BigGayDeal.com

GQ Sells 365 Copies of First iPad Edition

Jakeg

GQ says it is happy with how its first iPad edition sold, Mashable reports:

"GQ, one of the first magazine titles to appear on the iPad, has sold 365 copies of its December 2009 Men of the Year issue, according to publisher Pete Hunsinger. The issue was priced at $2.99 per download — $2 less than the newsstand price — for a grand total of $1,091.35 in sales. Somewhat surprisingly, GQ appears to be pleased with this figure. 'This costs us nothing extra: no printing or postage,' says Hunsinger. 'Everything is profit, and I look forward to the time when iPad issue sales become a major component to our circulation.' It seems developer fees did not enter into his cost calculations. On the bright side, sales for the iPhone and iPod touch version is steadily increasing, according to the iTunes store. GQ’s latest May 2010 issue for the iPhone and iPod touch is the best-selling in the store right now, suggesting that the magazine is developing a solid base of repeat buyers."

Perhaps they would sell more if it wasn't simply a glorified PDF.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Wait until you see the WIRED issue...with all it's bells and whistles. the experience is crazy different from a PDF. trust.

    Posted by: SCG | May 18, 2010 8:56:05 AM


  2. they would've sold more if it got past the splash screen. which it does not do.

    Posted by: barilla | May 18, 2010 9:10:33 AM


  3. SCG is right...This is what a digital magazine on the ipad should look like...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0D4avXwMmM

    Posted by: c | May 18, 2010 9:14:35 AM


  4. Sigh, another tie blocking the crotch.

    Posted by: Maverick69 | May 18, 2010 9:24:50 AM


  5. "Perhaps they would sell more if it wasn't simply a glorified PDF."

    I don't understand what you expect at $2 less than the print edition.

    Posted by: Bastian | May 18, 2010 9:46:29 AM


  6. Newsflash - they sold those b/c that stud is on the cover. The iPad has nothing to do with it.

    Posted by: Victor | May 18, 2010 10:11:58 AM


  7. It's a bit of a catch-22. GQ and Vanity Fair actually did a decent job of preserving the magazine layout in the horizontal view, while giving you an alternative vertical viewing experience that provides simplified reading, slideshows and videos in the vertical view. Not bad at all for $1.99 an issue.

    Sure the WIRED one looks cooler, and they are re-authoring it as a native iPad app, but it remains to be seen what they'll charge for it. Hopefully it won't follow TIME's ridiculous $4.99 per issue pricing. I don't necessarily think magazines need to be much more than a "glorified PDF" if it's priced reasonably. The last thing I want to see is overpriced bells and whistles, when all I really want to do is read a magazine.

    Posted by: Michael | May 18, 2010 12:10:06 PM


  8. what's this? people are slowly discovering how much of a waste of time the ipad is? weird!

    Posted by: Abby | May 18, 2010 1:24:07 PM


  9. I'm a devoted AAPL follower and maintain an arsenal of most of their products, but when I obtain my GQ print subscription for $2.99/year, there isn't a whole lot a digital edition can do that will impress me enough to pay 12 times more for it.

    Posted by: Scott | May 18, 2010 2:03:40 PM


  10. And by sheer coincidence, all 365 buyers have photos on that "Guys With iPhones" website.

    Posted by: Drew | May 18, 2010 2:50:59 PM


  11. Actually if you look at the numbers is more detail I'd be pretty happy with the 365 sales too.

    Let's just look at subscriptions (not news stand sales).

    GQ has 700,000 annual subscribers at $12/year or $1/month. (That's the highest cost. You can get it for $.83/month for a 24 month subscription) That's only $700,000 in revenue for that issue, not including ad revenue of course + the costs of printing, mailing, etc...

    Those same 365 sales at $2.99 each netted them $1.9 million.

    Not too shabby. But I'll add that a lot of those sales were part of a curiosity factor - without improvements in the content and a lower price - those sales won't be sustainable.

    Posted by: WillnDurhamNC | May 18, 2010 3:20:46 PM


  12. IMO, magazine sites still seem to be better than the app versions. You can look at them via the ipad browser. And they're free.

    Posted by: Chal | May 18, 2010 6:46:15 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Photos, Video: Mount St. Helens Blew its Top 30 Years Ago Today« «