Publishers: Avoid Apple’s “curation” at all costs

Published on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 07:47PM CST by Michael Fraase in Publishing

0

ArrestBefore my Internet Tour Guide became a best-seller, but after the acquisitions editor pulled my proposal out of the publisher’s trash bin, the book almost didn’t get published. Writing books and magazine articles had become a full-time gig for me from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s and I saw a way to expand. My idea was simple: Merge the best parts of magazine publishing with book publishing. And try it on someone else’s dime. In the back of the book would be a tear-out card for two free quarterly electronic updates to the book, along with an offer to subscribe for a year’s worth of updates. Get it?

This was 1993—the dawn of the commercial internet—and the only interaction I had with my readers was through email and speaking engagements. I wanted to know more about what they were interested in because I suspected it was the same folks buying each work.

Having written for a lot of magazines I was always curious about why the business side—especially the circulation director—was paranoiacally protective of and disturbingly enamored with “The List” (of subscribers). It didn’t take me long to figure it out. Here was a list of hundreds of thousands of people who were willing to pay for what you produced. In addition to name, address, phone, and the like, it had a good bit of demographic information about each individual, as well.

My publisher for that book, skunk that he was, was not stupid. He understood the value of “The List” as well as I did. Probably better. He argued that readers should send their cards to him, not me. I was having none of that, and it took us several days to negotiate an arrangement: The publisher would receive the cards from the readers, have an employee enter the data in a database, and send me the files. It was pitched as saving me the trouble of data entry. I stupidly, stupidly took the deal. Stupid because the skunk publisher never sent the complete database.

That’s the frame of reference for what Time, Inc. is currently going through with Apple. Time, Inc. wants to sell iPad subscriptions to its publications through Apple’s iTunes Store. Not being stupid, it’s not about to let Apple control it’s list. But Apple, not being stupid either, won’t have it any other way.

Twitter Digg Reddit Technorati Google Bookmark Delicious StumbleUpon Print Friendly Email

Peter Kafka, writing for All Things Digital, reports this conflict comes “much to Time, Inc.‘s surprise.” Oh, sure it does. Kafka writes that Time, Inc. had to resort to selling single copies of its Sports Illustrated app through the iTunes Store last month because Apple rejected Time, Inc.‘s subscription app at the last minute.

Kafka reveals the revered importance of “The List” for publications: “Subscriptions, whether they’re for ink-and-paper magazines or their digital editions, are a big deal for Time, Inc. and every other magazine publisher. They value them in part because they provide recurring revenue, but primarily because they provide a treasure trove of data.” Publishers can also grow value in their publications by bundling the two editions, discounting—or giving away—one or the other edition. But doing that requires control of “The List.”

Time, Inc. executives told Kafka they “had been communicating with Apple throughout the spring as they developed their subscription plans, and had been told that Apple approved.” Kafka reports that Time, Inc. can’t get a clear answer from Apple on how the project went off the rails and opines that “Steve Jobs loves the idea of digital magazines and wants to control the market for himself.”

Apple is clearly telling Time, Inc. (and other publishers) to go pound sand down a rat hole with it’s official statement: “We have two platforms that we support for apps of all types, including magazines: HTML5 provides an open platform for developers to create and distribute whatever they want, and the App Store which is a curated platform offering customers the largest offering of apps for any mobile device with over 225,000 apps and 5 billion downloads.”

Except how, then, do you square that Apple rejected Time Inc.‘s app, yet approved apps from Amazon and the Wall Street Journal, both of which bill customers directly.

If you’re a publisher, my advice is the same as it’s always been: Avoid Apple’s “curation” at all costs. Do not be distracted by the shiny iPad object. HTML5 and CSS3 provide almost as rich a publishing environment with no walled gardens (hint: CSS3’s media queries).