While it is fine (in fact it’s crucial) that your newspaper or magazine be available by subscription on the Kindle or by app on the iPad, that alone isn’t enough. There are some fifty e-readers using e-paper screen technology on the market worldwide, in addition to the iPad (which actually uses LCD technology rather than e-paper). Of these, the most popular by far are the Kindle, the Sony Reader, and the Barnes & Noble Nook. As Amazon has forcefully demonstrated during its pricing wars with book publishers, however, relying on a third-party device maker and content retailer can be limiting in important ways. Amazon takes around 65 percent of the revenues from e-book sales (at the end of June, Amazon began offering publishers the option of flipping the equation in their favor, but doing so means sacrificing a significant amount of control over the book’s pricing). Apple has been more generous to publishers, taking only a 30 percent commission on sales, and media companies hope that the launch of the iPad and other more publisher-friendly e-readers will force Amazon and other content and device “e-tailers” to strike more agreeable bargains.
But if publishers developed, or subcontracted the development of, their own content management system for mobile devices, and opened their own digital stores to sell that content, then in theory they could charge for subscriptions and effectively cut out the middleman. They could then use this paying, engaged audience—and the demographic information that comes with it—to attract advertisers. There are signs, nascent and tentative, that this is beginning to happen.
2 For the moment, a project called Next Issue Media is the boldest and most comprehensive of these efforts. Founded in December 2009, it is a partnership of five lions—Condé Nast, News Corporation, Hearst, Meredith, and Time Inc.—that have banded together like some Voltron of mass media, out to save the news business. The idea is to set up a one-stop clearinghouse for digital newspaper and magazine content. Publishers and consumers could use it to distribute and purchase content for a variety of smart phones, e-readers, tablets, netbooks, desktops, and laptops (the emphasis, though, is on hand-held mobile devices). The group has no plans to develop its own e-reader, but it does intend to “partner with device manufacturers and software developers to create technical and universal standards for our new, comprehensive e-reading initiative.”
The Next Issue folks are cagey about the details of their operation, preferring to wait until they have an actual product to show off. But John Squires, who left his job as an executive vice president at Time Inc. to captain Next Issue Media, tells me that one of the first priorities is to develop a simple, open-platform system that makes it easy for publishers to distribute and format their editorial content for a variety of different screens—“one that renders the distinctive look and feel of your publications across multiple devices, operating systems and screen sizes,” as the group’s Web site puts it. “It is critical for publishers to continue to own and manage customer relationships directly,” Squires says.
This back end will facilitate a kind of online store—an iTunes for news, if you will—where people can subscribe to a variety of publications for as many devices as they like. Squires calls this a “fairly complicated technical challenge.” Indeed, the new media editor at NRC Handelsblad, a Dutch newspaper that has been publishing digital editions of its product on several e-readers since 2008, says that setting up an efficient publishing platform is a challenge, but the first, and perhaps most important, step toward capturing readers. He stressed, however, that trial and error is the only way forward, and that publishers should not wait “for the perfect ecosystem” to begin experimenting with new digital products. (Europe, in general, is further down this road than we are in the U.S., but more on that later.)
Anybody who calls "giving away content" newspapers' "original sin" is pretty ignorant of history, of reality, of business, of the Internet.
#1 Posted by Howard Owens, CJR on Tue 13 Jul 2010 at 01:39 PM
So what will this advance in e-reader penetration mean for the job of a newspaper reporter? I suspect it means that reporters would be expected to constantly break news 24-7 (maybe this is already the case for some). I would also suspect that the reporter would be paid about the same he/she is now if not less. How many people, especially talented ones who have other options, are going to be willing to do this? And if they're not, regardless of how slick the delivery model is, how good will the product be?
#2 Posted by Rick, CJR on Tue 13 Jul 2010 at 02:29 PM
No, e-readers won't save journalism -- at least not the kind that the author and the Columbia Journalism Review practice.
Consider the people reading this essay. What percentage of readers are consuming it on an e-reader, iPod, iPad, Android phone, or any other mobile device, relative to the percentage of readers who are looking at it on a PC or laptop screen? I suspect the mobile:PC ratio is quite small -- maybe just a few percentage points, if that (perhaps the CJR can let us know?). I further believe that even among those who are looking at it on a mobile device or e-reader, very few are reading it from start to finish. Like many publishers, the Columbia Journalism Review is still oriented toward long prose pieces that are a poor fit for mobile devices or the people who own them. Who is going to read a 4,546-word analysis (the length of this essay) on a small screen, or even a 1,000-word news article. How many would be willing to shell out subscription fees for long-form Time, Wired, or WaPo print content on a Nook or iPhone?
Even short-form content may be a stretch, when there are so many other free and low-cost distractions available on mobile devices. Publishers no longer have a monopoly on information or entertainment, like they did a decade ago, when tabloids, metro newspapers, books, magazines and CD walkmans were the staple on subway cars. Now when I look around at my fellow commuters, I see people playing games, listening to mp3s, texting, watching videos, checking Facebook for updates, and sometimes even looking at a newspaper or mobile news app. If people don't want to read a 2,000-word feature, or don't feel like paying for news (print or mobile), they still have too many free/cheaper options to choose from -- options that they didn't have before, because the technology wasn't widely available.
#3 Posted by Ian Lamont, CJR on Tue 13 Jul 2010 at 07:54 PM
@Ian
Ian my old friend, we learned this lesson the hard way did we not? While I disagree with you that long form content is not a fit for mobile (I regularly consume 2,000+ word essays on the subway on my iPhone) your overall picture is correct.
Take this very essay for example, which was aggregated by Romenesko who actually wrote a better title and lead for the story than the author. Romensko pointed out that the real problem is a structure which will never be supported by micro-payments or online advertising. (Read: I got a better experience from Romenesko's feed than the for-pay magazine experience) Ebook readers, smart phones, e-ink, flexible screens, multi-platform feeds -- none of this matters of people aren't willing to pay for the product. And this is where news-men have to take a good long, honest look at themselves and think, "are there really that many people that are willing to pay for this, and why should they?" Once they can answer that question in a way that 60%+ of the average people in a region can agree with -- they will have a logical business model.
But until then, they will be continually marketing to the luddite or dying markets of print, thumbs in their ears, ignoring the production improvements that need to be done to make it worth shelling out the increasing few dollars the average american has.
#4 Posted by Chris Tompkins, CJR on Tue 13 Jul 2010 at 08:53 PM
Some interesting points brought up in this article although I have to disagree with some of the members comments, just simply because times have changed, so an adoption of change is necessary.
http://choyungteas.net
#5 Posted by Carlos Tevez, CJR on Tue 13 Jul 2010 at 10:02 PM
Ian Lamont of Chiayi Taiwan, smile:
RE: "Consider the people reading this essay. What percentage of readers are consuming it on an e-reader, iPod, iPad, Android phone, or any other mobile device, relative to the percentage of readers who are looking at it on a PC or laptop screen? I suspect the mobile:PC ratio is quite small -- maybe just a few percentage points, if that (perhaps the CJR can let us know?). I further believe that even among those who are looking at it on a mobile device or e-reader, very few are reading it from start to finish."
Uh, what about those like me who printed the story out on hardcopy in order to read in properly and find a typo in section 3 that neither the editors nor SpellCheck could spot?
HuH? Ever heard of reading on paper, mate? Screening is for the birds.
Spot the typo? " Once again, one credit card buys access and the all the content—including news—that a consumer desires." Fixed now. Bc i wrote in..... see? paper rules!
#6 Posted by Dannie Blume, CJR on Wed 14 Jul 2010 at 10:13 AM
Well, I've just read entire piece & all comments (interesting mix, too) on iPhone-- where I also have 20 books. Problem is in journalists' heads: e-reader not THE solution. It enables easy acquisition of a new journalism-- only dimly emerging. I must WANT to consume journalistic output. Much of it forgets multimedia appropriate use for different learners.
But I am getting iPad. Going blind w/too small screen.
#7 Posted by CR Dykers, CJR on Sat 17 Jul 2010 at 08:53 AM
interesting piece although it fails to answer th crucial question: what kind of content will people be willing to pay for-in addition to all that free stuff still out there? Is it finely crafted printed text with exquisite pics? Is it a combination of text and video that commands a premium price? Is it some video game-style content luringt the paying masses? Or mulitlayered infographics where paying customers can delve into their topic of choice? Is it a winning combination of all of the above?
i'd be interested to know what kind of content works for the paid model and if there are some successful examples.
oh, and i just read the whole piece on a small palm pre screen. No problem with that. Although a mobile version of cjr would be nice.
#8 Posted by the occasional outsider, CJR on Thu 19 Aug 2010 at 01:43 PM
Interesting thoughts here - and I have to say, after having tried out an iPad for a month, that form and medium does shape reading habits, and hence desires and needs to some extent.
But there are broader problems: The first is that simply charging for content isn't going to bring back the kinds of revenues newsrooms (and great journalism) used to thrive on. (Not that all of that money was well spent, or efficiently spent). The second is that little thought has been put into thinking about how the news "product" should change online or on mobile, beyond making it more timely and throwing more bells and whistles (video, audio, interactive graphics) at what is fundamentally a 100-year-old story structure.
I try to look at how we need to evolve newsroom processes, and more importantly, news products, at my blog (structureofnews.wordpress.com) - we need to rethink the notion of story as the basic element of what we produce and learn to create more long-term value out of the reporting, researching and writing/creating process.
#9 Posted by Reg Chua, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 08:50 PM