How $0.99 Could Change The Print Industry

Posted by on Mar 25, 2010 | 18 Comments

It’s no secret, the print industry is on its last leg. It was revealed a few years back that the world’s largest newspaper, The New York Times, was having financial difficulties*, and had to restructure itself to remain viable. With advertising revenue shifting to new media**, the print industry is struggling to find its identity in today’s Web-savvy environment. In recent months, some publishers have attempted to generate revenue by charging users to view content on their respective Web sites. But the initiative has been unpopular among the general public as users are able to find free alternatives on mediums such as blogs.

The music industry went through a similar identity crisis in the late nineties, and Apple jumped to the opportunity by helping the industry shift into the digital age.

In April of 2003, Apple revolutionized the music industry with the launch of the iTunes Music store. The digital storefront offered consumers a fast and easy way to purchase and download songs through Apple’s iTunes digital media player. The business model proved successful as in Feb. 2010, Apple reported that over 10 billion songs*** had been downloaded through the service. Apple showed the music industry that it could make a profitable business out of selling songs at a $0.99 price point (please note that Apple introduced a three-tiered pricing model in April 2009).

Could Apple be the print industry’s savior by adopting a similar digital download structure?

The $0.99 per imprint download scheme through iTunes would be a great way to convince consumers to adopt a digital format that would be compatible with their digital media devices. The $0.99 price point would be perfect for consumers who are already used to paying between $1 to $2 for a physical copy of the newspaper. Instead of going to their nearest newsstand to obtain their copy of the paper, users would be able to download a digital copy from iTunes in the comfort of their home.

Publications could also benefit from Apple’s “season pass” subscription structure which is currently available for select TV shows through its iTunes Video store. Season pass allows users to subscribe to a particular TV show and receive the content following the initial broadcast. The same model could be adapted for newspapers which would allow content to be automatically downloaded to one’s device.

A digital distribution method would end up being a cost cutting measure as publishers could reduce their newspaper printouts in accordance to their subscriptions. Publishers could gradually move their subscription base from paper to digital distribution.

To ease the transition from print to digital, publishers could maintain the familiar grid-style newspaper layout subscribers have grown accustomed to. The conventional structure would enable them to continue to get the same traditional revenue from advertisers without confusing readers. Advertisers would also benefit from being able to have their digital ads linked to their Web sites, giving their Web sites more exposure and maximizing their message and space if small print or extra offers are available.

Time is running out for the print industry and publishers need to adopt a digital standard that’s simple and delivers the same quality that their readers have grown accustomed to. The industry needs to realize that the majority of the reader base has moved into the digital age and that it’s time to embrace the medium. As the great Marshall McLuhan once said “the medium is the message.”

* From Cash Crunch At New York Times: $400 Million Due In May, Silicon Alley Insider
** From the Wikipedia entry on New Media.
*** Stat taken from the iTunes Store Wikipedia entry here.

  • Ted

    If as you say people are used to paying a buck for their daily paper why would anyone want to pay 99 cents for an electronic version? One cent saving doesn’t cover the fact that printing presses would no longer required, that the delivery trucks would be scrapped, no ink bills, no paper wastage, no newspaper stands on the corner. How about fifty cents per day to realistically reflect the true costs?

  • Andre Barriault

    The savings would (or should) come from the subscription. If one were to commit to a subscription, he or she would end-up saving drastically compared to a single issue purchase.

    For example, it was announced today that a monthly subscription to the Wall Street Journal on the iPad will be $17.99 per month, compared to $29 for the print version.

    $0.99 seems like an acceptable price for the content if it were to include extras such as audio and video clips.

  • Pingback: What is the Future of Computing? ~ Chris Pirillo

  • vr villa

    Until there is more real news in the print media, covered with less false and more true, they will not have a chance against the net ‘pools of information’ showing so much of what is printed to be well less than factual…

    People with access to the inter net know who is lying, and have quit buying the papers, since they can get more current, real coverage, and find out more correctly what is going on, than 95% of the papers (and most of the networks) around.

    The inter net is not killing papers.. this is a slow suicide.

  • http://www.wtwsonline.com Robert G Parent

    Also just how blogging changed the way we get our information, individual brands ( bloggers, small business, and people in a particular trade ) can all cheaply create and distribute their own newspaper or magazine.

  • mattviator

    99 Cents sounds fine as long as there are NO ads in the paper or the website if there are ads it should be FREE we PAY by looking at their ads! I will not pay to look at ads in digital content

  • B. E. Busby

    Follow-on to Ted’s point —

    a) I’m used to paying 50 cents /day for the Murky News (as we call it here in the Bay Area) no 1-2$ (yeesh).

    b) As Ted notes, cost of physical production and distribution are minimal, and these are HUGE components of the existing cost structure.

    c) The proposal then boils down to, “let me charge you double” while making you read the paper through a viewport not unlike trying to write a print paper with binoculars pointed the wrong way round.

    Conclusion: Delusion

  • senselessmatter

    vr villa, it’s internet (one word), not inter net (two words). Just thought I’d let you know.

    How about some examples of where the information is more accurate online. Could you please tell me how more accurate it can be when anyone can start a website with whatever information they want to display as truth to the unsuspecting reader.

    Just one more thing, where’d you fish that 95% stat? Are you a professional in printing statistics? Maybe.

  • Pingback: My Social Media for March 26th « ☺ | LockerGnome.net Lifestream

  • http://www.falgram.com Falmung

    True. I’m starting to lean more away from facebook in favor of twitter. While facebook I can keep in touch with friends I already know, twitter allows me to meet new people with similar interests and search for topics that I’m interested. I’m not a professional yet so Linkedln is still pretty much no use to me. But we’ll see on the future. Facebook is still a big part of my social network but lately I’ve been logging into it less and less.

  • http://twitter.com/naquellaq naquellaq

    I’ve used twitter over facebook for years because so many of my “friends” from school are socially conservative, my family is on facebook and I have “friended” many of my fellow church mates. I think many of my “friends” have blocked my posts to facebook because of their politically liberal rants and the selatious details of others. It’s lots more fun and liberating being my twitter self. I’ve found much more like minded people and socialize and network with others who share my beliefs and my “R” rated twitter me. Facebook is often my PG rated self and twitter is my R rated self.

  • http://twitter.com/dups Dups Wijayawardhana

    Welcome to the power of context. At the end of the day, every social network online is going to be like social networks offline. I don’t go hang out with my wine geeks to discuss science fiction :) I like the fact that people are realizing where they want to social network and trying out new networks for different things. I believe we do this naturally as a part of our normal sociological behaviour. This doesn’t mean that Facebook will die, quite opposite, I expect Facebook to continue growing, it’s just going to be for a specific context or grouping or use and we will always see it in a specific way.

    In some ways, the web is turning into how we look at an ipad and an app store, I don’t use one app for everything, but I use a different app for each task but it all links together. Facebook wants to be that app store but it has to overcome the issues of how we as humans view our social groupings. Just my rabid 2 cents.

  • Anonymous

    FB is fun to begin with but after a while you get bored to read about, e.g. “the sun is up, I like sun” , “I had nice cup of coffee to breakfast”, “My dog had to go to the vet today” and on and on with same tiring comments. Twitter I don´t even understand. Complete meaningless.
    But I can see some use of FB. My club has a FB group and that is a very convenient way to keep in touch and inform each other with things that happens.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PQ2IK6LNUHPIG2NSCZI7GJG5SI Phil Osifer

    Maybe it’s the challenge and seeing if there’s anyone else like you as there isn’t enough time to get to know everyone that deep, even relatives. I always think it’s good to keep in touch for when something comes up. People that live far away can have a pen pal like experience. But there is a lot of opinions on things that cause people to not like each other and ruins it. You can’t avoid the family reunion where everyone complains and talks crap because it’s just there. Hard to tell if it’s been worth it or if things were better before. People also get duped into believing things and think they have to repost it and it gets annoying. I seen “I can’t believe people didn’t change their picture” like it’s much more important than doing something real.

  • http://twitter.com/mitch_bartlett Mitch Bartlett

    “Facebook is still the only network that has an integrated chat”
    False. May be the one where all your friends are, but it’s not the only network with integrated chat.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=624000993 Joshua Warren

    Is this a trick question really, they screwed with the overall model of the social network and completely balls up the interface and layout. I’m not surprise they are loosing users. I only use Facebook for chat using my IM client Pidgin in Linux Mint.:)

  • Anonymous

    I just p a i d $21.87 for an i P a d 2-64GB and my boyfriend loves his Panasonîc Lumîx GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS.I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $657 which only cost me $62.81 to buy.
    Here is the website we use to get it all from, http://bit.ly/GrabPenny

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1049660484 Peter Doogue

    Great tips, especially about not setting the volume too high for the loudspeakers. My Rogers Studio 1 are still going after 3 decades because I follow that rule.