Tuesday, April 26, 2011

I am wondering...

E-readers (Nook, Kindle) are gaining in popularity. My daughter loves her Kindle. She is a voracious reader and puts away 1 or 2 books a week. So far she has 500+ on hers so this format makes total sense for her and the cost saving has paid for the reader many times over.

If I had the time or interest in reading books like she does I would jump on one. Only drawback for me is I am more into magazines and the Kindle (due to it being black and white only and not lending itself to pictures) is a little thin in that mag department.

So, what about the Nook? It's color after all. Well, they do have a much wider selection of magazines, even carrying about half the ones I get hard copies of and about 4 or 5 more that I would like to subscribe to or did in the past. The reader itself is competitively priced to the Kindle so what's holding me back?

This brings up a question to: why should I spend $149 for a 7" screen then have to subscribe again to a magazine I already get in the mail (for $10 a year...mailed to my doorstep...a paper magazine I can have and hold) and pay them $23.88 for a year...for the same one I get a hard copy of for $10 a year...

LISTEN TO THE WORD COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH: make people pay $24 a year for the paper magazine and only pay $10 a year for the e-magazine and you may actually be able to get some takers. Especially for those who want to feel warm an fuzzy about saving a tree.

And...AND...what about us people who have drunk the Kool-Aid and been faithful subscribers for years (been getting Bicycling mag for 12 years straight now) where's our incentive? I'm paid up for the next 18 months because I took your hard sell 'Go Longer and Save' pitch but I can't switch from paper to electronic? And if I wait a year and a half for it to run out your going to charge me the same or more to get less?

Sorry, seems like a broken model to me. I just don't think that many people will be fooled by this...but then again look at the last presidential election.

(BTW you can check my numbers yourself: go to barnsandnoble.com and look a the e-subscription rate for Field & Stream, then go to fieldandstream.com and click 'subscribe' and see what they charge there)

Labels:

2 Comments:

Blogger Laura said...

I agree with you.

I read tons of magazines. AND books. Neither of which I'm willing to give up for digital copies. I think the Kindle/Nook is neat, and actually just this week I downloaded an e-reader app to my phone so I could check out books DIGITALLY from the library (how cool!). But I'm not yet willing to trade the shelves of real books, the smell of library book covers. I still love turning pages.

We have tons of magazines and admittedly read them mostly while we're eating (probably a terrible dinner table habit, but conversation is difficult with a 3yo anyway). They are one thing I can't go for digitally. I don't even like magazine's websites. I LOVE real, tangible magazines.

ps. I also LOVE LOVE LOVE catalogs. I am 100% more likely to buy from companies that send me catalogs... true story.

11:53 AM, April 26, 2011  
Blogger Knot said...

I'm with you on this. I see this in a couple of different ways. I feel like if I bought the cassette tape I own the license to a body of music. Shouldn't I be allowed to trade in my tape for a CD or MP3's?

As a photographer, it costs me next to nothing to sell you a photograph electronically. I make TONS more money charging a customer a sitting fee and burning a CD, rather than printing an image on paper. I always incur a cost when I print. (I order pics, pay for postage and delivery and have to double or triple the price of prints to cover costs.).

So, I see your point. The model is broken from the customer point of view, but totally works from the publisher point of view.

5:57 AM, April 28, 2011  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home