Meanwhile, Apple’s new operating system (OS 4) for iPhones and iPads, whose release is expected sometime this summer, will include the new iAd mobile advertising platform, which news outlets and other developers can use to embed personalized ads directly into their apps. It works just like Google’s AdMob service for standard Web sites, but has the same limitation as AdMob insofar as Apple, rather than publishers, retains control over ad sales and strategy. Apple plans to take a 40 percent cut of the ad revenue. And like Google, Apple will probably go after the largest, national advertising campaigns rather the locally oriented, small- and medium-sized ones that have been periodicals’ bread and butter.
It is unclear how Skiff and Next Issue Media’s advertising services will compare to iAd and AdMob. Both will surely feature some kind of revenue-sharing agreement with publishers, but again, Next Issue says the publishers will control ad sales and pricing, which is a step in the right direction for the news business. Once the infrastructure is in place, many media executives believe that paying mobile subscribers will present an attractive, captive audience to advertisers, especially given some of the hyper-targeted advertising possibilities that the devices will allow.
4 From subscription structure to advertising, there is a lot we don’t know about how the e-reader market will take shape for the news business. The answers will come only through aggressive experimentation, through trial and error. That process is well under way in Europe, and the efforts there have some lessons for the U.S. market. A Flemish paper that handed out 200 e-readers to subscribers in 2006 and measured their response found that most of them likened the experience to reading the paper product rather than the Web site, and 45 percent said they would consider buying an e-reader. NRC Handelsblad, the Dutch newspaper, expanded delivery of its digital edition to a variety of devices after an exclusive launch on the iRex iLiad reader in 2008 drew “substantial sales.” In other words, people like these things and will pay to get news on them.
Next Issue Media has also done consumer research and found a high level of interest in e-readers and digital news, especially once people have seen a demonstration. Nonetheless, in the U.S., most media companies have so far proceeded with caution. “What I see is a lot of watching, waiting, and one-off initiatives,” says Forrester’s Sarah Rotman Epps.
There are signs—beyond Next Issue, Skiff, and Plastic Logic—that this may be changing. MediaNews Group, which owns fifty-four small- to large-sized papers across the country (plus over 200 niche magazines), is, like Next Issue Media, trying to create the back-end infrastructure so that its properties can distribute content across the range of digital platforms (it also has deals with both Skiff and Que). And three years ago, the Reynolds Institute at the University of Missouri launched the Digital Publishing Alliance, comprised of more than thirty news outlets, technology companies, and media organizations, which is researching the mobile market and developing best practices and standards for e-readers and other mobile devices. (For an interview with DPA’s Roger Fidler, go to www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/fidler_q_and_a.php.)
But given the state of the economy and the general beaten-down mood in the American news business, it would be naïve to suggest that a full-blown e-reader revolution is at hand. Some four months before an Audit Bureau of Circulations survey*—which found a high level of interest in e-reader editions among media executives—for instance, in March 2009, the Digital Advisory Committee of the Newspaper Association of America—a body that includes senior digital media executives from member outlets—held a first-of-its-kind meeting with e-reader manufacturers in order to acquaint participants with some of the emerging products.

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