An extensive new report by Slate has revealed the challenges publishers are facing when it comes to profiting from Apple News despite the platform's growing readership.
According to the report, page views on Apple News have roughly tripled since September 2017, and the app has now surpassed Facebook as a driver of readership.
/article-new/2018/06/apple-news-midterm-elections-2018-800x725.jpg?lossy)
Unlike Google and Facebook however, Apple News hosts content within the app instead of sending readers to the original website, depriving publishers of ad revenue.
In a stark example, Slate revealed that it earns more money from an article that gets 50,000 page views on its own site than it does from 54 million views on Apple News.
Apple News has so far offered publishers few opportunities for generating ad revenue, although Apple recently added support for Google's industry standard ad-serving tool DoubleClick.
Still, Apple's privacy policy ensures limitations: Google's ad manager can serve traditional banner ads including animated GIF ads, but it can't yet be used to serve HTML5-based ads or pre-roll video ads.
Despite the struggle, publishers are reportedly continuing to embrace Apple News in the hope that things will eventually change and given the huge potential opportunities for exposure that the platform offers. The app now comes pre-installed on all new Macs and iOS devices in countries where Apple News is available.
Apple has also reportedly urged major U.S. newspapers about adding their content to the Texture magazine app that Apple purchased in March, with a view to eventually integrating the subscription-based service into Apple News.
Top Rated Comments
It's sure horrid the websites you enjoy great content from would want to make money for their hard work. I get that you might hate ads but this is how they pay the bills. Don't be surprised if they shut down or start charging a subscription. You expect to get paid for the work you do at your job, they do too.
Block them until they get reasonable? Really? You think showing a few unobtrusive ads isn't reasonable? What would you consider reasonable (keeping in mind that they need to be able to make enough to justify putting in the time and effort to create this content)?
What an entitled point of view.
I take it you both work in media? Because that’s the ONLY person who willingly accepts badgering, nuisance, invasive and tracking advertisements. I guess you totally missed what I said. Let me try and make it easier for you to understand a second time. I said that I accept banner ads. I do not accept bandwidth heavy auto play videos, ads that force me to click off them, scrolling ads that impede my ability to read the article.If that makes me entitled, so be it. Forbes and NYT paywall.. I just go elsewhere now. By forcing them to lose revenue on adblockers, they are learning what types of ads were are willing to accept.
The news app would be nothing without the articles. Apple needs to step up and pay the publishers what they deserve.
The difference here is how ads are presented.500k views earns more than 54 million views?! Come on Apple!
AppleNews:
1. Banner only
2. Hard to accidentally click
Direct website:
1. Higher quantity of ads
2. Full screen unavoidable ads
3. Scrolling ads
4. Cross site tracking
5. Auto play video ads
6. Deceiving layout to encourage accidental clicking on ads disguised as fake news articles
It’s not about the ads, it’s how they present them and force them upon the user as to why they aren’t making enough.
I feel sorry they are loosing money from this, they do need to make money after all, but on the positive side this may lead to more moral revenue paths for them.
Just use Adblock, like 1BlockerX. Surf the websites ad-free. I’m sorry but banner ads are about all I can stand. The stupid rolling ads, and the full page ads are a nuisance. Vote with your wallet, block them until they get reasonable.
I was all against adblockers, sympathetic to the cause. Then I got a nasty piece of adware on my Mac. Easily removed, but the the narrative said that it comes down with adverts. So, the baby went out with the bath water and I now adblock.Why not pay for a subscription? Ads gone.
I tried this. I paid for WSJ and Economist. Do you think that got rid of ads? Nope. Still tons of ads. Same thing for LA Times and NYT. If this were the case, I'd be all over paying subscriptions. Last news subscription I had was 3+ years ago. They advertised themselves out of my wallet.And read public service, guaranteed ad free
Last few years I've found a lot of happiness in books. No ads, able to concentrate, the president of the USA doesn't come up every other (or every) article, and I can enjoy what I read for days/weeks.