[Online] Online Content v Printed Media (Moved from the G Anderson Thread)

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by fourWheelDrift

Please don't think I'm getting at Autosport in my comments below this is in no way aimed at them. At the risk of dragging things off topic I am making a slightly more general point and not judging whether it applies to any particular business.

There is a general problem that consumers are being ripped off left right and centre as companies offer digital versions of things and simply don't pass on the massive savings in distribution costs they make, people need to vote with their feet and not trade with businesses that try to inflate their profits in this way. It applies to many formats but the worst are MP3 prices compared to CDs and ebooks compared to printed. The cost of production, packaging transport, staff and the lease on the bricks and mortar shop, profit for the retailer all these are saved and replaced with a very much smaller cost of servers, bandwidth software etc. A decent part of this substantial saving should be passed to the consumer, the business that tries to keep all this for themselves in increased profit does not deserve to succeed and in time market forces will make sure that they don't, can't come too soon for me. And I like to think I have some clue as I develop web based applications for a living.

Wheras I see the point you're making, I also think that you are underestimating the costs involved in producing something like Autosport, not on the actual 'building' of the magazine, but in obtaining the information. I'd have thought that the actual production costs of the printed magazine create only a small proportion of the actual costs in producing both printed & on-line versions.
Top quality journalists (which, in the main I would have thought that should be the description of Autosport journalists), still expect reasonable payment for their time spent researching & writing their articles, with a little bit on top for their knowledge and experience.
I would say that the same reasoning would be applied to the photographers too that are employed by the magazine.
On top of this there are the costs in sending journalists & photographers to race meetings (and test sessions) all over the world to obtain the information that we can then all read (on-line or on-paper), this too would have its own (considerable) costs.
Unfortunately (and I admit that I am the same), we have all grown to expect the Internet to be a source of completely 100% correct information, but to not to have to pay for it. This isn't a realistic ambition when the true costs of obtaining the information, and then relaying it are taken into account.
I am sure that we will all slowly start to find over the next few years that a number of things that we currently 'get for free' on the internet will slowly start to be charged for, and as sure as eggs are eggs, once the charges start, they will slowly increase too!
Maybe we should have this aspect of the discussion moved to a seperate thread, (Mods?) as this is totally off the topic of Gary Anderson?
Oh, and I will also point out that (apart frome beaing a reader), I have no connection with Autosport, or any other magazines. This is just the way things are as I see them.

[fourWheelDrift]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Wheras I see the point you're making, I also think that you are underestimating the costs involved in producing something like Autosport, not on the actual 'building' of the magazine, but in obtaining the information. I'd have thought that the actual production costs of the printed magazine create only a small proportion of the actual costs in producing both printed & on-line versions.
Top quality journalists (which, in the main I would have thought that should be the description of Autosport journalists), still expect reasonable payment for their time spent researching & writing their articles, with a little bit on top for their knowledge and experience.
I would say that the same reasoning would be applied to the photographers too that are employed by the magazine.
On top of this there are the costs in sending journalists & photographers to race meetings (and test sessions) all over the world to obtain the information that we can then all read (on-line or on-paper), this too would have its own (considerable) costs.
Unfortunately (and I admit that I am the same), we have all grown to expect the Internet to be a source of completely 100% correct information, but to not to have to pay for it. This isn't a realistic ambition when the true costs of obtaining the information, and then relaying it are taken into account.
I am sure that we will all slowly start to find over the next few years that a number of things that we currently 'get for free' on the internet will slowly start to be charged for, and as sure as eggs are eggs, once the charges start, they will slowly increase too!
Maybe we should have this aspect of the discussion moved to a seperate thread, (Mods?) as this is totally off the topic of Gary Anderson?
Oh, and I will also point out that (apart frome beaing a reader), I have no connection with Autosport, or any other magazines. This is just the way things are as I see them.

I agree with much of what you say and of course digital content should not be free as many of the costs are just the same, however I am specifically talking about the part of the cost which changes when you move from physical media to digital All I am suggesting is a fair price and I did point out that I wasn't talking about autosport magazine.

The fact remains if you buy the physical media in a physical shop you are paying for the overheads of the shop and it's staff , the vehicle which delivers the product and it's driver, the packaging etc etc and when you buy the digital product online you are not paying for these things while the specifically digital costs that replace them are much lower. As a customer you should expect to see part of that saving, if you don't you are being ripped off.

[chillibowl]

as a former foreign subscriber i would have actually been happy to pay a bit more for the digital copy if they had back when i was ordering as the digital copy could be delivered instantaneously whereas i was lucky if the print copy showed up a week-week and a half late.

today with digital copies and music/movies i am prepared to pay a higher price for convenience of purchase and digital storage.

my dad complains that movie rentals cost the same amount as they did when there were actual movie stores (brick and mortar argument) and he is right that someone (apple) was just keeping that extra profit for themselves but from my point of view he got the same basket of goods for the same price without the hassle of having to go to the store.

bottom line for him was that he got a better product for the same price so why should he complain?

[Adam43]

And that demonstrates the other side of this. These magazines aren't there to pass on savings. As well as cover their costs they try to charge what people are prepared to pay. What it is worth to the people who buy it.

Don't not pay it because you are annoyed that they don't pass on the savings. That is the wrong context and ignores the times they didn't pass on production costs or decreasing margins, sales have decreased so per unit costs have increased. Maybe it isn't like that and they have been making a packet for years. That's kind of irrelevant too.

So if you don't think the digital (or print) version is worth it to you don't pay it. If you do then buy it.

I don't think Autosport is worth it, so I don't. I do think Motorsport is, despite the signing of Mark Hughes, so I do.

[fourWheelDrift]

Many of these points are correct in that it is the job of a business to maximise shareholder value and maintaining price is a part of this, however maintaining the the profitability, market share and value of the business into the future is also important.

It is the job of a competitive market place to control prices so that businesses are not making unreasonably large profits, if they attempt to do so competitors undercut them, people vote with their feet and they have to lower prices to retain business. This is currently not happening in many digital market places particularly digital music and ebooks. Ultimately the market will set the price but it would happen a lot faster if the big companies looked to consolidate their markets for the future rather than making a fast buck now and consumers started really thinking about how much profit margins are going up which might encourage them to look for lower prices. And yes I am angry about it because we all have a lot to gain from digital business of one kind or another and large corporations are seeking to keep all the benefits for themselves and as a result they are delaying those benefits for us all, in addition they are damaging their own futures because they are encouraging new startups to enter their markets as well as disintermediation which will lead to business flowing round them rather than through them.

[Casper]

An assumption I draw when I see pricing as close as Autosport's two different editions is that the printed copy is being subsidised from the digital and that was in fact the very reason the digital edition was first introduced.

The editorial overheads are the same for both editions, it is the distribution of the printed paper and the need to control and recover the money it sells for that costs more than the digital. They then try it on and if the punter starts to pay for the digital copy then they are on a winner. History shows that in a lot of cases the printed paper dies over time if this approach is taken but you can't blame them for trying.

We all know that the printed media industry is if not dying at least in a wheel chair and on intravenous support but those involved can't get their heads around it just yet. Give it five years and most of these types of periodicals won't be around, it has already started in Oz with mags and periodicals reducing and newspapers are also suffering the same trend but still not ready to call it quits.

Having said all that I for one am yet to see a magazine in digital form that has an ideal format. This is the big stumbling block and once it is solved there will be a huge surge to digital. I think that to get a good format will require a radical rethink on the publishing industries part and not a morph from the past layouts we are used to in the printed form.

[chillibowl]

I think you should take a look at some of the digital offerings these days to see the additional value.

Instant downloads, interactive articles, video covers and stories, hyperlinks to archived articles and relevant info, connected to the internet with digital storage and an opportunity for advitisers to link their ads to their websites and commercials via the touch screen....digital mags are not just photocopies of the print mag put on line and they already are a radical departure from their print ancestors...well the good ones anyways.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

I think you should take a look at some of the digital offerings these days to see the additional value.

Instant downloads, interactive articles, video covers and stories, hyperlinks to archived articles and relevant info, connected to the internet with digital storage and an opportunity for advitisers to link their ads to their websites and commercials via the touch screen....digital mags are not just photocopies of the print mag put on line and they already are a radical departure from their print ancestors...well the good ones anyways.

And most of that stuff is only accessible on an Apple tablet, very few on Android and less on a PC. In other words if it ain't an Apple touch screen forget it. I do not own any of the tablets and have no reason to buy one and my mobile phone has been consigned to the bin since I no longer need it for business. The latter would drive me mad anyway, swiping and zooming is not a pleasant experience to me.

I would appreciate links to good motor sport or car interest mags that are fully functional on a PC.

[chillibowl]

my understanding is that both Autosport and Motor Sport also give you access to a PC digital copy when you subscribe (i dont know for sure but i would think thats the norm for most digital content)...which means even if the digital mag is only available via iTunes and you are on android device you can still open the digital copy via your tablet's browser because its also available on the PC. no one is being left out.

anyways if the problem is upgrading tech, then its same problem since tv went from b&w to colour . the choice to upgrade tech has always been that of the users so its a matter of preference and now more then ever before they allow people to choose how they want to consume their media because your preferred choice is still available to you...and if people like me can help subsidize those who like the traditional formats better then they are welcome

fourWheelDrift, was thinking more about your point about competitive market places...on the whole i agree with the economics argument that prices should come down over time and be representative of the actual production costs (price gouging in not in society's best interests) , however i would question if that is what makes the entertainment market competitive.

for example is the entertainment market more competitive by prices coming down or by offering more variety? if prices came down im not sure we would see as much variety and further i would think that as we have embraced digital media (at the same cost as physical media) we have also been given access to far more content then was ever possible before. for me thats a fair trade off.

[Casper]

The publishing industries approach to digital has been first and foremost how much it saves and how closely they can get the price to what they would normally charge in the printed edition, of that there is no doubt. Digital publishing is in fact a very immature technology despite all the whiz bangs that they have introduced. As always the market price is somewhere less than the current one but if the price for the digital was reduced to where the market will respond en masse they would kill what remains of the printed versions.

That might sound like a good idea and I for one can see the advantages in that but the fact remains that it is going to take at least another generation to fully convert the market as not everyone has a computer in this world just yet and less want to use it to read books and even less have a hand held tablet which at this stage of technology would seem to be the obvious way to read books.

Give me a device like the kindle that is more straight forward to use as a printed magazine is now, I don't have to zoom in and out and move stuff around and I will be a total convert but then I start to think on my reading habits in recent years. I used to buy at least six mags but gradually moved away from that and I threw out my entire book and mag collection of many thousands and bought a Kindle. I have tried a few mags on the net and found them wanting due to user issues and the interface and the ones I might persist with are mostly only available as a Apple touch screen version to get all whiz bangs. The reality is that there is so much info out there in internet land that as a rule I have not missed any of those mags and do not seek to replace them.

The main reason I have yet to convert is price and that is how this thread started. As far as I am concerned the price of most digital magazines is still too high and that is a market force issue. The other reason is I don't go looking for them and they don't come to me. Think about it it for a moment, I walk into a shop where all the magazines are displayed and I can browse the shelves and quickly get a sense of what interests me. That central point of interest does not happen on the net so I have to go looking if I want to try and find a digital mag that fills my needs. It illustrates the newness of things surrounding marketing on the net.

An interesting conversation from all points but the lack of response reflects the interest out there in digital publishing and should be a warning to those trying it. If there was a huge interest there would be far more comment on the subject. Lack of response from those who publish AS is also disappointing but I can understand that because to respond would invite a questioning of their pricing and publishing performance.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Casper

An interesting conversation from all points but the lack of response reflects the interest out there in digital publishing and should be a warning to those trying it....

haha touche my friend

[Knowlesy]

Originally Posted by Adam43

And that demonstrates the other side of this. These magazines aren't there to pass on savings. As well as cover their costs they try to charge what people are prepared to pay. What it is worth to the people who buy it.

Don't not pay it because you are annoyed that they don't pass on the savings. That is the wrong context and ignores the times they didn't pass on production costs or decreasing margins, sales have decreased so per unit costs have increased. Maybe it isn't like that and they have been making a packet for years. That's kind of irrelevant too.

So if you don't think the digital (or print) version is worth it to you don't pay it. If you do then buy it.

I don't think Autosport is worth it, so I don't. I do think Motorsport is, despite the signing of Mark Hughes, so I do.

I think Hughes will be alright, despite a wobbly 'F1 revolution' article in the latest issue. He can't possibly talk about fuel correction and whatnot in the green bible, can he?

Motorsport is opening up their entire archive soon online for subscribers, can't wait. Wish Autosport would do the same, although I have slimmed down my massive magazine collection recently and just clipped out articles I liked, Fifth Column etc... I would love an online facility. Would happily pay a tenner a month for it.

Motorsport really does seem to show the way to go, both with physical and digital media. I know it is more difficult for a weekly, which is primarily news based, and the online articles are very good but even so Autosport could do so much better you feel.

[chunder]

Having tried the format a few times now in a few free online magazines, I simply do not like the way you have to read them.

Having to constantly zoom in and out is a pain in the arse, and really you should not be paying anywhere near as much with the pass on costs.

Autosport is ridiculously expensive online, and I hope it falls on its bum, aswell as the stupid 'you can only view a certain amount of stories on the free site before they try and make you subscribe', and they only offer you the standfirst for just about everything. Is that really on, really?

I just get my news elswhere, reading a paper or mag is easier, cheaper and a nicer experience, the way it is done for most magazines right now is pure greed, nothing more, as it saves a fortune doing it that way, and making it almost the same price is downright pathetic. But typical Hayshed let's face it, when you have the monopoly, you can do these things.

[Casper]

I think Chunder summed it up quite elegantly and far better than I did. The block on Autosport is a joke as there is more than one way around it if anyone chooses. I stopped reading for quite a long while after they introduced it and re-visited it recently to take a look. It really is a poor piece of journalism full of filler and repeated pieces right through it. The same story can appear two, three or more times on different pages. I suspect it will whither and die if they don't get their act together. I would reckon at the right price they would have a huge readership as the rest of the world is available as a subscription base but maybe that message has not gotten through. 50p a copy and the hordes would be at your door from all over the world.

[bella]

resurrecting an old but semi-related thread, but it would be so nice if autosport would allow access to the foreign autosport versions for us subscribers wot can speak more than one lingo. added value for minimum financial losses and all that.

[Adam43]

I didn't realise there were foreign versions of Autosport.

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I didn't realise there were foreign versions of Autosport.

Yes, and of F1 Racing.

But they are only the English articles translated. There's nothing unique in them.

[Knowlesy]

I didn't realise there was a version of F1 Racing with actual words.