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