

IPad app pricing: A last act of insanity by delusional content companies - ilamont
http://charman-anderson.com/2010/04/02/ipad-app-pricing-a-last-act-of-insanity-by-delusional-content-companies/

======
ghshephard
I don't understand what the issue with the wsj iPad app is - I'm a web
subscriber, got the ipad app for free, and automatically had acess to all the
ipad content at no additional cost. Of all the content providers on the iPad
store, @$1.99/week, or $103/year, it was a no brainer. NYT is the one that
doesn't get it -- they increased my subscription to $240/year, but provide all
their content for FREE (unlike the wsj) on the web. And to add insult to
injury, the nyt reader is actually only a subset of the web version. They
don't include the figures and diagrams on the app version - and have no plans
to do so last time I contacted them.

So, wsj gets me as an app/web subscriber, and I read the nyt (for free) on the
web.

~~~
omaranto
Wait, you're saying the WSJ app does not cost $17.99 per month as reported?
You're saying it's free with the $1.99 per week website subscription? Did
people just make up the $17.99?

------
dougmccune
My biggest problem with this is that his two counter examples of what media
companies should be doing are silly.

His first example is the Economist, which is sponsoring the first few issues
of their iPad version with ads. How is this innovative? Newspapers and
magazines have had their content online for years now hoping that ad revenue
would make it sustainable, it hasn't. Why is ad placement in an iPad app that
much different? Because they can charge more for premium iPad ads? I'd argue
that thinking suddenly the ad rates are going to jump dramatically (to the
point of sustainability) just because the app is on an iPad is more delusional
than thinking you can charge for content.

Then his second example is even more absurd. He cites NPR's iPad app/iPad
friendly website. But there's no mention of monetization of the web content
whatsoever. So in this example he's saying "good job NPR, you're not making a
dime on your iPad content, that's the way to go". That's just not an argument
in favor of experimental pricing (which the author tries to say it is).

------
jsz0
You can't blame them for starting with higher prices. They really don't know
how much people are willing to pay. It's easier to cut prices than raise them.

------
bilbo0s
I have a sincere question here. I really am trying to understand all of this.

Can people chime in on why exactly, charging for ipad apps is a bad idea?

I mean, it seems to me that for an outfit like the WSJ this will probably
work. They can take all of the content off of their web site and make it
available only through the ipad app. Their target market is likely to be able
to afford an ipad, and would think nothing of buying one. If they would not,
then they are not the WSJ target market.

Why is this a bad business move for them? There is something that I haven't
considered, I'm sure. But I don't know what it is.

UPDATE: BTW, what I mean is that WSJ would have just a barebones website with
all of the links to the content that makes the WSJ the WSJ informing you that
you need to access it via the app. The links to the, sort of, 'not even AP'
type content would be free.

~~~
varjag
It's bad because some people want freebies.

------
replicatorblog
I've been involved in some discussions in this area. My guess is that most
companies are saying, lets keep prices where they are and we can always move
down if uptake is slow. To be fair people think nothing of paying $4.99 for
time in an airport news shop and leaving the read mag on the plane. Is it that
hard to believe someone would pay the same for a download that can be read
offline/In the air? Also, at least in this case you can keep the old issue as
an archive easily. I'm sure prices will come down at some point, but its hard
to argue with the logic of trying for a high price when it is so easy to
change later.

------
Tichy
Why give free advice to multi-billion companies, though?

------
seertaak
Spoken with the conviction of someone with no content to sell except hot air.

~~~
papachito
ad hominem?

------
samratjp
"What do you get for $4.99 a week? Unique interactivity including landscape
and portrait mode, scroll navigation and customizable font size"

~~~
sorbus
"... and you’ll have to buy and download the app every single week."

~~~
protomyth
This is where I fault Apple for not having a format in addition to epub
available in their bookstore. I really thought it was going to be the iTune LP
stuff (and that would have served well), but they really needed something. I
really think the "download a new app every week" is too much of a hassle.

------
yesimahuman
I bet the media moguls would love it if the only way to digitally obtain their
content would be to buy an app (on the iPad, for example) and they could shut
down the web site to all free access. I'm not particularly concerned with the
iPad but this enticing fact (away from a big open web) is kind of scary.

------
sailormoon
The funny thing is, charging for content does work, if the content is known to
be good. My favourite examples (ie, ones I subscribe to) are The Economist and
Crikey magazine, in Australia. Both are best-in-class news services that
actually do real investigative reporting and deliver information that people
widely consider worth paying for. They both focus on quality, not quantity. Or
niche services - I subscribe to WestEast magazine just for its fantastic
quarterly survey of fashion and design trends. I consider all the above a
bargain, for what I get!

Paying for generalist press-release AP-cut-and-pasting junk like the WSJ,
though? Give me a break. I see no reason for most of the generalist news
services to exist at all. I am not sure why we require all these different
"brands" to republish the same damn AP story 20,000 times.

~~~
protomyth
For a business example, look at the payments people / businesses are willing
to pay for real-time market data.

WSJ has enough non-generic reporting to be viable (look at their website
subscriptions), but I would be unwilling to pay for content from CNN,MSNBC,
Fox, or their ilk. They just don't put in the effort to dig deeper, properly
investigate, do the fact checking, keep it non-partisan, and stay away from
the trivial (1). I am with you on the niche services, I do and will pay for
those.

1) The ballon boy's escapade did not in any way affect my like in a material
way, but I would bet more facts were given during that little fiasco then
reported during the whole of the health care debate.

------
Kilimanjaro
"Paying $17.29/mo for WSJ iPad app should disqualify you for something
important, like being allowed to use money."

