The next step is to develop a similarly simple procedure for advertisers to launch new campaigns with one or multiple publishers on one or a range of devices. Squires says Next Issue Media will work with the advertising industry to develop new metrics and analytical tools that will be different from those used to evaluate print and Web advertising—again, details are sparse, but the idea is to measure “engagement” with ads rather than “clicks.” This likely means spending more time analyzing how long readers linger on a page, especially one with a large ad (although, to some extent, this is done now). The scheme will allow each publisher to control the sales and pricing of its advertising on the platform.
This all will take time, of course, but Squires says there will likely be some significant announcements from Next Issue by late summer or early fall.
All of the companies in Next Issue Media were relatively farsighted, technology-wise, even before they joined forces, and perhaps none more so than Hearst, which helped launch E-Ink back in 1997. Hearst continues to play a trailblazing role, having invested in a company two years ago called FirstPaper. We didn’t hear much about the company until late last year when, rebranded as Skiff, LLC, it launched a slick Web site [which has been effectively taken down since this issue went to press] that outlined its goals. Like Next Issue Media, Skiff wants to create a publishing and advertising infrastructure on the back end with an online store at the front, but the two projects are independent of each other. Unlike Next Issue, Skiff is also testing the hardware waters, having developed a reader with an eleven-and-a-half-inch e-paper touch screen. It’s a flexible display, which makes it shatterproof, rugged, and light, but it is set in a rigid frame (which houses supporting electronics). It looks sort of like a hybrid of the Kindle and the iPad, but will probably lean heavily toward the former in terms of functionality. That is, if Skiff releases it at all.
In June, as this issue was about to close, News Corporation bought Skiff from Hearst—but it only bought the publishing platform, leaving the future of the reader, which was a hot item at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, uncertain. Indeed, before the deal was announced, several people I interviewed were under the impression that Skiff was rethinking its planned launch of the reader in order to focus on the publishing, subscription, and advertising platform—like Next Issue Media. Both Hearst, which still owns the reader, and Skiff declined to comment.
While Skiff’s reader awaits its fate, its main rival, a device called Que made by a company called Plastic Logic, is moving ahead and targeting the business community with the pitch that it offers “news that looks like news.” It is also an e-paper, tablet-style device with a large, flexible touch screen, and the Que store has signed up some two dozen newspapers and magazines. Although Plastic Logic doesn’t have a Hearst bankrolling it, USA Today and the Financial Times, as well as the Detroit Media Partnership, which manages the Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News, have worked closely with the company throughout the development process.
Patricia Kelly, the vice president in charge of digital solutions at the Detroit Media Partnership, says this “is a better approach than waiting for somebody to come out with something and asking, ‘How can we get on there?’ ” For instance, a newspaper would have a wish list for the page design on a reader that would be very different from what the Kindle offers, because the Kindle is built for books, and that is what most people use it for.
Building the devices and the infrastructure is a crucial first step on the road to a second chance. But once the storefronts are built, will the readers come? More importantly, will they pay?

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