Apple Impasse With Magazines Over Subscriber Data 243
Pickens writes "Peter Kafka reports at All Things Digital that Apple and the publishing industry haven't been able to come to terms over magazine app subscriptions. Publishers want the ability to sell the subscriptions themselves, or at least the opportunity to hang on to subscribers' personal data, and Steve Jobs won't let them. Publishers also don't like the 30 percent cut that Apple wants to take in the iTunes store, but their real hang-up is lack of access to credit card and personal data. It's valuable to them for marketing because the demographic data helps magazines sell advertising, and without it they can't offer print/digital bundles. All Apple is willing to offer is an opt-in form for subscribers that would ask them for a limited amount of information: name, mailing address, email address."
Credit Card data? (Score:5, Insightful)
They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk.
If their business model requires both to sell me the magazine AND have access to my data to be able to get money from ads on top of that, too bad for them.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, besides porn, who goes to magazine kiosks anyway? Even mentioning going to a kiosk here in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well Apple already has all of that data
Apple has a legitimate need for the data; how are they gonna charge you if you don't give them your CC?
telling me I have to put on pants to program: "It's not happening"
Amen, brother Stregano.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, many confidential information is given only on a need-to-know basis.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't. Next question?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want to ever pay for the privilege of being someone elses product. And when I can't avoid it, I do not buy into bullshit like "this information is going to be used to help us make the magazine focused more on you" because I'm self aware enough to know that for every inclination I have, there is an Anti-Chyeld out to cancel that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>how are they gonna charge you if you don't give them your CC?
iTunes gift card?
That is another payment methods but I prefer to pay for the exact amount rather than having a prepaid card that I cannot even use fully since I will likely be left with a balance that is too small to make another 99 cent purchase once the taxes are added on.
I hate the Xbox "points" and the PSN store charging me in 5 dollar increments instead of just charging me for the actual purchase price.
Re: (Score:2)
My boss was telling me the other week that he tried to convince his boss that the college's programmers should be able to work from home (regularly, we already do occasionally when there's a particular need). My first thought was, "Awesome. No pants."
Unfortunately it didn't fly.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, not wearing pants in the office will most likely lead to you spending more time at home.
Of course if you will continue to be paid is a different matter
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well Apple already has all of that data, so to get anti-corporation about your personal data is a little silly.
Here is the deal, though: most (sensible) anti-corporation people that complain about personal data do so precisely because they dislike their data being shared afterwards. Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:5, Funny)
This is why went droid, google is the best advertiser, they make sure companies get access to my data
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And while I agree, I think the whole argument slams smack-dab into the walls around the walled garden. If you want to have your software on an iPod, iPhone, iPad, etc, that software has to be sold through Apple (barring jailbreaking, which does not a viable business model make).
What if I wanted to buy a subscription to Android Magazine for my iPad so I could read up on it? Apple can deny the publishers the right to sell their magazine for use on my device, and (without jailbreaking) there's no way I can b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think so - I think that your original post is missing the point of view of the publishers and the argument they are trying to make.
First, Apple is being admirable at not selling your personal data to others for purchases made at the Apple Store, and I'll give them serious cool points for that. They would be in serious shit if they ever started selling off that information, because you are their customer.
But that's not the core of the argument.
The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the
Re: (Score:3)
The publishers are claiming that Apple should not be the sole people allowed to sell software for the platform.
...
The publishers raise a valid point - they can't have you as a customer on iOS. No one can, other than Apple. The only people who can have customers who are buying iOS applications is Apple, because all software comes through one store, the Apple Store.
And again you derail. You may have missed it, but the story in question is a rumor on magazine publishers wanting more from apple for their upcoming magazine subscription service than Apple is willing to give.
We don't know much from this, as far as we know it may be an app like iBooks (or even just iBooks) with a Subscribe button.
No publisher is complaining about anything in the context of this discussion, all we know is that supposedly they are holding back on the venue because Apple is not willing
Re: (Score:3)
I respectfully disagree and think you are missing the core issue, that the fact that publishers may ONLY sell subscriptions under Apple's specific terms is the real issue.
I'll make this easy for you, with fewer words so you cant blame missing it in a wall of text:
I give my credit card information to Zinio and they feed my little iPad application with said magazines, in a subscription model.
That is: magazine subscriptions. With the iPad (or iPod or iPhone.) Not managed by Apple.
Same holds true for Netflix and Hulu+, btw, between others, mainly newspaper publications that grant "free" access to their digital releases if you subscribe to the paper version.
In the risk of
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't realize that Apple's walled garden was there for MY benefit.
I suppose that as long as I have nothing to hide, there's no reason I should care if Apple collects my personal information. Especially since we all know that Apple has only our best interest at heart.
I feel a lot better now.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't say they weren't going to share it, just that they weren't going to share it to magazines for free.
Re: (Score:2)
And you seriously think magazines have not offered them money yet? I would not be shocked if magazines have already even offered Apple a larger cut in exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple is doing precisely what I want any company I entrust with my data to do: refuse sharing it."
Right, any corp with brains at the helm would sell it. I have a hard time believing that Apple would actually do the right thing and lock it away, if they are, kudos to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. Apple is "saying" that they're doing it for personal data reasons, but the real reason is that they want to OWN the relationship between the consumer (you) and them (the company).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I want $PUBLISHER to have my personal data, then I will buy directly from $PUBLISHER. If they're going to misuse my personal data to generate additional profits, then they can go fuck themselves. I think Apple's doing the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe all of the world's content worth reading is also contained on the internet, then you live in a very very small world.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:4, Informative)
People like you don't matter to the magazine publishers. Indeed, magazine publishers could do just fine without the newsstand vending because that's not where the bulk of their subscribers come from. The only thing newsstand vending does for them, really, is get new subscribers to sell ads for.
Indeed, the vast bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from the subscriptions. The subscriptions are gravy.
So yes, this is a very big deal for them to not get demographics. Without it, you'd see Newsweek, Time, etc., at 8 bucks/week to make up for the advertising loss.
--
BMO
So replace it (Score:2)
Indeed, the vast bulk of the money they make is from advertisers, not from the subscriptions. The subscriptions are gravy.
That's true. But magazines on an iPad could simply embed iAds, along with some other ad frameworks. iAds would deliver the most targeted ad (from which the magazine would see revenue) and the other ad frameworks could target ads for the demographics of the readership the magazine can otherwise figure out.
The thing is, if the magazine people don't figure out this arrangement someone el
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously don't know the magazine business very well -- it could be your knowledge is only of the bigger magazines.
Newsstand sales are vital to magazines, because it affects their advertising sales and the rates
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Consumer Reports is non-profit on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're an idiot.
Low circulation = no one will buy ads in your rag.
Circulation numbers and demographic data are the entire business model for magazines.
And where do you think those circulations numbers come from?
Here's a news flash for ya: The majority of magazines that are sold on newsstands are sold on a returnable basis. That is, you ship the retailer a certain number of copies, and if the retailer doesn't sell the copies, it can return them for a refund (or without paying for them in the first place).
Furthermore, because most magazine content is timely, magazine publishers don't really want those unsold copies back (what are they going, to do, sell the
Re: (Score:3)
He posts a lot on Slashdot. Does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
As for my credentials, I worked in magazine publishing for 7 years (as an accountant, but I also was involved in ABC [Audit Bureau of Circulations] audits), then audited financials of magazine publishers (among other companies) for three years.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:5, Insightful)
They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period.
Well then you wouldn't exactly be a subscriber, would you?
Ever wonder why most magazines cost $5-9 at a newsstand, but you can often get a year's subscription to the same magazine for $2-4 per issue? Hint: they're not just making money off of the subscription. The types of magazines a person is interested in can tell marketers quite a bit about their interests, and there's good money to be made in consumer profiling.
Re: (Score:2)
It always seemed to me like the specialized magazine apps weren't quite the right mechanism for handling repeating content like magazines. Apple and other companies would be smart to come up with something for the book reader app that lets people subscribe to magazines and read them through the app, if they don't have something like that already.
Personally, I haven't tried the magazine apps; the one or two magazines I read that have them would charge me a second time (I already have a paper subscription)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard to believe that the extra costs associated would end up being in that range.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever wonder why most magazines cost $5-9 at a newsstand, but you can often get a year's subscription to the same magazine for $2-4 per issue? Hint: they're not just making money off of the subscription. The types of magazines a person is interested in can tell marketers quite a bit about their interests, and there's good money to be made in consumer profiling.
No. It's because 12 * 3 > 4 * 5 .
Someone who buys at a newsstand will, on average, NOT buy anywhere near the full year's worth of issues. They'll buy, on average, 3 or 4 issues over the entire year.
And when you buy from a newsstand, the newsstand makes a profit (shocking, I know!). And if you think that's a razor-thin profit, think again. At one point the Sunday Los Angeles Times cost me 37.5 cents a paper, while I turned around and sold it for the newsstand price of $1.50.
And by "me" I mean "me". That is to say, I've done this before and I know what I'm talking about.
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:4, Insightful)
"If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period." ...but if you get a subscription, you pay around 10% of the cost of purchasing each edition individually because the magazine gets your personal data (name, address, telephone number, personal interests) that they then sell to advertisers. That's been their business model for eons. How do you think they produce telemarketing lists?
Is it just me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue here is that Apple sells the same data that the Magazines want for free. That's right. Apple is doing exactly what the Magazines are doing. selling our personal information for a profit instead of the magazine getting that information for that can then be sold to the marketers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I have mod points right now, but I can't find the "+1, WTF?" mod for this. Wow. Just wow.
(Yes, I could use +1, Funny, but that doesn't get you any more karma than this reply.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true they can find geographic sales data from distributors, Advertisers are willing to pay more money for "Small Business Owners earning > $200K/year with interests in technology and basket weaving living outside of mid-west small towns, driving a BMW or Mercedes as their primary car" than for "People who live in smaller towns that frequent mall book stores, primarily in the mid-west"
Re: (Score:2)
but you are paying full-price for the magazine, but when you subscribe, you're often paying 50 - 80% (up to 100%) off of newsstand prices. Magazines can do that because they can quantify you to advertisers, and can often provide demographic information to advertisers either from a survey that you fill out, or by correlating you with other marketing databases.
Apple is not so much a "digital kiosk" as they are a digital "Publisher's Clearinghouse" that sells magazine subscriptions.
Maybe publishers should let
Re:Credit Card data? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to make the same argument, but in the opposite direction.
If I call the magazine to purchase a subscription and have the magazine delivered by USPS, neither the phone company nor the post office needs my credit card data.
The phone lines and postage need to be paid for, but those parties need no access to the particulars of my transaction with the magazine company.
Likewise, Apple is just connecting one entity to another. If I've paid Apple for the iPad and paid AT&T for the bandwidth, why does either need to know which credit card I used for the magazine subscription?
If Apple's business model depends on selling me the hardware and software and getting a kick back on all data passing through the device, too bad for them.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall, isn't it illegal to hold onto Credit Card numbers after a transaction has occurred?
Re: (Score:2)
They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk.
If their business model requires both to sell me the magazine AND have access to my data to be able to get money from ads on top of that, too bad for them.
This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The article is referring to subscriptions while you're referring to a one-time sale. The reason they don't need your information is because when you buy from a kiosk you pay a huge premium compared to the subscription cost.
Music Industry (Score:3)
Apple wanted lock-in and total control with the music industry and got it. Now they're an industry leader and have all the leverage while the magazine industry is going in the toilet.
Re:Music Industry (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't suggest Apple was in the right, or a good company. I suggested they have leverage.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the music industry handed Apple lock-in on a silver platter.
They demanded DRM. iTunes was the only good consumer oriented digital music store at the time and only iPods could play the DRM'd AAC files it sold.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell the one about how little Amazon forced the mean ol' Apple to stop using DRM? I like that fairy tale.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't presume to put words in my mouth.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
You did say Apple wanted lock in so I assumed you were okay with putting words in other people's mouths.
Being forced to have DRM is very different from wanting DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because the music industry was busy fighting the Internet instead of innovating, while Apple did. I mean, seriously... shouldn't the music industry have come up with iTunes WAY before Apple?
They did, or rather, someone did back in 1999 or so, but the music industry shut them down. Mp3.com was one of the early online music distributors -- they had a great business model -- they kept your existing music library online (verified by making you load the original CD) and whenever you bought a physical CD from them you could download or stream it online instantly.
It was a great service, I bought dozens of albums from them, but I guess the music industry thought that DRM locked solutions were the way
Good for Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
I cancelled my subscriptions to Make Magazine and Utne Reader for exactly that reason - the asshats couldn't stop themselves from selling my personal data to advertisers. Within two months, I was getting both paper and email spam from all over the place because of them. I know it was them because I always use custom email addresses and custom misspellings of my name to track how companies use my data.
21st Century Apple is sooo arrogant! (Score:2)
But this is no news, I guess.
I only hope these policies are not Apple's undoing because it would be a real shame. Steve Jobs is a genius, but he makes so many enemies in the industry. In the end everybody will make alliances just not to have to deal with Apple's policies.
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should someone have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that your business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of your *(%*# business.
I don't understand why these companies feel entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why they need it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You imply that Apple "protects us" from the "bad" magazine marketeers. It's not so. Apple simply wants to keep all the personal data for itself and as a leverage for every deal they make.
They've already bowed the music industry, now it's the turn of the publishing one. What's next?!
Re: (Score:2)
No, I state outright that I don't think those companies need any of that %$@* information.
That may be true, but they're not giving it away that Facebook would happily do.
In what way? As I recall, the tracks are still $0.99, and they managed to get the Beatles' library ... seriously, how have t
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should someone have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that your business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of your *(%*# business.
I don't understand why these companies feel entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why they need it in the first place. In a sane world, corporations would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.
Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.
Personally, I'd rather see companies who insist on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.
I think what you're missing in this case is you are the customer, the magazine is the business you're dealing with, and Apple is the 3rd party company insisting on having your credit card details.
Let's look at your comment with some of the pronouns filled in.
I applaud Apple for this stance. Why should Apple have access to my damned credit card data if I make the purchase through a 3rd party? I don't give a flying fsck that Apple's business model needs my personal information -- my business model says it's none of Apple's *(%*# business.
I don't understand why Apple feel[s] entitled to this information, or why consumers shouldn't be asking why Apple need[s] it in the first place. In a sane world, Apple would have limits on what they're allowed to retain of your personal information and what they can do with it, not this "we get everything and do whatever we please with it" crap where they get to sell it, archive it, cross reference it, and anything else they please.
Well, whining and bitching about Apple's policies aside -- it's not like you can ignore the size of the market that is people with iPhones/iPads. Apple is doing more to protect their customers, as opposed to thinking that the people who buy their products are just the gateway drug to advertising revenue.
Personally, I'd rather see Apple who insist[s] on getting my credit card data go out of business than see Apple cave to this.
Do you see?
Re: (Score:2)
I have a direct business relationship with Apple. I expected them to have my credit card, since I gave it to them.
If I buy something from Apple, I sure as hell don't expect the company who made that thing to get any information on me.
Do you expect that if you bought a Playstation from Wal Mart that they would send
It's simple really... (Score:2)
bummer (Score:5, Funny)
I feel so dirty when I agree with Steve Jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't like agreeing with Jobs. But as long as consumers still have choices, he can do what he wants.
I won't do business with Apple, but as long as they don't have a monopoly or near-monopoly they can be dicks to whomever they want, charge whatever they want, put unreasonable restrictions on their own offerings, etc.
My advice, don't develop for the iphone. (Score:2)
My advice is to simply not develop for the iphone. If you are not getting what you want, there are plenty of other phone markets to target.
Re:My advice, don't develop for the iphone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ya. Get it your way on some other platform, and consumers will make the choice if your product is worth being on a particular platform for, if it works out Apple will be forced into an agreement at the risk of losing subscribers to android/WP7. I'm not sure magazines are a killer app for slates, but they might be. I don't own one, and I don't read non technical magazines, so I'm not sure I can comment on how valuable this proposition is to the device sellers.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, just make a web app. For a magazine it should in fact be easier!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I have to agree this is the best choice. Then they can have their cake and eat it too.
Re: (Score:2)
Not facebook? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jobs has been very public about his distaste on personal data sharing.
Re: (Score:2)
What, Apple doesn't want to come under the same fire as Facebook?
Not a good comparison since Facebook's business model is based on the idea that people actually want to share personal information. Apple isn't going to do it because they want to control everything.
Magazines? (Score:2)
What is this term "magazine" that you speak of?
Re: (Score:2)
It's part of a glock.
Now ask me about the Royale with cheese...
Deal with the devil (Score:5, Interesting)
Do Antitrust suits even happen any more? (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's completely their capitalistic right to do both - unless our regulated market realizes it's in the bes
Come on, farfetched at best (Score:2)
a) squeeze out magazine publishers from being able to shift subscribers OUT OF Apple's store if they later choose
How exactly is that true since anyone could just end a subscription when they felt like? Subscriptions were said to be monthly. Which is better than you can do right now with real magazines!
A person could just drop the subscription and subscribe on another platform.
b) Apple wants to be put themselves completely in the driver's seat with any possible online-only ad revenue for these magazines.
W
dead due to cost (Score:4, Insightful)
To me the whole thing is silly. These people have been complaining for years that paper and distribution costs are killing them, and that circulation is in the decline. Here is a model in which they can keep the ads but increase the number of adds as there is no incremental costs for ads in terms of delivery and paper costs, while increasing distribution. While I get annoyed that Architectural Digest has the first third of the magazine as ads, it is still a deal at less than $2 an issue. OTOH, They could have many more ads on iOS, linked to the advertiser, sell it for a dollar, and I would not be annoyed.
It seems this is second opportunity to traditional media to monetize on the web. Offer digital products, mostly supported by advertising, reduct traditional ineffecient infrastructure, and offer a product at a price that attracts new consumers.
Apple might be a driver in the process, like they were with music. Or the media companies could resist, as they did with movies which lead to distribution companies like Netflix making the profits at the expense of the media companies. At this point it can go either way.
Drop the app model, embrace HTML (Score:2)
There is an easy way to fix the problem - disintermediate Apple. Develop their digital version for the web. They would get the side benefit of a much larger pool of potential customers.
What fantastic value does the app format provide that makes publishers put up with these shenanigans?
Duh! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, why they need a dedicated app has always confused me. Plenty of publications have paid web subscriptions, including different formats for mobile devices.
They don't care about YOU! (Score:2)
"They want access to the personnal and credit card data? If I buy a magazine at a kiosk, the guy takes my money, period. Apple is just a digital kiosk."
First, most magazines don't care much about newsstand sales. They care about subscribers, with some exceptions. Mostly because they know where subscribers live, etc., and so they can tell advertisers somethign about their audience. Otherwise, why would anyone bother to advertise in, say, GQ?
Second, Apple thinks they own the magazines, and the publishers a
I guess no one has read Apple's privacy policy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they get a cut of subscription revenue. Apple is handling the platform, billing, and content delivery, so they get paid for doing what would be printing, billing, and postage in a paper subscription. It's using Apple's merchant account and bandwidth, so that seems fair.
The apps will probably be free or include a "free" month's subscription to offset the purchase price.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, turn it around a little bit ... Apple is essentially operating a retail store for use by anybody who wants to sell through it. Cut out distribution costs, costs of processing credit card transactions, cost of bandwidth, cost of fighting fraud, verifying people's ages ... and what Apple is doing cuts out a lot of traditional costs and overhead.
Apple is shouldering the work and cost of doing all of this
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for every one of you, there's one of me, and I will happily pay them to keep my private data private.
Maybe the reason that the "portal" or "middleman" business model has failed so often on the Internet is that they've failed to do their jobs. Apple, in this case, seems to be doing it--they make it easier to find what I want, shield me from what I don't want, and otherwise get out of the way. I'm happy to pay the premium.
Can see a case for the apps (Score:2)
The apps are more truly "offline" than web apps. Sure web apps can have offline storage but then you are relying on the browser to cache an awful lot of things like images... a magazine is better served as a standalone content with a lot of locally cached media, and that's just not a space web apps are in right now.
Also apps CAN have more interactivity, but I've not really seen a magazine app yet that really makes use of that. You can really see the potential though, imagine a Make magazine with videos of