Comparing the average costs to print a magazine against the costs of publishing digital issues?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David M. Kalman on May 29, 2009 at 2:55am

David, The technology for creating digital editions is available almost for free. The main costs involve labor for project management and workflow, design and custom development (for creating a unique look and feel or implementing unusual multimedia features), custom tracking and statistics, platform-specific reformatting (e.g., mobile), and hosting. To compare these costs to print, let's assume you replace 5,000 print copies monthly with digital editions. We know a print magazine can easily cost $1.25/each for printing and mailing/postage, so the annual cost for the 5,000 copies is $75,000. With digital editions, I can cut that cost to around $10,000, not counting any added costs of e-auditing (which are minor). Dave Kalman (dkalman@terrella.com), Product Mgr/ePublishing, Minnick Web Services

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David White on May 29, 2009 at 3:12am

Good point that some providers sell digital solutions for almost free but those providers offer a software which requires that you actually have to put a lot more manual labor in.

Spend that little bit extra with a quality provider and you get a PDF converted into a digital edition within maybe 5 minutes and if it is a hosted solution it normally will already be sat on a URL and so simply needs embedding into your own site. Custom tracking, project management, multimedia features etc can also be easily managed by the digital suppliers solution if the supplier is a good one e.g. not a free one. You can actually produce up to 20 issues with all of these features for just $5500US per year with our company and this of course can be distributed to thousands of readers.

I am not saying that going digital does not give someone a little extra work, but once one person is fully trained in using a good solution, the rest slots into place without much extra work.

I can see the eBooks on your site and can see that these are not delivered with a software such as what I mention above which is maybe why your opinion is one of extra hard labor.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David M. Kalman on May 29, 2009 at 11:04am

I apologize if I wasn't clear in my post. The labor cost to which I referred is for a complete, outsourced, no-overhead, hosted Flash-based digital edition (including conversion) that requires from the publisher only the delivery of a PDF. There's no extra work.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David White on May 29, 2009 at 11:55am

Ahh OK then you are referring to why providers charge so much for the solutions. The truth is that once a solution has been developed then the ongoing costs are minor as you mention if the solution is basic.

At our company we offer self-service access and spend our money on 3 key things which are; customer training, customer service, and product development. We find that clients like to control the software themselves especially publishers who work to tight deadlines and cannot afford to wait 1-7 days for conversion. Seems quite silly to imagine that some suppliers actually make clients wait days for conversion when it actually only takes a matter of minutes.

Seems no one else is joining us on this little comparison so 1.0 digital for now :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David M. Kalman on May 29, 2009 at 12:57pm

Unless the discussion is featured in a Folio news brief, it probably won't get much attention... Regardless, I didn't intend to start a price/feature skirmish. The more important and useful information for publishers is the big picture: a potential 80% (or more) savings over print distribution.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pierre Bisaillon on June 9, 2009 at 12:52pm

David,

I can see where you're going with this argument but it always strikes me as such a misguided argument. I had the benefit of speaking recently with Josh Gordon, publisher of the Ad Sales blob, at length about how strictly comparing digital editions to print editions is in no way offering potential publishers any constructive feedback in helping them with their digital initiatives.
Perhaps we should also throw in the comparison between the costs of a digital edition and a Web site or a blog. To put forth the argument that a publisher would be better off providing a digital edition RATHER than a print edition seems so narrow in focus as to be pointless.
Hats off to you for opening the door, now it's up to all of us to help carry the discussion much further in exposing the value and benefits publishers gain from adding a digital edition to their stable of products rather than replacing their print editions. Print got them there, why just throw it out because something new has come along?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Joseph Grassadonia on June 9, 2009 at 3:47pm

I would like to say, I do not believe print will ever be replaced by digital. We offer readers cutting edge information on fitness, nutrition and science and deliver it via print and digital. Readers have a choice to subscribe to our print and digital versions for the same yearly price. Up to now digital subscribers trickle in. That may change over time but right now most of our readers prefer printed versions. Our editorial is very specialized and readers prefer saving our printed product for their bookshelves to use as a re-source. In addition, we do a big business in back issue sales. When sold out the digital edition is there for readers to purchase. As for myself, I also prefer a printed version of any magazine because it's more gentle on my eyes. I do believe the digital edition is a must companion with a printed edition. It would be foolish to throw out print. I do believe in order for a publisher to survive with print, they will need to dramatically increase its single copy sales and yearly subscription costs and rely less on advertising. At the end of the day, print survival will be all about talented editorial.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pierre Bisaillon on June 18, 2009 at 10:39am

Joseph,

I would certainly agree with your statement about print never being replaced by digital. But I would also urge you to look deeper into how you look at digital. It seems, and I can only make assumptions from your reply above, that you view it as a print replica alternative which has proven again and again to be missing the opportunities digital presents. You state that readers have a "choice" between print and digital and even that they are the same price which again implies a comparison that is strictly based on format.
How easy would it be to have additional related information that expands on each article in a printed copy? How easy would it be to present a video that more clearly explains how far down you can squat without injury in your print edition? How simple is to offer prospective subscribers a short preview of the magazine in print to entice them to subscribe? How easy is it to try new markets and print/mail an extra 4000 copies to see how many new subscribers you can gain? Do you know in real-time what articles are read the most or which advertisers get direct traffic that you can report back to them about?

Digital editions can do all these things at very little cost. Can you say the same for print?

My point is we need to start looking towards tomorrow at what a digital edition can be rather than looking towards yesterday and what is replaces. One supports the other and once publishers begin to understand what is possible, they can grow revenues by leveraging their digital editions as the vehicle that helps achieve an overall success.
It's not a zero sum game!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark Gosnell on June 17, 2009 at 10:02am

Would you (as a print publisher moving to digital) expect to pay less for images? Or more if reach is your goal?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dean Cook on September 25, 2009 at 5:30am

Should the question be how effective is magazine in print against a digital issue and is it worth the price?

Seems like some people are misguided by the fad of digital versions. Don't get me wrong..it has great benefits but practically ...hmmm. Some people forget the 'prompt' that magazines can deliver when it drops on the doormat or office desk – something that digital versions can never do. Digital versions is great as a back up resource or a very cost effective way to see sample pages of a magazine but only from the angle of supporting the publication. Don't forget people buy information and content – not the paper it is printed on.

However, digital versions is a fantastic cost-effective solution for micro publishers as a way to get their news and information out to its community. Also bear in mind that these type of publications will not get as much advertising revenue to support it.

The magazine is such a tangible product which can be read anywhere, at anytime and with ease – again something the digital eZine version can't really offer. Have you tried reading an eZine version cover-to-cover on a bus, train or plane?

Many B2B publishers I work with take into account their editorial content is unique and therefore is a valuable asset to them and the reader. The publishers are safeguarding their asset, revenue and business. On a B2B publication level – nothing is free and you would be nuts to think otherwise.

Also, I read in a recent survey that magazine advertising is second place after TV in terms of effective advertising – let's face it, magazine advertising is also far more cost effective, more focused on it's niche market places and can deliver a high amount of unique editorial content for that particular industry. Now where was web advertising? A fair few places down.

You need to look after what your readers want and not lead them to something which is only going to give them hurdles to jump over – such as, with a digital issue, they need to turn on their computer, opening up their web browser (er, open up email first, find the email to find the link) then to the web browser, open up the page, wait for it to load. With a magazine, pull out of bag, open up mag!

Magazines will always be a primary media whilst digital versions and the web will only complement it…not replace it.

I will leave my thoughts there for the moment because I could hold this argument for hours.

▶ Reply to This