Marketing guru and all-around deep thinker offers his vision for magazine publishing: the Micro Magazine.
The ideal distribution and monetization method for such a product? Apps of course.
Posts Tagged ‘paid content’
ABC audit bureau dives into digital head first
Monday, April 26th, 2010
For those – and there are many – who say the iPad won’t save publishing, here is evidence that the Little Tablet that Could might be more powerful than they expected.
ABC, the leading auditor of consumer and paid periodical circulation, has built a service that allows media to count readership across multiple electronic platforms: apps, e-readers and mobile browsers.
Ordinarily slower than honey from the fridge, the audit bureau’s speed to provide meaningful data across the fast-emerging new-media platforms speaks to the urgency of its customers. The data means media will be able to sell advertising for new online formats almost as fast as they develop. That alone will hasten the already hurried development of unique offerings for smart phones, mobile websites and the iPad (as well as the fleet of act-alike products that others will inevitably produce).
It’s important because it’s a stay of execution for the advertising-based business model on which virtually all media rely but which has so far resisted the digital transition.
Why give the iPad credit for this? Since its introduction just a month ago, the conversation about mobile media has changed dramatically – as have reader habits. Powered by the app, consumers are suddenly willing to buy subscriptions for online content, Google has been declared a declining power in big media’s pursuit of traffic, and at least one of the major audit bureaus has been shaken to innovate. All because iPad provides a different user experience than any previous device.
I’m not ready to declare that the iPad is going to save publishing-as-we-know-it. But I’m pretty sure it will be right in the middle of publishing-as-it-comes-to-be.
I want to love iPad; is that so wrong?
Thursday, January 28th, 2010
At the beginning of January, I wrote a hopeful post about the coming introduction of what we now know to be the Apple iPad.
On re-reading it, I’m glad to say I was appropriately not giddy. I simply said the new device, if it met expectations, could provide a strong enough platform that media would use it to begin their evolution toward a digital-only era, which is essentially inevitable. (Essentially, because I don’t believe print will go away completely. But it will become a niche solution with fewer players and more limited application).
As the print media watch their business model melt down, they desperately need something that allows them to translate their work into an electronic format. Computer screens and e-zine platforms don’t do it. Hand-held devices don’t do it.
Will the iPad? Maybe. The device looks pretty cool. Myself, I’d be excited to use what is essentially a magazine-sized iPod Touch as a reading device. It’s far more compelling to me than the limited e-book readers like the Kindle. (Some of my most gadget-oriented acquaintances are already dumping their book-reading devices – not in anticipation of the iPad, but because they don’t want to use them anymore.)
Most entertaining to me has been watching the different media report on the iPad’s big reveal. The print media have been agog and amazed. They have, if anything, let their financial needs show from under their skirts. The print media is so giddy about the device that it has probably overplayed its importance.
My favorite lead, from the L.A. Times referred to the iPad as “the most anticipated tablet since Moses’.”
But broadcast reports tell me those folks don’t get it. They are announcing the iPad as if it’s just another gadget. One local pretty face actually said, “I don’t understand what the fuss is about. It seems like as soon as you get one gadget they come out with another that you have to buy.”
Oh, she gets it all right. Just like the average Joe, who neither cares nor understands that an entire industry is pinning its hopes on this thing.
It gives me a bit of a chill, because I’d like to see some real innovation by magazine publishers and newspaper publishers to utilize the full capabilities of a tablet like the iPad. I’d like to see something that brings a traditional magazine to a new level that’s closer to Facebook than 60 Minutes. But most people will just look at the price tag and ask, “Do I really need this?”
Absent some really good media products, I’m not really sure what the iPad is best for; it’s a really expensive e-book reader and not a replacement for a laptop computer. It’s a new category altogether and it demands new content. Or it won’t sell.
So, you print media types, get to work – and fast. If you don’t, the iPad could be deemed a failure before you ever get your chance. (Not that I’m betting against Apple.)
Which raises another concern: If the iPad costs $600-$1,000, and monthly service costs another $30, how much is a subscription to Newsweek, People, Vanity Fair or Playboy going to cost?
Will people pay for a reader and monthly service knowing that what they’ve really done is spent all that money just to enable them to pay for more content? And what about all that other media we all buy: cable TV, smart phones, Netflix, Satellite radio…
How much media will people pay for.
Thinking about it, as curious as I am about the iPad, I’m about tapped out. Unless it can replace something else I’m already paying for, I can’t afford to lead the print-consuming audience to its new online Shangri-La.
For what it’s worth, here are some other takes on the iPad:
MediaPost: Even Apple can’t save newspapers
Techcrunch: 10 reasons why iPad will put Kindle out of business
Newsosaur: Can iPad save media? Skeptics weigh in
With Apple tablet, print hope for a new payday
More magazines going mobile
Monday, January 4th, 2010
According to MediaBuyerPlanner.com, Esquire (Hearst) and GQ (Conde Nast) magazines are now being offered in an iPhone edition. You can download them for $2.99 per issue.
This small step forward isn’t going to offset revenue losses from advertsing. Nor is it going to revolutionize the way people read magazines.
But it may evolutionize the way we read magazines and newspapers. It’s a small step but a great step.
GQ and Esquire are not alone. Time and BusinessWeek, among many others, have offered mobile websites – accessed through free iPhone and Blackberry apps. But the effort by Hearst and Conde Nast to monetize the use of smart phones is a step forward that the media need to take.
Is the effort any good? I don’t know. I’m a Blackberry user, and these brands aren’t available in a Blackberry version. So I can’t answer whether they’re worth $2.99 an issue. I don’t know how faithfully the print content is reproduced, or if it’s all re-jiggered for a better smart-phone experience than either magazine would seem to offer in its print edition.
But I’m anxious to give any such mobile publishing effort a test run. While people are wringing their hands over consumers’ unwillingness to pay for content, the research is starting to reverse. More and more surveys are showing the people have warmed up to the idea of paying for content.
I think the real problem is that when people need to know what that content would be. If you ask, for instance, “Would you read a newspaper on your smart phone?” most people are going to think of the newspaper they know, reduced to the size of a playing card. Who could be satisfied with that?
But I’m hoping GQ and Esquire will show us how their content can be repackaged and repurposed – providing one experience in print and another experience – different but just as fulfilling – on the smallest screen.
That’s where the next generation of media success will be found.
Aaugh! Murdoch delays pay-for-content plan
Thursday, November 5th, 2009Here’s the link:
Murdoch-expects-delay-in-pay-wall-plans
Here’s the context:
Here’s my reaction:
Somebody has to start charging for content. If not Murdoch, who?
All the news that’s fit to buy
Monday, November 2nd, 2009The New York Times, according to one of its own, is close to deciding whether to try charging for online content. If you assume that the best way to bolster the future of news is to figure out how to get people to pay for it online, then this is important – and a good thing if The Times does, in fact, try charging for content.
The only way to get people to start paying for content is for a few leaders to simply take the leap and start charging. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. is implementing a plan to do so. Having The Times follow would only be good for the movement.
Can it work? That’s the big debate in media. Many think content wants to be free. Others, like myself, think consumers want it to be free primarily because they’ve been trained that content comes cheap. What nobody knows is how much people will actually pay, or whom they would pay, for real journalism.
If the news is to find its footing again – that is, if anyone is ever going to figure out a 21st Century business model by which journalism can flourish – the starting point is knowledge of the true value that journalism has to its end users. This is something that’s been obscured for the past 150 years.
Will consumers place enough value on it that they are willing to pay the full, unsubsidized cost of sending investigative reporters to do what they do (and defending against the inevitable lawsuits that are a byproduct of their work)? It would be nice. It would simplify the quandary of media executives, who are now gathering in solemn charrettes in search of a bew design for profitable media.
But the truth is that nobody knows. We don’t know what a newspaper would actually cost if paid for fully by readers? Or how its mission, staffing levels, range of focus and intensity of reporting might be adjusted over time to reflect the market-based measure of its value. How would it be distributed? How often would it be published? Who would its readers be?
None of these questions can be answered until enough media simply jump in and try to find out. Until now, few (the Wall Street Journal being the only one of any critical mass that I can come up with) have taken that risk. If The New York Times is getting ready to give it a try, desperation in the business may be reaching some kind of tipping point.
I’m fully confident that real journalism has a significant societal value. The problem is that it’s always been paid for indirectly. Once that value is untethered from the indirect means by which media have always monetized it (that is, advertising), then the real work can begin to right-size the industry and focus efforts where they deliver the most value.
There is real risk that the result would be even more “circular media,” in which celebrities are first manufactured and then covered by the same media organizations as if they were of real consequence (Jon & Kate and Lindsay Lohan represent two train wrecks in which the front of the train has crashed into its own caboose).
But I’m more optimistic than that. I have enough faith left that if news businesses got serious about charging for the news, they would eventually achieve market balance – knowing how much to spend, and optimizing that for the best impact, as defined by consumers.
I’m hoping the Gray Lady of New York is ready to give it a try.
