Here’s where it gets tricky, though. Web browsers will likely always be popular, because the larger walls of the Internet have been permanently torn down (AOL can attest to that) and people want all that free content to which those browsers provide access. News outlets’ Web sites are currently the path of least resistance to their work. What publishers must realize, then, is that the golden egg of the “revolution” is not that e-readers offer a second chance to monetize digital content on mobile devices alone, but rather digital content on all platforms. Web sites must be pulled into the equation. “As a publisher, you’re going to have to figure out what you want to do because you can’t give it away for free one place and charge in another,” Squires says.
If consumers are willing to pay for content, then the next question is how to structure the pricing for a store that services a range of devices and publications. Next Issue Media, Skiff, and a number of individual media companies are talking a lot about single-copy and subscription models with one price for access to content for all your devices, mobile or otherwise. By offering this news bundle, outlets would, in essence, be creating a valuable new service—the multiplatform, single subscription—rather than just suddenly charging for an old one that used to be free. This digital subscription might also be bundled with the print edition, but for the foreseeable future news outlets are likely to go with some sort of tiered subscription structure with options for print-only, digital-only, or “everything.”
The Wall Street Journal has used such a system to become the largest circulation daily in the country. The weekly subscription to its iPad app is $3.99 (but is available to subscribers free for a limited time), compared to $2.69 for print and online, $2.29 for print only, and $1.99 for online only. Its Kindle subscription runs $14.99 per month, a bit cheaper than its iPad app. (The Journal sidesteps sharing subscription revenue with Apple by making its app free and requiring customers to pay the Journal directly to register to use it, which is ingenious if cumbersome.) Amazon doesn’t release newspaper subscription numbers, but the Journal recently disclosed that it has 64,000 iPad subscribers and 15,000 Kindle subscribers, compared to its daily print circulation of nearly 2 million.
That’s probably a high benchmark—many publications have only a couple hundred e-reader subscribers. Official, industry-wide statistics on e-reader subscribers are scarce, but these numbers are sure to rise, perhaps dramatically. Also, in order to maintain the optimal balance between quantity and “quality” of their readers and viewers, news outlets will likely have to keep some content—especially short, breaking-news updates—outside of their digital paywalls, as The Wall Street Journal does now.
At ten to twenty dollars per month, on average, subscriptions won’t add up to much, especially if publishers are not able to regain some modicum of control over pricing (whether through the so-called agency model with third-party retailers or through their own stores). Moreover, surveys conducted by Forrester Research have shown that consumers expect a 40 to 50 percent discount on the price of yearlong subscriptions and single issues relative to print editions.
But subscriptions have never paid the bills for newspapers. Advertising, of course, was the moneymaker, and this is the major shortcoming of the Kindle and its e-paper ilk. Once you’ve got the infrastructure and the subscription system in place, you need to crack the ad problem. The fact that no model exists to get ads onto these devices has left many media companies that have worked with Amazon angry and frustrated, and despite repeated promises that such capability is on its way, nobody is sure when it will arrive.

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