RD: E-print is another potentially disruptive technology, and it’s growing stronger. Barnes & Noble recently announced its “Nook,” and Apple is expected to come out with a tablet device soon. This technology is not totally cross-elastic with print either, but it has more of the advantages of traditional print, such as very good readability and portability, as well as many of the advantages of the Web, such as hyperlinked access to online content and products. E-print’s main disadvantages are that it still requires a device and that the content is usually static, in contrast to a Web site, which is usually dynamic and automatically updated. E-print may be more attractive than traditional print to certain audiences. But if properly implemented, interactive print solutions could compete with e-print or at least sustain a broad niche. From a revenue perspective, a newspaper’s branded content could be repurposed for both e-print and interactive print.

DB: Print is a very old medium, but you don’t think its decline is irreversible in this new-media era?

RD: As we are seeing, traditional monetization models for print publications—paid subscriptions and paid-placement advertising—are failing. However, if traditional print publishers can transition to an interactive print model, they may be able to monetize in other ways. For example, interactive print publishers could generate revenue from paid subscriptions for deeper idiosyncratic content (such as local sports content) and mobile-code-based, pay-per-click advertising (the “Google” model). They also could use variations on the “Amazon affiliate” model, which generates revenue from sales leads or a percentage on the sale of products. If these monetization methods are sufficient to support a profitable publication, and I believe that they could be, then interactive print publications could flourish by leveraging a publisher’s brand equity into this new format.

DB: How would this new business model affect the practice of journalism and the news product itself?

RD: Publishers would need to start thinking of the printed page as an interface instead of as a snapshot of the news. Once you decide how you are going to monetize, then you can focus on how to package information to effectively target the interests and purchasing demographics of your reading audience. This is a lot like producing the home page of a Web site. A good example is the home page of the Huffington Post, which is structured to draw you into deeper content. The mobile aspect of interactive print also lends itself to leveraging mobile social media, such as Twitter.

DB: What specific steps should newspaper publishers be taking right now in order to preserve their franchise?

RD: I would recommend that they spend some time thinking about how to transform their franchise from a “broadcast” print model to an interface model and then establish an action plan to effect that change. If they move quickly, they won’t have to “let go of the franchise vine” first, and they’ll be able to manage the transition. If they wait too long, however, they run the risk of spectacular failure. It’s never a question of if change will occur but rather how and when. As the publishing industry has seen, change is already here. Hope is not a strategy. A doomed strategy would be to wish that it were 1950 again and retreat into denial. A winning strategy would be to embrace the change and figure out how to manage and monetize it by leveraging the existing brand.

If you'd like to get email from CJR writers and editors, add your email address to our newsletter roll and we'll be in touch.

David Baird has taught journalism at Anderson University in Anderson, Ind., since 1990.