As Predicted: iPad Magazine Subscriber Numbers Plummeting

from the gee,-who-woulda-thunk-it dept

Right before the iPad launched, we warned media companies that expected iPad apps to be their savior that they were making a mistake. Specifically, it seemed that this was all wishful thinking from publishers, who were hoping to go back to a gated system that they had used for many years. They were betting on restrictions, which is never a good bet. Of course, the early numbers actually sounded good, with many magazines trumpeting how many iPad subscribers they got in the first few months. But, it appears that many people tested out iPad magazines, and then decided they just weren't worth it. Again, this is not a huge surprise. Just a few weeks ago, we again discussed how iPad magazines generally suck, and it was unlikely they were going to have lasting success.

Even so, it's still surprising to see just how dramatic the dropoff has been -- especially in a platform that is apparently still selling like hotcakes. Wired Magazine, which initially appeared to drink the Kool-Aid big time on using iPad apps, now sees less than a quarter the number of buyers that it had when it put out its first iPad issue. Vanity Fair, Glamour, GQ and some others have all seen big declines.

Hopefully this will kill off the dream of just recreating magazines for the iPad, and content providers can focus on creating tools that are actually useful, rather than just on replicating the structure of a magazine in a digital format.

Filed Under: ipad, magazines, media, savior, subscriptions

Yet Another 'Savior For The Music Industry' Shuts Down

from the down-down-down dept

Over the last few years, as the recording industry has finally started to at least come to terms with the idea that its market is changing, industry insiders keep looking for "a savior." That's a new tech-focused company that will somehow come up with the magic model that revitalizes the recording industry's revenue stream. You begin to notice a pattern with every one of these: the hype is never based on users flocking to the service. They're always based on a big PR campaign and quotes from recording industry insiders. In the early days, there was PressPlay and MusicNet. Then, there was the "new Napster" and Rhapsody. More recently, there's been SnoCap, TotalMusic, Qtrax and plenty of others. They get buzz, with the stories reporting how the industry is "supporting" these innovative new startups. But they never seem to go anywhere. The latest is SpiralFrog, which got some buzz for being "ad supported" music, which has never made much sense to us. It's now shutting down, just as pretty much all of the other "saviors" have done.

And yet... file sharing sites are thriving.

It all comes down to the same thing: you don't compete with free by being lame. And, all of these "saviors" have focused on paying the record labels first, and giving users a reason to use them second (or sometimes even further down the list). The record labels are desperate for new revenue, so when they make these agreements, they're so costly that it's impossible for any of these startups to make money -- and since they're bound by all sorts of restrictions, the services tend to not be very compelling anyway. That's a recipe for disaster. Perhaps before the press declares the next major label-backed music startup the "savior" for the industry, the reporters should take a look at the littered path of failures.

Filed Under: ad-supported music, ads, music, music industry, recording industry, savior
Companies: spiralfrog