the iPad are tied to one iTunes account number.
Thus digital versions should be cheaper then printed versions. Not to mention printing and mailing cost.
As long ad digital versions are more expensive, I have no interest in them.
Dear Time Inc.
Do you want to sell millions of magazines at 99¢ or do you want to sell thousands of magazines at $4.99?
There are 2 million iPad owners. At least 1.5 million would buy your first digital edition at 99¢. At least 40,000 would buy it at $4.99.
Do the math. You would make over 7 times the gross income from the lower, ‘everyone will buy it’, price. And, there are no returned copies.
Face it, we iPad users are considered the top of the technology food chain… meaning we’ve been pegged as those with DOUGH to spend and willing to do part with it.
So, all these companies are happy to stuff their hands in our pockets and see what they get.
Most will find only lint.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Dear Time Inc.
This time next year there will be at least 10 million iPads in the USA alone. The rest of the english speaking world will have around 4 or 5 million iPads. At 99¢ a copy, each issue of each magazine published could easily sell 10 million copies.
Think about it.
Think of the advertising revenue.
Go for volume, not price per issue.
“has captured the attention and imagination (and dollars)”
At least they receive something in return for what they pay. Is windows crappy devices free you moron?
pretty good, I love it!
and here I’d like to add some more ipad free apps I collected, “Top 10 Best Free iPad Apps” in an ipad column: http://www.ifunia.com/ipad-column/top-10-best-free-ipad-apps.html
here “Top 20 best free apps for the iPad”: http://www.aneesoft.com/tutorials/ipad/best-20-free-ipad-apps.html
and here “Apple Posts Top iPad Apps on App Store”: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_posts_top_ipad_apps_on_app_store
Hey Media Mogals!! Cut to the chase. $2.99 or wither and die after the novelty wears off. The fact is you would probably make even more money selling your digital magazines for $1.99
I’m interested to see the market forces work here. I bet $2.99 and $1.99 will be the price of most e-mags in a year or two… or many of us just won’t bother.
Gillmor in Salon yesterday: “I’m disappointed beyond words, meanwhile, that journalism organizations are racing to create apps for the iPad, even though they’re putting the final say over whether their journalism is acceptable into Apple’s hands. What does it say about their journalistic principles that they’d do this?” Only a fool would give Steve Jobs (or Bill Gates, or any other egomaniac genius) that kind of veto power over their journalistic content.
@ Big Als MBP
Re sell 1.5 million copies at 99¢. v.s. 40,000 at $4.99.”
You may have a point.
And if everybody reduced their wage demands by 80% as well, i.e., $20/hour* to $4/hour, we could virtually eliminate unemployment.
*US Dept of Labour Average Earnings Apr 2010