Time Warner CEO hints at tying print, tablet magazine subscriptions together
By Donald Melanson 
posted August 4th 2010 6:23PM
posted August 4th 2010 6:23PM
We'd already heard that Time Warner was looking to offer magazine subscriptions on the iPad (and running into some difficulty doing so), and it now looks like it might have some even grander plans. As hinted at by Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes in an earnings call earlier today, the company is apparently looking at extending its TV Everywhere concept to magazines, which would give customers that subscribe to the print editions of Time, Sports Illustrated and other publications access to the digital version as well. Of course, Bewkes didn't offer any indication as to exactly when that might happen, but he did say that the "key to it all" is to give subscribers access to content "over all broadband devices as soon as possible," which is certainly promising.
@ok1 Google shitty programming
I spent $500 on an ipad and $36 a year for Pandora. Im pretty sure im not getting nickled and dimed to death.
@ok1 Google shitty programming
But it doesn't have flash.
@ok1 Google shitty programming
So I read (for example) the paper version of Time, I buy a subscription to it and get both the paper version and the digital version sent to me each and every week. How is that a bad idea? (assuming you read Time)
This would of course transfer to The New Scientist/The Economist/FHM/Stuff any magazine that has both an "offline" and online subscription.
More consumer choice? Over Steve's dead body.
What?? They should have done this from day one. The magazines are created on a computer first anyways, why the hell would you make your subscribers pay twice? GTFO
@ok1 Google shitty programming
Agreed. I prefer to stick to reality, and not to be spoon fed lies, PR, half-truths and what have you.
@MisterWarmth More revenue through the App store? Into Steve's wallet.
@ok1 Google shitty programming Unless they make it available as an ePUB document I can use on my Nook then I'm not interested.
I'm still surprised people still read these publications, let alone paper versus digital.
@DistantHere You get a greater level of in-depth analysis in paper magazines/newspapers than you do online (unless you scour the net to find different sources).
@DistantHere I get the paper magazine and I like it. Now that I have a Nook I'd prefer a digital version. I like Time and I've subscribed to a few magazines in my day but this is one of the few that I still enjoy.
@d0mth0ma5 They are in-depth but most of the time it's just padding. I find online articles are concise and get the important information across. Suffice to say, I've never found online content lacking to the point where a subscription to a magazine like this would be required.
I used to have a number of subscriptions and before I stopped them, about half the pages were adverts, some articles were older and out of date and only about 1/5th of the articles interested me.
Static magazines are like television, the author prescribes content to you, most of which you don't care about and they use ads to cover the costs of pushing out that redundant info. Internet publications are like video-on-demand. You only pick what interests you and you get way more choice.
Standalone magazine apps are pointless. Websites are designed to fill this role. They just need to find a way to protect the content.
@d0mth0ma5
LOL. We're talking Sports Illustrated and Time, here.
NO WAY! You get the same content in digital AND print without having to pay TWICE?? I can hardly believe it! It's almost like that's been a huge complaint for years.
Yeah this would be nice,
Steve Jobs says NO! Lol, but seriously, Apple won't even let them sell a subscription to the iPad by itself, how is that gonna go over for the iDevices?
Who bothers reading these magazines anymore?
@Johnny Rockets Actually a lot of people. I subscribe to PopSci and yes I do read and find a lot of similar content for free online but the magazine still finds and puts together content that I would have never found out about if I didn't read it on the magazine. I really hope PopSci follows and start offering online issues for those who have already subscribed to print. Right now they offer each magazine like 3.99, way too much.
@Johnny Rockets Who reads these magazines. Probably people looking for quality journalism. The likes of which are not found on internet blogs.... like the the one you are reading now.
@iPhone 4
Engadget isn't quality? Heresy!
@iPhone 4 Exactly. Engadget is one of the better blogs but it is still just a blog. It is not journalism. The only blogs that contain journalism are the ones written by journalists and they usually save all the good stuff for paid content.
@iPhone 4
Yes, Time Warner Company = quality journalism.
...
...
OK, I can't keep a straight face anymore... hahahahahaha.
Please do this! This would make me very happy.
I don't see how this is compatible with Apple's usual revenue collection method for digital content - raking in cash.
Yes please!!
People don`t want to pay for this stuff anyway.
They didn`t pay for it when using a laptop , spending $800 to buy a magazine and comic books to read on an iPad is a fail too.
Kindle has already become the "BandAid" of electronic book readers.
iPad is just an overpriced , gimped laptop...nothing more.
@bufbarnaby
Incorrect, now pick up your toys and please leave until such a time as you can deliver a coherent argument. For the record, usage of the word "fail" is an instant example of a lack of adherence to this advice.
Why would I want a paper copy and a digital copy? All I wan't is a digital copy on a subscription plan that gives me the same sort of discount that any other magazine gives when you subscribe. I'm not not even asking for it to be cheaper than a physical copy subscription although it should be as there is less overhead involved. Just give me a digital copy at a fair price. If Time is having trouble making ends meet then maybe they shouldn't be in business or maybe they are paying their executives too much.
Having said that, I was only speaking theoretically anyway as I'm not really interested in Time but I am interested in other magazines.
"The Economist" does this already, and has for years. Its content also puts "Time" to shame. I know which one I'll continue to choose...
Hmmm isn't this the fucking obvious? Why are idiots like this getting paid so much money?
the words 'about' and 'time' seem to be in alignment.
Grasping at straws.
They don't really need to tie them together, just match the price.
It's weird that paper edition is more cheaper than electronic edition.
So selling overpriced versions of the content to the ipad owners idea got face planted and now they are going to "save" the paper publications with this new model...again! Damn that's rough. Expect continuous price hiking under this model, they had the plan, now you pay.
FINALLY someone that gets that people don't care if something is paper or digital.
But I must say, can someone PLEASE come out with a format that can be read on more than just the iPad?!?!
It might not be optimal, but I'd love to be able to read an article or three on my phone (Android)... or even on my laptop (PC). And no, websites pale in comparison to a well-formatted magazine spread.
They are just now thinking of this? Seems like a pretty simple solution to me... This, in my opinion, is the only real chance the magazine/periodacal industry has.
I don't want a subscription to both paper and digital. I just want digital. I don't like wasting paper.
Fuck Time Warner.
Man, you mean like, I pay for the magazine and they realize I should not pay AGAIN for the SAME content in digital form? That's nuts! There must be some true marketing maestros at work there.
Wait you mean bundle the same content in a digital version that you also get in the print version? Why why that would never work, think of the countless manhours wasted converting it to a ready to go digital format....Think of the hours and hours of reentering the data and layouts into a digital format from the print version. Just the time down converting it from a CMYK output to a sRGB that alone takes so long now. Why would they ever do that for the same content?
Grab your ass and pull your heads out finally publishers. Maybe if you did this first your converted print websites would have succeeded years ago without the need of a iAnything.