The Wall Street Journal:
Apple Inc.’s plan to create a subscription service for news is running into resistance from major publishers over the tech giant’s proposed financial terms, according to people familiar with the situation, complicating an initiative that is part of the company’s efforts to offset slowing iPhone sales.
In its pitch to some news organizations, the Cupertino, Calif., company has said it would keep about half of the subscription revenue from the service, the people said. The service, described by industry executives as a “Netflix for news,” would allow users to read an unlimited amount of content from participating publishers for a monthly fee. It is expected to launch later this year as a paid tier of the Apple News app, the people said.
Me being picky, but I hate the tag “Netflix for news”. Movies have a long shelf life. The Netflix model works there. Music has a long shelf life. The Apple Music model works there.
News? The word “new” is right in there. Old news is like stale bread. Netflix works, in large part, because of the huge well of older content. New stuff is what draws you in, perhaps, but the older stuff keeps you engaged.
More from the story:
The New York Times and the Washington Post are among the major outlets that so far haven’t agreed to license their content to the service, in part because of concerns over the proposed terms, which haven’t been previously disclosed, according to the people familiar with the matter.
Part of the problem might be this:
Another concern for some publishers is that they likely wouldn’t get access to subscriber data, including credit-card information and email addresses, the people said. Credit-card information and email addresses are crucial for news organizations that seek to build their own customer databases and market their products to readers.
And this from The Verge’s Apple’s new deal for journalism should send publishers running (note that the URL ends with “LOL”):
Publishers, meanwhile, may need to hire new employees to manage the partnership, build the necessary product integrations, and address customer service issues. At a time when the industry is already laying off hundreds of journalists, asking them to build out their partnership and product teams in exchange for a potential revenue increase in the single digits appears laughable on its face.
I can’t imagine that this deal is going to work, at least not as is. Me? I’m going to keep my subscriptions to the new sources I value. I like sending my money directly to the organizations paying the reporters.
I really, really don’t see why anyone would want to subscribe to this rumoured service. You can already get all the news you can possibly read in a day free of charge via your web browser. And that’s even if you have adblocking and tracker blocking enabled.
*If* this service is all about giving you access to paywalled content across multiple publications for one fee, that might fly, but just how many news addicts are going to want to pay a monthly fee for even more news when they already have free access to far more than they can possibly read?
Half of the revenue is ridiculous.
“complicating an initiative that is part of the company’s efforts to offset slowing iPhone sales” is…well, let’s just call it a bit misleading.
i would submit that apple is not doing one because of the other. are they trying to find new revenue streams? obviously. that would be true no matter what was happening with iphone sales.
50% would beat the ZERO they get from me now.
But equally I’m very unlikely to want to pay the Times or the Post a red cent.
Haven’t most traditional print-news publishers largely adjusted to expecting greater viewership online anyway?
I don’t pretend to know what the upper-management overhead of a worldwide news agency is expected to be, but we’ve already seen enormous cutbacks to bureau coverage everywhere, both local and foreign.
If publishers are losing both that revenue and access to the customer list, it doesn’t matter what margin they’d normally expect. Unless newer companies have found more efficient ways to cover the news without having to support tweed-suited billionaires or VCs.
What’s the cost to printing and distribution these days, anyway? I remember when I was a kid we got more than 30% of the rate the customer was charged for delivery. I wouldn’t be surprised if 50% is ridiculous compared to other industries but reasonable for news when you add up all that Apple replaces…
But they’d still hold out, of course.
Ok, I’ll bite. *WHY* does a News Organisation want access to any of its subscriber details? Are you going to change what news you offer me based on my bank balance? Do I not hear about specific stories if I don’t pay you enough?
If I’m subscribed, then the News Organization does *not* need to market their products to me.
That’s not a news site talking, that’s a gossip rag.