Part I. Magazine publishers have long lamented the absence of a successful model for online profits. Will the launch of The Daily show us the way?

By William Dunkerley

News Corporation's digital start-up, The Daily, is sure to be a model for the rest of us. What's unclear is whether it will be a model for what to do -- or what not to do!

The Daily promises readers an embarrassing richness of multimedia features: audio, video, enhanced photography. I've long advocated that publishers open up to the array of channels now available for bringing content to readers. The Daily certainly seems to share that advocacy. This start-up well could be a transformative publication in the evolution of our industry.

A lot will be riding on the implementation, however. Will the publication use the multimedia tools in a way that will enhance reader satisfaction? Will the enhancements help the reader to better understand the content? Will they intensify the reader's satisfaction with the publication? Or will the multimedia features be used simply gratuitously as bells and whistles? It's hard to tell at this early date in the life of the publication.

In fact, there is a lot about the publication that is hard to discern presently. News Corp. has put out a lot of very limited information on its newborn. And, some of the early media discussion of the product contains various takes on it that don't entirely agree. We've tried to sort through those for you in our reporting, but must admit that we're dealing with a market entry that does not seem to be entirely understood by anybody.

Device Specificity

The Daily is device-specific. It's an iPad publication. It may be available on other devices in the future. But, replicating The Daily's features on other devices will likely require an additional app or program for each device. This aspect of device specificity is one of two problems that should be high on any publisher's list of things to consider before jumping in.

There are other publications that are already available as iPad apps. They range from Marvel Comics to The Wall Street Journal. These apps, however, are likewise device specific. The prospects of making your magazine available for additional devices can be daunting. According to Richard Pradley, managing director of Semantico, an online services provider, "As yet no publishing infrastructure exists that can take a given work and repurpose it automatically for all available delivery platforms and operating systems." It takes a lot of expensive human intervention, he explains.

Bob Cohn of Bonnier, a large multinational publishing group, recently told Folio magazine, "We want to be on as many devices as we can logically handle." That may be fine for gigantic operations like Bonnier. For smaller magazine publishers, the budget needed for all that development may be elusive.

The second consideration related to device specificity falls in the category of industry modus operandi. A publisher that goes device-specific is stepping into the world of computer software and hardware. There, planned obsolescence is a way of life.

As publishers, we make our money by having ever-changing content in our publications. That's what keeps customers coming back. Paper has been the stable substrate for publication content for centuries. The iPad and other PDRs (portable digital readers) represent in effect new substrates born of the computer industry. Continued sales in the computer field is different in nature from that in publishing. It comes from new models, new versions. A lot of that is driven by the development of new technologies. Some of it seems to be marketing-driven, i.e., planned obsolescence.

With that in mind, what are the chances the iPad will still be around in 10 years? In 5 years? What's more, a newer technology may come to entirely replace the entire tablet computer category. Of course, publications will need to adapt to all these new developments. My point here is just that it is in our interests that our multimedia publications be developed in a way that does not leave us at the mercy of software developers and computer manufacturers whose own interests may be at variance with ours.

Who's in Control?

That leads to the question of who is the customer and who is the vendor in this equation.

If you look for parallels back in the print-only days, publishers had basically the printer and the Postal Service to work with. The constraints they imposed on how publishers did business and what they published were relatively minimal. Where limitations did exist, alternatives were available, albeit usually at higher prices. Many will argue that the Postal Service did little to ingratiate itself with publishers. The printers certainly did a lot. They each tried to out-do each other in serving publisher needs. I guess that's the difference between dealing with a monopoly vs. competitive entities.

But even the Postal Service didn't say that if you set a price for subscriptions delivered by them, you couldn't price the subs differently for alternative delivery. But that in effect is what many allege Apple's policy on subscription apps amounts to. It's hard to know all the ramifications with certainty. As Bob Cohn remarked about Apple, "...they haven't been too transparent."

Even with fledgling competition from Google, and from others on the horizon, Apple seems to have assumed the posture of a monopoly. The fact that The Daily seems to have kowtowed to that sets a bad precedent for our whole industry. Apple is certainly not coming across as a vendor wishing to court the favor of its publisher customers and prospects.

A lot of noise has been made about Apple's demand for 30 percent of the revenue from each subscriber that it brings to the publisher. But that doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. Many publishers are glad to spend 100 percent of the first year revenue acquired from a new subscriber just to get him or her. Profits come from renewals. Traditionally the cost for getting the renewals is very low. It's not clear how Apple would handle renewals, other than taking another 30 percent each time. That would mean after a few years the publisher starts to come up on the losing side when using Apple as a new subscriber source.

That's not the worse part, though. In publishing, selling subscriptions is not at all like selling music singles (which is where much of Apple's App Store experience lies). If they sell a single, it little matters whether the buyer is in New York or LA. But, if the App Store is selling subscriptions for a New York–centered magazine with New York–based local advertisers, it certainly does matter. The advertisers won't want to pay to have their ads downloaded all over LA for viewing by people who are not likely to become customers. This concept doesn't just apply to geographic considerations. It's relevant to things like age, gender, profession, interests, etc. Certainly the magazine's title, cover, and description may ward off some of the mis-fit subscription sales. But if something in your New York magazine somehow goes viral, you suddenly could be big in LA!

Plunging iPad Magazine Sales, and More

There are a lot of other issues raised by the advent of The Daily. One is the apparent nosedive in subscription sales for iPad magazines right at the time The Daily is being promoted. What's that all about? And recently, there are a lot of questions about whether Apple's iPad subscription program is even legal! We'll cover those issues and more in Part II of our business analysis of what The Daily means to magazine publishers.

William Dunkerley is principal of William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants, www.publishinghelp.com.

Add your comment.