At the D8 conference, Steve Jobs noted that in his experience digital content had attenuated success when expensive around 41:15 here (embed also down at bottom). Therefore he was trying to convince publishers to "price aggressively" and seek volume. And why not? As Jobs notes, manufacturing and distribution costs are much lower in the digital. Of course this has been the mantra since Negroponte and Gilder were swapping columns in the '90's (yeah, this concept is pre-blog).

The following gives pricing for similar content across the multiple media channels. The pricing is all over the place. I look at newspapers, comic books, and books. Following that, some clumsy thoughts by me on the data.

Newspapers have a pricing problem, not a digital dilemma

Looking at these prices, no wonder the New York Times is having trouble! The Wall Street Journal provides focused information to an audience that gains financial benefit from interaction with the content. The New York Times is a general interest news source. Yet, its print edition is nearly 3 times more expensive than the Journal's. Unless you really can't stand WSJ's editorial bias (and I sympathize), why pay 3 times more for the NYT? (Update, 6/27/10, looking at NYT's webpage again, I note that they tout these prices as "50% off the regular subscription rate"! Also, this is whether your zip is 10011, Tribeca, or 07480, 60 miles into north Jersey.)

Even the weekly and "Weekender" NYT editions are a bad deal, costing more than a full week of the Journal, on an annual basis. If your money matters, you'd be rational to subscribe to the WSJ and then get the NY Times Crossword Puzzle iPhone app with a 1-year in-app subscription for $16.99. If you did that, you'd come out $41 to $120 ahead. That'd fetch you a fine cigar or bottle of wine, depending on your tastes and which NYT subscription you gave up.

That said, what's with the iPad subscription for the Wall Street Journal? At $207, that's nearly twice the cost of WSJ in print. No reflection of the lowered manufacturing and distribution costs there. OK, Apple takes 30%. But even if NewsCorp had no distribution and manufacturing friction in print, NewsCorp still gets ~$159 from the iPad subscription, which is $24 more than the annual print+web subscription.

Is the WSJ just screwing iPad owners? Maybe they think it's an elite product and there's a prestige premium? At 1 iPad every three seconds (Google it), just how long will this remain a niche prestige device?

Maybe Murdoch would agree with me that media = content + features and the iPad brings greater value for that. But have you seen the iPad app for WSJ? Aside from formatting, what exactly is new or distinctive? I'd rather save half the money and get that in-browser edition instead.

Marvel at an even stronger example of iPad inflation

I love Marvel comics, without apologies. I am most crazy about Batman, and DC has just added a similar product to Marvel's (the company is comixology, and research counts...) but DC appears to have no digital strategy at all (Watchmen motion comics don't count, try watching one.) But Marvel's digital pricing is unloveable. Here's the figures:

Well, my chiropractor loves Marvel. Their Flash subscription is one reason I have to drag a MacBook around. Wish I could say the same for DC.

But that iPad app pricing! I admit I'd probably pay more the Flash subscription ($10/month? Sorry fellow fans.) But the iPad is priced the same as print. Are you telling me that iPad development, on an product that is already digitally prepped for online, costs the same to produce and distribute as a 4-color glossy? Sure, the iPad is a better form factor for comics browsing than a typical notebook display. But that pricing! Fuggedhiboutit!

DC is a little better, $12 a year for a title seems affordable. But don't forget! In comics these days most storylines run across several titles and the really good stories are in non-subscription miniseries.

Please join me in convincing Marvel that digital iPad subscriptions would increase profit by putting sales volume on steroids. If you know where to contact and what to say for DC, leave something in the comments.

Good old "books"

I mean, "content that is primarily composed of linear text such as narrative fiction." Here's the prices on some popular titles that I recently enjoyed.

Freedom (TM) by Daniel Suarez (affiliate link) Amazon hardback: $10.51 Amazon paperback: $9.99 Apple iBbooks: $12.99 Kindle: $12.99 Used paperback: not available Used hardback: $10.05

The Innovator's Dilemma by Clayton Christenson (affiliate link) Amazon hardback: $23.10 Amazon hardback used: $7.75 Amazon paperback: $12.30 Amazon paperback used: $4.77 Apple iBooks: Unavailable at this time Kindle: $8.90 Audio: $16.47

Last week at the Untethered conference, the heads of respectable firms regularly griped that Amazon's pricing was "below cost", that browser delivered content was killing them, and that all hope lay in devices like the iPad.

Digital pricing is below cost? Either they are comparing it to print costs which is disingenuous, or their New Media production is an inept cost center. Well, knowing what I know about publishing, probably both are true...

But look again at the prices: Audio is more than print paperbacks (Even with an Audible subscription-- $15/month for 1 title). Kindle is not much worse than print prices, higher in one case.

Well, thanks for sticking around this long. Please comment if you'd like.

S. Jobs @ D8

Zip forward to the 41st minute for the content pricing discussion: