Certainly, the iPad is a “game changer”, as the first etablet device to support both the colour and sophisticated graphics / capabilities needed to provide readers and advertisers with an experience that does justice to the strengths of the print magazine (or newspaper) and also offering features like integrated / embedded video, access to content beyond an issue, content sharing / interactivity, interactive advertising and so forth.
And certainly, many major US magazine publishers are all over the iPad. Bonnier, Time Inc, Condé Nast, Hearst and Rodale all introduced iPad apps for some titles, on a by-issue paid download basis, soon after the tablet’s introduction in April. Bonnier is also first out of the gate in offering iPad subscriptions. Starting with Popular Science, Popular Photography and Sound & Vision in June, the publisher’s plan calls for all of its numerous US and European-based special interest brands to offer iPad-based subs as they are launched on the well-received Mag+ digital platform, developed in a Bonnier collaboration with London-based design firm BERG.
Time Inc, Rodale and others are also hot on the iPad sub case — not only to capture revenue from consumers who want that convenience and a (somewhat) cheaper option than buying single-issue apps, but to enable relationships with tablet owners. Publishers are out of the loop with single-issue buys made through iTunes, whereas selling subs as in-app purchases allows them to capture customer email addresses and other data.
But critical as the iPad is at this juncture and perhaps going forward, the real, more fundamental question, as publishers well know, is whether they can build the foundations of a viable, paid business model for mobile content.
Indeed, when the Next Issue Media consortium (Time Inc, Hearst, Condé Nast, Meredith and News Corp) was announced late last year, the group stressed that its ultimate mission was to create core digital standards for the industry that would enable consumers access to paid magazine content “customised for easy download on the device of their choice, including smartphones, ereaders and laptops... anywhere, anytime, on any platform.” Similarly, Bonnier has made it clear that its brands will be rolled out on iPad “and other tablets”.
Further driving home the point, Hearst-incubated digital reading service platform venture, Skiff – recently sold to News Corp - aims to enable magazine / newspaper publisher clients (who would also be tied into its content store and receive digital sub fulfilment / ad sales services) to distribute content to a broad spectrum of wireless devices, including ereaders, smartphones and Netbooks. Indeed, Skiff and chip maker Marvell look to create a “system on a chip” that will encourage consumer electronics manufacturers to carry Skiff’s software / services on many different devices, reported IDG’s Sfgate.com.
In short, publishers are hardly unaware that no one device is likely to pan out as a truly dominant marketplace solution. "If Apple does really well this year and they sell 7 to 10 million iPads, it's still a relatively small market in the United States," Bonnier CEO Terry Snow told Advertising Age. "It's going to be difficult in the near term to get million-plus circulations [for] any paid publication."
Moreover, while highly focused on mobile’s paid content / advertising “saviour” potential, publishers certainly know that ereading devices (and even mobile in general) are no overnight fix for overall business models. Deloitte projects global sales of dedicated ereader devices at about 5 million units in 2010, adding that ereaders “lag the previous adoption curves achieved by portable and connected consumer devices like internet-connected smartphones, GPS units and Netbooks.” And while iPhone owners’ propensity to use them to read Kindle books and other content was / is one key pointer in the overall publisher marketplace vision, the paid mobile content scenario as a whole is very much a first-steps-first proposition.
“Eventually, we’d hope that there would be standardisation — a core format that works across devices while providing adequate individual title design flexibility — but for now, compromises are necessary,” said one executive at an iPad-active publisher, when I recently raised the iPad-versus-other-devices question. “If you try to create something that works on every device or platform, it’s going to be less than optimal for some of them. Given Apple’s iPhone penetration and customer base, combined with the iPad’s capabilities, betting on the iPad as a tablet leader, at least for the next several years, seems to make sense. But that doesn’t mean that our R&D team is thinking about or doing design work only for the iPad.”
Meanwhile, various digital / tech pundits warn that control-freak magazine publishers may kill this newborn gosling by hewing to a bundled, “curated” content model that doesn’t give web-liberated consumers sufficient piecemeal content and interactivity latitude. Many have also questioned consumers’ post-novelty willingness to shell out for digital sub apps that are — at least for now, as publishers test the waters —costlier than print magazine subs. (A year’s Popular Science iPad sub costs $29.95, versus about $10-$12 for a print sub.)
While the full list of current and to-come challenges to be worked through in the next few years is way beyond the scope of one column, mobile developments are undeniably promising.
On the consumer side, Bonnier reported selling 22,000 single-issue apps of iPad-available titles between April and June. And though app sales for more general titles seem tepid to date, reality-check research recently conducted for Next Issue Media confirmed that, presented with somewhat idealised interactive simulation versions, print magazine subscribers (across editorial categories) and even non-subscribers signed up for digital / print content bundles billed on an auto renewal basis through a digital store. Further, they perceived interactive editions as “more valuable” than print.
Technically (based on a recent breakthrough for Wired), Adobe at last seems to have found a way to offer the many publishers that use its layout / production suite a solution for creating Apple-compliant digital versions, which would untie publishers’ hands in several major respects. Further, tech sites have noted that various publishers’ iPad apps already share some key magazine presentation / user conventions, a positive sign.
And although publishers are struggling with advertiser issues regarding iPad-compatible creative, as well as a lack of clear metrics standards, data from early iPad ad campaigns are also giving cause for optimism. In mid June, Gannett ad technology firm Pointrell reported that interaction times for iPad ads are averaging 30 seconds, and that click-through rates have been 0.9% to 1.5% (six times those for web-based click-to-expand ads, pointed out Ad Age).
Of course, only time will answer the many questions surrounding mobile content’s future, including novelty usage versus staying power on both the consumer and advertiser sides. But publishers have learned something from their own past mistakes and others’ (the music industry). And given the do-or-die consequences, they’re presumably prepared not only to experiment, but change course if necessary.
