Newspapers were valuable but limited in scope. It was only when, like paper itself, they became more affordable to produce and more widespread that they took a firm hold in the culture. The introduction of the “penny press”—inexpensive papers geared towards the general public—marked a turning point for adoption rates. “A colonial newspaper would print maybe 200 copies of a particular issue,” says Tucher. “By the end of the 1830s you could print 20,000 copies of the same issue. So it was a lot cheaper and it also meant that a lot more people could read it ”
The penny press made papers widely available to a growing working class that was either uninterested in elitist soapboxing or couldn’t afford a daily paper. Talk of politics and government was mixed with sensationalist accounts of crime and celebrity, broadening its readership beyond niche markets. This, in turn, provoked a cultural sea change. “A lot of people in the working class who had never read a newspaper before because it had nothing in it for them, they started to feel they had the same rights as everyone else and they wanted to take part in public life,” Tucher says.
Availability, affordability, and gradual reader habituation helped newspapers proliferate.
The story of magazines follows a similar plot. While newspapers focused on the news, magazines were largely considered a frivolity for the leisured middle class. Despite their physical appeal, adoption was limited. What factors changed that? The same factors that helped the printing press and newspaper hit mass market: a cultural shift and increased distribution. People had more leisure time and magazines were able to offer more value—including photographs and illustrations, for example—at a lower cost.
The digital world necessarily overlaps with the history of print and news consumption. Radio took over from the telegraph as a way of instantly receiving information. The new technology was met with both tremendous excitement and an enormously low adoption rate. People were unused to the relatively expensive new platform, but as technology improved, radio broadcasts became more numerous and commonplace and radio became part of daily life. Broadcast, as you can guess, followed a similar line.
Blogs form an interesting middle ground between the world of print media and the world of technology. And I believe they are what iPad magazines most closely resemble, whether they like it or not.
The term “weblog” existed as early as 1997, but blogs didn’t come into their own until nearly ten years later. “The two big drivers were, one: the growing realization that this was a form that really worked, it was just a good way to publish information on the web,” says Scott Rosenberg, a co-founder of Salon and author of Say Everything, a history of blogs and bloggers. He explained that the second reason had to do with Google’s advertising model: “It was all driven by the awareness that Google provided, that pageviews had value You could just drop Google’s ad units into your pages and make a little money.”
Another factor was the natural growth of the Internet. According to Internet World Stats, in 1997 there were about seventy million Internet users. By 2003, this number had jumped to approximately 713 million. In September of 2010, this number more than doubled to 1.9 billion. Clearly, there is some chicken and egg at play, but the Internet and its over 125 million blogs now reach a massive audience of potential readers. And it’s all, more or less, free.
So how do the iPad and its slumping sales fit into the broader pattern of new platforms? Those sales mirror a long trend of historical adoption rates and cultural attitudes: initial enthusiasm for a new platform, slow adoption, and then gradually increasing sales as the population gets habituated to using the new technology. “Things never knock off,” Tucher says. “Technologies are introduced over a number of generations and the acceptance varies according to what you know before, what you’re used to.”
But history is not always guaranteed to repeat itself. iPads are not a guaranteed success and could still easily go the way of laserdiscs rather than DVDs.

I'd say that the most important factor hindering the rate of tablet magazine adoption is the entry cost. I seriously doubt anyone but the most well-off gadget fanatics will invest hundreds in an iPad or other tablet expressly for the purpose of reading digital magazines. My guess is that for those folks who just have to have access to digital magazines, a Kindle or Nook is a much more likely option. Another thing I'm hearing is that many people aren't as enamored with the form factor of the iPad as Apple might have hoped, and that it's rather fragile and not as simple to transport as its printed counterparts. Another major question is whether digital mags are even worth the trouble at all. I personally find them to offer a far inferior reading experience than printed mags, so why even go there? Once the novelty of the tablet wears off, I'll bet magazine app adoption will have a very long, slow road ahead before it becomes integrated into our culture as an accepted medium — if it ever happens at all.
#1 Posted by Magazine Design, CJR on Tue 21 Jun 2011 at 12:38 PM
Magazines on iPad look stunning, the ads, the videos the pictures ... every thing looks so classy. I don't purchase printed magazines anymore. I love reading digital magazines on iPads and iPhones. I use Other edition's newsstand for reading digital magazines.
iPad Magazines
#2 Posted by Steven, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 06:30 AM
I'm loving reading iPad magazine, current favourite is new scientist! I've found the best place to buy them is here:
Find Digital & iPad Magazines
Thanks,
Chris
#3 Posted by Chris, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 07:38 AM
I think one thing missing here is that adoption will come with an increase in value perceived by readers/users. What value is the publisher adding for the consumer to make digital magazines more than just a digital copy of the print magazine?
Until publishers really innovate with their digital magazines, they'll be a fairly small part of the magazine ecosystem. Consumers have far too many things competing for their time and money to worry about switching to digital magazines, at least until those digital magazines offer something that current digital mags and print mags can't. The obvious thing to me is to make the digital magazine a portal for engagement with readers - chats/ustream events with authors/columnists, interaction with other readers, etc...
#4 Posted by Kevin Burns, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 11:22 AM
Comparing the emergence of print to the much talked about tablet revolution is hardly balanced. Print emerged when there was no media at all. Now tablets are coming into a space where media is pervasive--everywhere and in a number of different forms. There will be adoption but not replacement of print media. Just another tool in a large media universe. Hardly the monumental event that the printing press was to mass media. It practically created mass media.
#5 Posted by Mark, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 11:58 AM
I work in the field and have read hundreds of emails, and thousands of public comments, on the subject. The overwhelming, nothing-else-matters, reason for the decline in readership was that magazines didn't have well-priced subscriptions available when they launched. In print, if Wired, Elle, Popular Mechanics, The Oprah Magazine and others were newsstand-only they'd be tiny publications. No one was going to pay $50 a year (single-issue price times 12) for a year of iPad access to a monthly. Now that subs are widely available, we'll have to see what happens. Is it too late? Are other reading experiences on tablets more compelling? Or will these apps find a strong audience? The experiment has really just begun.
#6 Posted by Jake Roberts, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 01:48 PM
@Mark: I absolutely agree that the iPad won't erase print media. The argument was more about the inevitable progression of iPad magazine sales. A spike of interest, followed by a dip in sales (the pre-holiday stats mentioned) and then gradual acceptance as it becomes accepted as a means of content delivery. The comparison was then how other media followed similar (though not mirror) patterns when they were first introduced.
@Jake Roberts: Interesting point and I think that's a huge part of the puzzle. As far as I can tell, most magazines are not happy about Apple's subscription plan. It will be interesting to see who buckles first: an audience (us) used to iTunes like convenience but with a cost, or Apple who may need to get more people signing up for digital subscriptions.
@Everyone: Thanks for the wonderful comments, looking forward to see where this conversation takes us.
#7 Posted by Zack, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 02:19 PM
I don't know why Zack and Mark don't think tablets and other new digital media won't erase print media. I haven't even written on paper in years, all my writing is on digital devices. The only people who still buy printed publications are old people, who are just used to reading off paper. I have handled a print magazine or newspaper maybe a dozen times in the last 5 years, while I regularly read many different sites online. Look at how many people buy the print edition of the NYT or WSJ versus how many uniques their websites get, it's usually a 1:10 ratio. The writing is on the wall and I find it strange that people seem so reluctant to call the death of an antiquated medium like paper, so much so that they make strange assertions like that.
#8 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 22 Jun 2011 at 09:52 PM
I think it's simple. Until the technology to replace the experience of paper (the bathroom/subway test) becomes widely available, all this will be beta. The iPad is a step toward replicating the experience of paper -- portable and easy to read. When the technology becomes more fluid in its user experience -- mostly, size and shape, as well as durability of the device (how much can you fold, spindle and mutilate before it stops working?) -- and the price point works, people will snap it up. The success will have nothing to do with the distribution method and everything to do with the medium (the medium is the message?). Digital offers informational three-dimensionality that paper lacks -- links, video, etc. It's just not portable, durable and shapeable. Chances are it will be in the near future ...
#9 Posted by Sito Negron, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 04:32 PM
Some time ago, I really needed to buy a car for my corporation but I didn't earn enough cash and couldn't buy anything. Thank God my comrade adviced to take the loan from reliable creditors. So, I did that and was happy with my secured loan.
#10 Posted by AcevedoMarguerite, CJR on Sat 30 Jun 2012 at 02:10 AM