iTunes, Netflix, Hulu and magazines
Image by DavidDennisPhotos.com via Flickr
Would an iTunes for magazines work? That is, would a system where you could buy feature stories from major publications for $.25 or the whole pub for $2 be appealing enough to use? How about a Netflix for magazines? In this scenario, you wouldn’t subscribe to a single magazine, but pay a monthly fee to have access to hundreds of them. You could have 3 of them available to you (on your computer or phone) at a time, send one back, take a 4th, etc.
What kind of additional features would be needed to make services like these compelling for magazine readers? (We’ll leave newspapers out of this for the time being – “dailiness” presents even more challenges, and they’re having some success with the Kindle.)
Before we dismiss either of these models out of hand, please recall that, before the iPod and the iTunes Music Store, most folks were convinced that no one under 30 would ever buy music again in significant numbers. There was the free-for-all of Napster, Morpheus, Kazaa and dozens of other ways to find and “share” music files. As of today, for a lot of people (billions of dollars worth), the iTunes Music Store changed that.
Simplistically, iTunes’ success came because of three things
- stylish, functional hardware
- a serviceable, searchable store that made purchases nearly frictionless
- brain-dead simple integration between the two
Is there something similar magazine publishers could offer that would approximate the experience – if not necessarily the success – of the iPod and music store?
Re Netflix, most didn’t think people would want to wait a day or two to receive the movies they wanted when they could instead head to Blockbuster. Netflix has millions of paid subscribers while Blockbusters are shuttering in droves. The remaining Blockbusters have had to drastically cut their lucrative Late Fees directly because of defections to Netflix.
Hollywood’s had more of a break than the music industry has with their content online – this has mostly been for one simple reason: It’s more of a pain in the ass to find and download large movie files than smaller audio files. (This “advantage” has been eaten away as broadband gets faster and more widely available). Would a one-stop shop of name brands from a trusted source that’s convenient and easy to use be compelling enough to gain a significant paying customer base? What else would need to be part of that offering to make it compelling to you (As a reader as well as a writer)?
John Squires of Time Inc. has put together ideas of a Hulu for Magazines that has resonated with Publishers. Hulu is an interesting model as it was, like iTunes and Netflix, widely considered a non-starter when it was hatched. It has succeeded, in spades, because of the wide variety of quality, brand-name content it offers from trusted sources in a clean package with a great user experience.
Does a Hulu model for Magazines make more sense than a iTunes or Netflix one? Which features of all of theses would make the most compelling offering for Readers, Writers and Advertisers?
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by faye herl and Querida, iPhone iPod News . iPhone iPod News said: itunes, Netflix, Hulu and magazines: Would an itunes for magazines work? That is, would a system where you coul.. http://bit.ly/QVAGM [...]
I think the insanity here is the notion that they should try to launch another platform, and not use something that already exists. For instance, if I could pay an extra $2 a month to Netflix to access a bevvy of content that originated in magazines, newspapers, etc., I’d probably do it. If I had to pay another $10-15/month to access those things, I probably would not. If they worked with something like Netflix, that company would probably take care of most of the backend and frontend, and they’d save a lot of money. But they can’t get over his masters of the media universe thing, so they’ll burn through a lot of cash, and then something will surprise them, and they’ll lose.
Agreed – the dance publishers are working is between “ceding control” and “creating something readers, writers and advertisers want.” Currently, their dance is closer to St. Vitus’ than Gene Kelly’s.
The prevailing opinion seems to be the music industry gave up too much to Apple with iTunes. They invoke how much the labels ceded to MTV during its rise. They speak ill of Amazon’s margins on Kindle content. This leaves out the fact that, left to their own, the music industry may never have created iTunes or Music Television, and publishers would not have arrived at the Kindle ecosystem.
Where being graceful and nimble is paramount, publishers seem currently to prefer (re)owning the distribution mechanism. As you note, riding atop an existing service would give them speed-to-market, cost savings and a preëxisting subscriber base; they’d have to negotiate for Control, but they’d leave less time for others to end-run them.
In response to another comment. See in context »Looks like your old digs is (hopefully) going another way, and a better one.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think there is something to be said for the flat-rate options from Netflix. We’ve tens of thousands of Netflixers signed up at http://feedfliks.com and once they see that they are getting movies at much much less than they would at, say Blockbuster, they often tell all their friends about it. Even those that are not getting as much out of it as they could, blame themselves and not NF. With BB, the late fees are something to focus your annoyance at, but with NF, it’s pretty much up to the subscriber.