A year ago when we were researching the UK magazine market in an effort to assess the enthusiasm, or otherwise, of publishers for having tablet editions we concluded that they still had some doubts about whether they needed to have App editions of their titles or not.
Fast forward one year and, with the introduction of the Apple Newsstand, the majority of publishers are now aware that in order to survive the tablet and online revolution, they need to have a digital presence.
The question they now ask themselves is should they dive straight in or just dip their toe in the water?
So replicate or re-design? There are potentially pros and cons for both. And exactly how will digital readership generate revenue?
In the battle for the future of the tablet market, Amazon – with the Kindle Fire, may be a top contender for the lead row. But another retailer, Barnes & Noble (B&N), isn’t ceding anything to its etail rival.
Yesterday, it announced that customers who pony up $120 for a one-year subscription to the digital version of PEOPLE Magazine will receive a $50 discount on the NOOK Tablet, bringing its price down to that of the Kindle Fire ($199). Customers who purchase a $240 annual subscription to the New York Times (NYT) can have a NOOK Simple Touch for free, or a NOOK Color tablet for $99.
The constant announcements about the death of print media may be premature, but there is little doubt that traditional print media companies have been some of the hardest hit in the past decade as digital media has taken much of the spotlight.
And the hits keep coming: eMarketer says adults in the United States are now spending more time using their mobile devices than they are consuming print media.
Investing millions to launch an iPad-only publication may prove to be one of the best ways of making a small fortune from a large fortune, but for traditional publishers that have been hawking their wares on the iPad, Kindle and NOOK, tablets are starting to have an impact.
That’s according to two executives from Condé Nast and Hearst who took part in a panel at the American Magazine Conference.
Both indicated that their companies are close to achieving $10m in revenue from tablets.
Online, ‘linkbait‘, well done, is a proven source of traffic. Those catchy, often scandalous-sounding and sometimes deceptive headlines, coupled with juicy gossip, wild speculation or blood-boiling content may not necessarily deliver much in the way of value to advertisers, but for many publishers, it’s a staple diet.
But what about print-based linkbait? Can some of the tried and true linkbait techniques work for, say, a magazine?
As publishers and new media companies try to tap into the potential offered by the iPad, many have decided that offering richer, multimedia-laden experiences is the way to go.
Take Push Pop Press, for instance. Its vision for tablet publications: turn them into interactive applications. Its centerpiece, Al Gore’s Our Choice interactive e-book, was heralded as “one of the most…impressive apps you’ve ever seen.“
Magazines may not have the best track record when it comes to adopting the newest technologies, but when the iPad launched, it was hard to find a magazine chief who wasn’t excited.
Print publishing is particularly tough these days, and the iPad represented hope. As a result, many magazine executives were eager to give the iPad a try. That was a good thing.
Unfortunately, businesses don’t run on hope, and despite the fact that the iPad and tablet devices are still very nascent, magazines have thus far found that tablets aren’t a panacea for their industry’s ailments. Some are even cutting back on their iPad plans.
In the digital world, tracking ROI is supposed to be easy. After all, there are so many tools for analyzing traffic and conversions, and attributing them to particular sources.
But in reality, tracking ROI isn’t always as simple as it would seem. Many marketers, for instance, still focus exclusively on the last click despite the increasingly sophisticated tools that are capable of going beyond the last click.
As a result many either misattribute conversions to the wrong source, or miss them altogether.