« This Map is Bad News for Cap and Trade | Main | Are Home Prices Rising? »
Nov 24 2009, 11:50 am
Time, Conde, Hearst to Create an "iTunes for Magazines"
The three biggest magazine publishers in the country -- Hearst, Time Inc and Conde Nast -- are investing in a separate company that is being touted as an "iTunes for magazines." Or a Hulu for magazines, if you prefer. It would be a online storefront for digital versions of these publishers' magazines (Esquire, Time, Vanity Fair, etc) that you could read on your computer or smartphone. The site would also try to sell print subscriptions to readers.
But if these publishers want to make money, they can't sell a product (online news) that's already free. Does that mean we're about to see a deluge of paywalls across magazine websites?
Early reports don't mention price points, or many specifics at all. But I don't see another way around it. Time magazine is basically all online. The New Yorker gives away a surprising amount of content for free. If that doesn't change, there's no reason to register at a new site.
On the other hand, once the paywalls are up, the best way to get people to pay for something they consider nearly-free is to bundle diverse content and convince readers they're getting a deal. For example, you could sell me Esquire, Time and Vanity Fair subscriptions -- along with access to all of their online content -- for the price of two yearly magazine subscriptions. Print magazines increase their rate base (the readers they guarantee to advertisers) and the publishers pad their bottom line. The publishing platform would also have to take a cut.
But would this work? It's hard to know. I subscribe to three magazines. But I don't pay for any online news, and I'm not sure how much I would pay to read news online. The important thing is that magazine publishers are doing something. If online advertising isn't bringing home the bacon, with its banner ad straitjacket and paltry click-through rates, salvation must be sought elsewhere. Holding hands with your arch-rivals to open an online store for magazine stories? That's certainly elsewhere.
But if these publishers want to make money, they can't sell a product (online news) that's already free. Does that mean we're about to see a deluge of paywalls across magazine websites?
Early reports don't mention price points, or many specifics at all. But I don't see another way around it. Time magazine is basically all online. The New Yorker gives away a surprising amount of content for free. If that doesn't change, there's no reason to register at a new site.
On the other hand, once the paywalls are up, the best way to get people to pay for something they consider nearly-free is to bundle diverse content and convince readers they're getting a deal. For example, you could sell me Esquire, Time and Vanity Fair subscriptions -- along with access to all of their online content -- for the price of two yearly magazine subscriptions. Print magazines increase their rate base (the readers they guarantee to advertisers) and the publishers pad their bottom line. The publishing platform would also have to take a cut.
But would this work? It's hard to know. I subscribe to three magazines. But I don't pay for any online news, and I'm not sure how much I would pay to read news online. The important thing is that magazine publishers are doing something. If online advertising isn't bringing home the bacon, with its banner ad straitjacket and paltry click-through rates, salvation must be sought elsewhere. Holding hands with your arch-rivals to open an online store for magazine stories? That's certainly elsewhere.










I think the demise of Conde Nast is not necessarily a sign of people moving away from print publications, but being bored with the quality of what they're getting. Wedding magazines like Get Married's new magazine (http://www.getmarried.com/magazine) actually are put together with the bride in mind and not stuffed solid full of more ads than usable content. If you look at the magazines that are still standing, this is the status quo. Printed media will eventually see its day as media becomes more accessible to people via their cell phone and mobile media (which still is a disastrous science), but until units like the Kindle become more popular and can access current magazines and books on the fly with immediacy, people will always opt for holding a magazine in their hand.