Financial Times Refuses To Give Up Subscriber Data to Apple

While some publications, such as Bonnier’s Popular Science, have been quick to embrace Apple’s new digital subscription model, others are refusing to do so.

As of February, Apple says that all publishers who want to offer subscriptions for content-based apps in the App Store must allow consumers to subscribe within the app for the same price or less. Apple takes a 30% cut of all subscribers who sign up this way. Publishers can also continue to sell digital subscriptions via other channels, such as their websites, without being subject to Apple’s fee, the company says.

While the 30% cut strikes many publishers as steep, the main problem is that Apple will not share subscriber data with publishers, long one of publishers’ most valuable assets, particularly to advertisers.

As a result, the Financial Times is now negotiating to sell subscriptions for digital access solely through its own channels, citing the need for subscriber data. “We don’t want to lose our direct relationship with our subscribers. It’s at the core of our business model,” Rob Grimshaw, managing director of the Financial Times‘s flagship website, ft.com, told Reuters.

The FT has approximately 210,000 subscribers who pay £250 or more for annual access to the publication’s website and apps — a hefty number, given that its print circulation hovers at about 400,000. Digital revenues, which grew by 56% last year, now make up 40% of the FT Group’s sales. Mobile is playing an increasingly important role, Grimshaw says. In a recent survey of 2,500 registered users, 45% said they regularly accessed FT content via smartphone and tablet devices.

Although optimistic about the negotiations, Grimshaw noted, “If it turns out that one or another channel doesn’t mix with the way we want to do business, there’s a large number of other channels available to us.”

Image courtesy of Flickr, TheNickster

Print Story Email Story

More Stories in Media

Top Related Stories

  • Anonymous

    “the main problem is that Apple will not share subscriber data with publishers, long one of publishers’ most valuable assets, particularly to advertisers.”

    Apple does share subscriber information with the publishers, but on an opt-in basis. When a publisher would like your personal data, a modal pop up requests permission, not unlike when apps request your location data.

    I think thats what makes this so interesting, the Financial Times doesn’t want to go through Apple because they don’t want to have to ask permission to use your personal info. They know if they are forced to be up front, their shady profits from selling information will take a hit.

  • http://twitter.com/WSpivak Wayne Spivak

    Doesn’t this marketing attitude strike you as coming from the “evil empire”, at least in Apple’s POV. Arch rival does/did this type of JV’s for years…

    Do we hear anti-trust suit coming?

    Wayne Spivak
    SBA * Consulting LTD
    http://www.SBAConsulitng.com
    Twitter: @WSpivak

  • https://profiles.google.com/bstringfellow @bstringy

    Not sure I understand what’s happening. FT has an app in the AppStore and Apple is not currently sharing any subscriber data or are they going to stop providing it in the near future?

    If FT sells through its own channels, can subscribers use iOS devices to view it? If they are willing to say goodbye to Apple, thus forcing their readers to consider an alternative platform, I applaud them.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, it’s opt-in… but that’s not exactly ideal. No one’s yet told me what the opt-in rate is.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah, those are brewing in Europe.

  • http://www.mr-omneo.co.uk Mr Omneo

    I say good on the FT for being bold enough to say “Thanks but no thanks” to Apple. As is so often the case, when Microsoft was trouncing the likes of Apple and Google they were the underdogs complaining that MS was dominating things and now that both these companies have grown to be dominant themselves they forget what it was like to the lil guys.

    A 30% is a hefty chunk in terms of cash and the limited subscriber data means the publishers get no real bang for their buck. For those who didn’t read the linked article (New digital subscription model) the key point is:

    “As for subscriber data, Apple will allow customers to provide publishers with name, e-mail and zip code information at the time of subscription. This is optional, and all personal information will be governed by a publisher’s privacy policy, not Apple’s.”

    So Apple knows much more detail via it’s iTune’s store but the publisher get’s diddly squat, practically.

  • Anonymous

    FT is currently not offering subscriptions through its app, only via its own channels. And yes, subscribers can buy app access via FT’s website and other channels.

    Apple basically wants compensation for driving new subscribers to the app via the App Store.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_J6I7BDSFEFAH7WQFLNSWU3KPPY Robert

    Completely agree….why do people think Apple does not sell their information? Because they say so? Whatever….they may not sell personal information but they do sell aggregate information which is pretty valuable in it’s own right. I’m sure if the positions were reversed Apple would not like it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/daniel.stjepanovic Daniel Stjepanovic

    Even if the opt-in rate is 1%, no company has the right to harvest information that users are clearly not willing to give.

  • http://profiles.google.com/daniel.stjepanovic Daniel Stjepanovic

    The Financial Times’ issue is not that Apple wants compensation. The FT is happy to give a cut of profits to the guy on the corner selling the dead-tree version of the paper, so why not Apple? The FT’s issue is that Apple is prohibiting them from stealing their reader’s information and selling it to advertisers.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t believe most of you understand apples position on this, your user data information, location as well as other cookies that are typically loaded on your computer are not shared or sold to third parties. Apple has always been pretty clear on sharing (selling) user info within ios. Why do you think android was created in the first place. Google develops and gives its OS for free for this information. As for 70/30 revenue sharing with apple maintaining the backend from itunes is a good deal, maybe not for a small subscription base as FT but it could grow their market

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Robby.Cannon.69 Rob

    “if the positions were reversed Apple would not like it.”
    I agree, and I would bet there would be lawyers involved if Apple was on the wrong end of that stick.

  • http://www.w3source.com W3Source

    No the bigger issue is that Apples new policies are that you must sell subscriptions through Apples App Store. If you don’t, Apple will remove your app.

    The App Subscription policy is that Apple takes a 30% cut, that’s a lot of money. The publications don’t have drastic margins on their subscriptions so taking 30% is probably eating away all of the profits and then some. Then Apple is also greatly reducing the consumer data that they can collect, which affects their ability to deal with the advertisers.

    Advertiser: “So what’s the demographics on your primary audience?”
    FT: “Um??? Well, they all use iPads.”
    Advertiser: “What about Age, location, gender, etc.?”
    FT: “Good question.”
    Advertiser: “We’ll just go spend our premium advertising dollars with Apple, they can tell us exactly who their audience is.”

    So not only does apple take 30% on the frontside, but now they are limiting the standard type of information required to negotiate advertising deals on the backside.

    I don’t see anything wrong with apple being compensated. They should be. They make a great product and provide a great service. But they do make some monopolistic moves every now and then and this stinks of it.

    Ultimately, what this will do though is cause subscription costs to rise. FT will need to raise the price of their online subscription in order to cover the 30% Apple take. So the consumer loses.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3U6WFL4P6F3E3GBH4YC7MCSD5U Timothy Cohen

    FYI, Apple does not have to sell/share user info to third parties, they have their own advertising service = iAd. With better audience targeting, Apple will definitely receive more $$ for its iAd service, but FT won’t.

    Please do read (not told by) Apple’s privacy policy… Apple collects and uses personal & non-personal information differently. They do use the collected personal information to improve its own advertising. As for non-personal information (occupation, zip code, area code, device, location, etc.), Apple may use, TRANSFER and disclose for ANY purpose. I think TRANSFER means “selling” here. So yes, Apple can sell user info — just depends on which type.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3U6WFL4P6F3E3GBH4YC7MCSD5U Timothy Cohen

    FYI, Apple does not have to sell/share user info to third parties, they have their own advertising service = iAd. With better audience targeting, Apple will definitely receive more $$ for its iAd service, but FT won’t.

    Please do read (not told by) Apple’s privacy policy… Apple collects and uses personal & non-personal information differently. They do use the collected personal information to improve its own advertising. As for non-personal information (occupation, zip code, area code, device, location, etc.), Apple may use, TRANSFER and disclose for ANY purpose. I think TRANSFER means “selling” here. So yes, Apple can sell user info — just depends on which type.

  • Anonymous

    lol, no one can say no to Apple, surely they know better lol.
    anon-tools.no.tc

  • Johnny Unites

    Same as Google ads, Google has the platform, and you must pay to advertise. Apple has the platform, and you must pay the piper. I think all companies that bring users to a product, deserve the right to charge, they built it. If they make it free, more the better, but that is their decision.

  • http://twitter.com/weekdays joe beau

    All of the info is anonymous so why would anyone care if the FT get it?

    After-all the way that magazines make money is by selling space to advertisers, if they don’t know the kind of people who consume their publication then how the hell do you expect them to sell that space and make money?

    The reason apple are doing this is to try and force advertisers to go through their own ridiculous, overpriced and fluff-centric iAds network.

  • Anonymous

    So when Apple harvests your personal information through iTunes, that’s fine. But when the FT does it, it’s stealing?

    You want to give info to Apple? Fine. You want to give info to the FT? Fine. You want the FT to cede that power to Apple? The FT clearly don’t think it’s fine.

  • http://www.facebook.com/grahamj.net Graham J

    “We don’t want to lose our direct relationship with our subscribers.”

    Read: We don’t want to lose the ability to sell subscriber data.

  • http://dbcooper.livejournal.com P.F. Bruns

    The person who decides who gets your contact information should be you. Businesses are not entitled to your information. Give them a disposable e-mail, and give them a post office box (where applicable) or at least as little information as you can to get what you want. They’re already asking for your money.

blog comments powered by Disqus