Kindle Review – Kindle Fire Review, Kindle 4 Review

Hearst, Conde Nast, Meredith, Time Inc, and News Corp. have announced their Grand Magazine Consortium and, not surprisingly, everyone in media is talking about it.

Here are the things that make me wonder -

Where is the talk of the benefit to customers?

Staci Kramer at Paid Content covers the four key goals and only one is related to customers.

The 4 goals are roughly -

• Be ready for full-color devices and render magazines beautifully on them. 
• Platform that works across multiple devices, Operations Systems and screens. 
• (This one is great) Common storefront where consumers can easily make purchases and get universal access on any device. 
• Develop new advertising forms.  

#2 seems an impossible goal – it would make more sense to pick the top 3 channels and focus on those.

The bigger concern is that customers account for magazine revenue (directly and indirectly) and only one of the 4 goals is for customers.

Consider this comment from a 9to5 mac user -

As a reader I have no interest in a “rich array of innovative advertising opportunities”.

I am into content not “in your face, obnoxious, interfering, unremitting advertising” promoting more conspicuous consumption, debt, and magazine profits.

Customers are willing to pay for high quality content – especially when it caters to their interests.

How about changing the goals to cater to your actual customers -

1. Deliver the content that customers want (and which they benefit from) in a form that delights them. 
2. The 2nd goal – easy access on any device is good. Would just replace any device by one of the top 3 magazine-appropriate devices.
3. Increase the value proposition for customers by reducing costs of producing and distributing content.  
4. Develop a device that is ideally suited for people who read magazines (instead of hoping someone else does it).  
5. Figure out how to provide customers what they want and let them pay for it.
6. Avoid bothering customers with advertisements that get them to buy things they don’t really need. 

And why not have more of a focus on catering to niches?

What will they charge? How will they split it up?

This should have been done 10-20 years ago. Now that it’s finally being done the pricing and distribution of revenue becomes interesting -

• What are the monthly charges per magazine?
• Is there an all you can read option? 
• What share does the Consortium get? What share does everyone else get?
• How does the Consortium split up its share?

Think a little bit about it and phrases like ‘common storefront’ and ‘platform that works across devices’ don’t really work - there’s no magazine eReader to bring completion.

Why aren’t they including the delivery channel i.e. a magazine eReader?

Peter Kafka at Media Memo brings up a good point -

Will Apple and Amazon, in particular, let others control the sale of digital media to their devices via Apple’s and Amazon’s storefronts?

There’s a related question -

1. Even if Apple and Amazon are ready to let others control magazine sales they’d still want 30% or more. Why do the Big 5 want to play along?

It’s not like the magazines are making so much money that giving up 30% isn’t a big deal.

• Why don’t they tie-up with a device maker (such a B&N or Sony) that would be happy to let them take 90% of the revenue in return for 10% and the branding and marketing benefits of being ‘the magazine eReader’?
• Why don’t they build their own eReader? If small start-ups in the UK can do it surely Publishers should be able to – shouldn’t they?

Which brings us to …

Why is Hearst developing Skiff and Skiff Reader separately?

Hearst seems to be on the right track with the Skiff Reader. Except it’s a solo venture.

MediaPost rightly point out that there seems to be competition and confusion amidst the 5 publishers themselves.

1. Why isn’t the whole consortium working with Hearst on Skiff?
2. What part of ‘if we control the channel we make all the profits’ do the remaining Grand Magazine Consortium members not understand?
3. At the same time Conde Nast and Time Inc. have been working on a tablet-friendly format – something targeted at an Apple Slate reader.

 It really does seem that there isn’t much cohesion amongst the members of the Grand Publishing Consortium.

Trying to create a platform that works everywhere will kill the venture

Just as it would be a huge benefit to have just one or two major formats, it would be a huge benefit to decide on 2 or 3 devices and focus on them.

What it comes down to is that a combination such as ‘PC, Mac, iPhone, and Kindle’ is going to cover 80 to 90% of the market. The incremental cost of covering things like the Droid and Linux is not going to be worth it.

1. It’s much better to do an A+ job of catering to the 80% of the audience.
2. There’s also the dimension of customers of good intent - iPhone and Kindle owners are much likelier to pay for content than Droid owners who get almost everything free.

Have they really thought through the amount of effort that will go into supporting multiple devices and screens?

Why launch without a name or a website? Why pre-announce?

You have 5,000 thousand different news sites pointing to you and millions finding out – wouldn’t it make sense to start building a website and a brand?

Here are the things that are missing -

1. A name.
2. A website.
3. A finalized CEO. When your head is saying – “Hopefully, I’ll be CEO” – how can you expect him to be the leader?

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The far bigger issue is how the Grand Magazine Consortium hasn’t actually done anything. They are spending more time talking than doing.

• Hearst has been working for 2 years on the Skiff Reader and will be launching an entire device next year.
• The Consortium don’t even have a website up.

They have to compete with Amazon and Apple who have millions and tens of millions of users already using their platforms and devices. There’s no point to doing a grand announcement.

144 million plus audience – Really?

The Grand Magazine Consortium are claiming ‘an unduplicated audience of 144.6 million’.

Actually, their real audience is ZERO. They don’t know until they release the service – perhaps those 144.6 million people won’t be as eager to be your audience when you start charging.

Your real customers are people who are benefiting to the point that they are providing value back. If 144.6 million people come read your free content they are not your ‘customers’.

Is this about evolving or saving what Publishers are used to?

There’s a very strong underlying sense of ‘We want to be able to still do things our way’.

What does this initiative do for customers?

1. Nothing except provide universal access on any device.

What does this initiative aim to do for Magazine Publishers?

1. Give them control.
2. Let them send out magazines in full-color and in a ‘beautiful’ format – the way they think magazines should be. 
3. Let them find new advertising methods.
4. Not let Apple and Amazon dictate terms to them. 

Magazine Publishers, even with their supposed forward-thinking Grand Magazine Consortium, are still not getting it -

1. It’s not about new forms of advertising.
2. It’s not about what Publishers want.
3. It’s not about what Publishers think will work.
4. It’s not about control.

We are in a world where customers have a lot of intelligence and a lot of power.

• The only defensible strategy is to provide a ton of value to customers and be excellent.
• You can only win if you provide the highest quality content in the areas customers want.

It’s about the amount of value provided and how easily customers can access it.

Is it really that hard to detach from your own needs and your own perspective? 

Customers are the source of the money – even for advertising. Customer service should be the #1 priority – not an afterthought.

Filed under: publishing Tagged: | future of magazines, itunes for magazines