This week the news broke that Newsweek, one of the most recognized magazine brands in the world, will cease publishing its print edition after nearly 80 years and go all digital in 2013. The news got quite a bit of attention globally — it even made it into the printed edition of a Dutch newspaper. Of course, this didn’t come as a complete surprise, and Forrester has published enough about digital disruption and the media meltdown to know that newspapers and magazines have to change their strategy.
But the news got me wondering to what extent consumers use their digital devices for media consumption at this moment. Forrester’s North American Technographics® Media And Advertising Online Benchmark Survey, Q3 2012 (US) shows that about one-fifth of US online adults consume magazine content digitally, meaning they visit magazine websites or read digital publications.
This is lower than for newspapers, where about one-third of the US online population reads newspapers digitally — and 14% digital only (compared with 5% for magazines). Those who read digital magazines only are far more likely to be male, the average age skews younger than 35 years old, and only one-quarter of them regularly spend money on magazines.
Yesterday Apple announced its intention to tighten its hold on the payment for and the delivery of content through its successful iTunes platform. (I’ll leave off the I-told-you-so; oops, too late.) Apple will require that all content experiences that can be paid for in an Apple app must be purchasable inside the app, with Apple collecting its 30% fee. The app can no longer direct you to a browser or some other means for completing a transaction. Crucially, the in-app purchase offer must be extended at the same price as the same offer made elsewhere. Though the announcement of the subscription model was the triggering event, the policy extends to all paid content.
I do not believe this is where Apple will stop – I personally expect them to eventually deny the delivery of content paid for outside of the app without some kind of convenience charge. But my personal expectations are irrelevant here, because what Apple has done already is sufficient to make providers of content aggressively invest in alternative means to reach the market.
Subscription content services are the lifeblood of the content economy. A full 63% of the money consumers spend on content of all types comes through a renewable subscription (I’ll be publishing this data from a survey of 4,000 US online adults as part of a bigger analysis next month, hang tight). Most of that subscription revenue goes to pay-TV providers, but 17% of it goes to newspaper and magazine publishers, including their online or app content experiences.
Today the long-anticipated joint venture betweenConde Nast, Hearst, News Corp, Time Inc and Meredith Publishing became official. These firms -- all of them up against the ropes in an effort to deal with declining magazine ad revenue and the lackluster performance of online ad models -- have decided that to face the digital future, they'd rather do it hand-in-hand.
The motivation for the union is simple: eReaders are taking over the book publishing world, meanwhile magazines are left in the dust, with no devices they can call their own.
I mean, really, have you tried to read Business Week on your eReader? It ain't pretty. And on the Kindle, most magazine publishers want to charge you for the painfully slow page turning experience of the device all in exchange for the convenience of automatic delivery to your portable device. So the industry -- seeing a world that is evolving without their interests in mind -- is joining hands to solve two problems:
2009 has been a breakout year for eReaders and eBooks--device sales will have more than tripled by the end of this year, and content sales are up 176% for the year--but 2010 will be anything but boring. Here are Forrester's predictions for what will happen in the next year:
Allow me to add my voice to the chorus of those applauding the fall of the Berlin wall twenty years ago this month. It was this event that taught me firsthand why revolution is simultaneously impossible as well as inevitable. In 1986 I sat with other students from around the globe just blocks from the wall and debated whether it would ever come down. The naïve among us insisted freedom was imperative: It was inevitable. The others asked if we had stopped to think about the massive relocation of people, economic resources, and government structures that such a revolution would require: It was impossible.
Until it happened, just three years later.
The author, pictured left, photographed in front of the Brandenburg
Gate from what was then the East German side
I am in mourning over the death of Gourmet Magazine. There's a revolution going on on Twitter (follow @savegourmet and search gourmetmagazine to see how it's developing) that I've been contributing to. But I'm taking off my fan hat and putting on my analyst hat to contribute something data-driven to the conversation.
I've been looking at some new, as-yet-unpublished data that I'm using in an upcoming Forrester report on reinventing magazine and newspaper subscriptions. Here's a preview:
And here's the same question cut by subscribers to any of Conde Nast's publications:
In other words, 19% of Conde Nast subscribers think their magazine subscriptions are "surprisingly inexpensive," compared with 13% of US consumers in general. The takeaway: Conde could probably be charging more for its subscriptions.