Tag: e-media

But would you pay to read a digital magazine like THIS?

I call them e-book people; they’re  publishing types who see a big future for media distribution – not just books, but also magazines and newspapers – through e-readers and tablet devices.

They include folks I know pretty well, like David Nussbaum of F+W Media (the consumer-special-interest giant that touches people who are into anything from creative writing to geneology to knitting or woodworking), to folks I know only by reputation, like Alan Meckler of WebMediaBrands (events and online communities surrounding media and technology).

They’ve been building excitement for months, maybe longer, over the prospect that Apple will eventually come out with a category-smashing tablet that puts Amazon’s market-leading Kindle e-reader to pasture.

Based on the recent press (like this, from the NJ Star Ledger), it appears as if it’s finally about to happen. And not only should the folks behind the Kindle and other first-generation e-readers be scared, but newspaper and magazine executives should rejoice. This is the vehicle that could finally direct them down a clear path toward the future.

The problem with current e-readers is that they’re good for text and not much else. They don’t handle graphics well, so they aren’t useful for  technical books or anything with color pictures. E-readers, as they currently exist, are basically good for best-selling books. They’re a single-application device, and the next-generation unit – whether it comes from Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Google or anyone else – will do to them what the Palm Pilot did for the Apple Newton.

Which is the long way of getting to the real point: When the tablet PCs start to come out, newspapers and magazines will have a great opportunity to try and reinvigorate their existing business model, or to build on the more obvious business model that they simply have to make work.

The old business model is advertising, and the high-touch interactivity that a tablet PC could offer advertisers might be enough to entice them back to the traditional media marketplace. I’m sure it eventually will help to flatten out the downward trend for print advertising revenue. But I don’t believe it will ever halt the juggernuat of advertisers who seek to aggregate their own audiences and produce their own content – which is what the new age of marketing is all about.

But the new business model has more hope. That’s the one in which people actually pay for the content they use. It’s the only obvious next place for media to go. But up to now, there hasn’t been a vehicle that presents print media better than the existing hard-copy formats of magazines and newspapers. Those are so expensive to produce that, without growing advertiser support, there has been no hope of shifting their full cost to consumers.

Can the tablet change that? Not in a hurry. But here’s what it CAN do:

It can give publishers a medium that is powerful enough for them to create something new – something that extends beyond the boundaries of the newspapers and magazines they already produce.

This goes back to the old Marshall McLuhan quote, “The medium is the message.” Up to now, solutions like e-zine interfaces have simply been an attempt to push old messages into a new medium. The mismatch has been underwhelming at best.

But the tablet can create a new message – a new set of boundaries for old print media companies to create electronic-only products that generate real excitement among consumers. The kind of excitement people pay for.

For example, check out this proof-of-concept video from Sports Illustrated:

If products like this really come around, I’d pay three or four times what I do now for a magazine subscription. Would that cover the cost of generating the content? It’s a question for the market to handle. But if it also arrested the decline in advertising revenue, there might actually be a business in this.

This isn’t a short-term solution. Tablet prices will start out too high for any publication to convert a meaningful number of subscribers. And ad revenue won’t follow until that changes.

And it will take years of education before consumers understand why tablet-based publications are the future of media. Just consider some of the comments that people left after viewing SI’s video:

There are probably many kids here that think this is wonderful but i am not sure if they have the capacity to think! What will most likely happen is that the selling price (books, magazines, etc) will not reflect the savings and? they will be able to control what you have on your device and how long you have it for. This is not good for the consumer. It is not a good idea that content providers decide how you have access to information (be they Apple Microsoft or Google).

Do I need another electronic product to add to my cumbersome life?
How? many other things you have to carry around with you 24/7 to keep you up-to-date?


I don’t see the point of this. Nobody is going to buy this thing just to read e-magazines. Why not just load the …damn website? Seems like people are desperate to save print-based magazines. Make this smaller, like the Kindle, and strip away all this excess so it reads books. Then I’ll consider.

OK, so people don’t get it yet. And they aren’t ready to pay for a digital subscription. But as more and more magazines disappear, and more innovators build great content for tablets, the correct path for media will begin to unfold.

More magazines going mobile

esquire-iphoneAccording to MediaBuyerPlanner.com, Esquire (Hearst) and GQ (Conde Nast) magazines are now being offered in an iPhone edition. You can download them for $2.99 per issue.

This small step forward isn’t going to offset revenue losses from advertsing. Nor is it going to revolutionize the way people read magazines.

But it may evolutionize the way we read magazines and newspapers. It’s a small step but a great step.

GQ and Esquire are not alone. Time and BusinessWeek, among many others, have offered mobile websites – accessed through free iPhone and Blackberry apps. But the effort by Hearst and Conde Nast to monetize the use of smart phones is a step forward that the media need to take.

Is the effort any good? I don’t know. I’m a Blackberry user, and these brands aren’t available in a Blackberry version. So I can’t answer whether they’re worth $2.99 an issue. I don’t know how faithfully the print content is reproduced, or if it’s all re-jiggered for a better smart-phone experience than either magazine would seem to offer in its print edition.

But I’m anxious to give any such mobile publishing effort a test run. While people are wringing their hands over consumers’ unwillingness to pay for content, the research is starting to reverse. More and more surveys are showing the people have warmed up to the idea of paying for content.

I think the real problem is that when people need to know what that content would be. If you ask, for instance, “Would you read a newspaper on your smart phone?” most people are going to think of the newspaper they know, reduced to the size of a playing card. Who could be satisfied with that?

But  I’m hoping GQ and Esquire will show us how their content can be repackaged and repurposed – providing one experience in print and another experience – different but just as  fulfilling –  on the smallest screen.

That’s where the next generation of media success will be found.

More on AOL’s content push

This article in Media Buyer/Planner goes into more detail about AOL’s plan to differentiate itself with original content. With a staff of 3,000 journalists, AOL could differentiate itself simply by assigning them beats and cutting them loose to go report on stuff. It would be, by far, the largest deployment of journalists from a single U.S. media source.

But I don’t have much faith in the ability of algorithms to deliver pleasant surprises. By shackling its journalists to algorithmic results, I can’t help believing that they only thing we’re going to get from AOL is more of the same that it’s TMZ.com website is already producing. And heaven knows, nobody is sitting around wishing we had more of that.

People will pay for online news? Now we’re talkin’

A study by Boston Consulting Group indicates people are increasingly willing to pay for local and national news delivered to their mobile devices.

On average, according to the study, the price would have to top out at about $3 a month, which admittedly isn’t much. But it offers two strong points of optimism:

People are willing to pay SOMETHING for what was previously assumed to be of no commercial value.

$3 a month, for a product that no longer has the production or distribution cost of a printed product, is worth far more in the way of earnings than it would be for a traditional media product.

No, this isn’t proof that consumers will pay the full cost of journalism. But does demonstrate that they are aware of the pressure that traditional media models are under as advertising revenue continues to erode; and that they are warming up to being part of the solution.

A novel notion for monetizing the news

While newspapers are wallowing in catastrophic circulation losses, their online revenues are falling short of objectives, and more people look to the web for news, Amos Gelb, a former TV guy and now an associate professor at George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs, suggests a new model for profiting from running a serious news operation: cost transference.

In short, the idea is for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – his example is Verizon Internet – to pay for news feeds on a per-subscriber basis. It’s how CNN works – collecting 37 cents per subscriber from every cable television provider that carries CNN (which is pretty much all of them). While CNN does earn revenue on advertising sales, its most dependable revenue stream is from the cable providers – which in turn simply pass that cost along to consumers as part of the cost for basic service on their monthly bill. And consumers don’t seem to mind – even though there is plenty of market evidence right now that they wouldn’t pay the same 37 cents per month directly to CNN if given the choice.

How does this transfer to newspapers? The largest news organizations (Gelb cites Time Warner, New York Times and Washington Post) would block their content to ISPs, except when paid on a subscriber basis. Those ISPs that make the payments would then pass along the cost to subscribers.

People who care about getting news content online would gravitate toward those ISPs that provide it.

The model strikes me, on its surface, as incredibly complicated given the wide range of business models that exist among ISPs. It also doesn’t include the many smaller news organizations that, one way or another, are going to survive, but will never be large enough to command attention from ISPs.

I don’t ever really expect to see the model play out as Gelb describes it. But I like the out-of-the-box thinking he brings to the discussion, and I agree with his assessment that news is something people want, and something people will pay for – just not directly.

In fact, the way I see it, it’s already playing out on small scale and through a slightly different medium: the burgeoning app store business.

There are now multiple places where smart-phone users can buy applications: iPhone’s App Store, Blackberry’s App World, and soon, Palm’s App Catalog. Each of these offers apps that let you aggregate and read news from various sources. Many are free, some cost money – from a $2.99 one-time download fee to monthly subscriptions (or so I’m told, though I haven’t actually found one on the monthly model in my time at either of the functioning app marketplaces).

So people are paying money to download an app that will deliver the same news they could get for free right now on the Internet? It’s a little different than the model Gelb envisions, but it plays out the same way psychologically: People who buy these apps aren’t actually paying for news; they’re paying for a new gadget on the smart phone. The cost has been transferred.

Gelb’s notion is heavy lifting, to be sure. To achieve the kind of behavior change that he describes, large news organizations are going to have to give up on their most cherished belief: that increased profit necessarily derives from increased distribution. And then they would have to convince numerous other organizations – like Google, Yahoo, Verizon and AT&T – to alter their business practices, all while risking the anger of their paid customers.

It sounds like a long shot at best. But the drastic decline in circulation and revenue that news media is experiencing is, if nothing else, a strong motivator.

Rocky Mountain News closes for the 3rd time

The Rocky Mountain Independent has closed just two months after it started. The Independent was formed from the ashes of InDenverTimes.com – which actually still exists as a free information site, but not with any of the well-intentioned people who started it five months before the Independent.

Both of these were created by jobless journalists jilted by the February closing of the 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News.

The closing is sad, but predictable. The online-only effort at covering news in Denver was started for the wrong reasons (early-onset nostalgia), it had an implausible business model (premium priced news content), and it was run by the wrong people (journalists).

For the ultimate review on the subject, check out Alan Mutter’s Newsosaur blog. Everything he writes about this episode is spot-on and couldn’t be said any better.

But I will emphasize one point: Once upon a time, the news business might have been about the quality of reporting. And I know that some very strong journalism schools are still teaching that it still is. What else should they teach: mediocrity?

But it’s dead wrong. With the exception of some notable niches, content today is judged on a strictly pass-fail basis. It is either not good enough, or it is good enough.

For most media today, there is no ROI in anything that aspires to be better than good enough.

I’m not saying that great journalism doesn’t have a redeeming social value. Of course it does. It’s the bedrock of democracy; it’s the record of humanity.

There’s just no money in it.

Not-for-profit news is no panacea

In the effort to save newspapers, one idea that’s been passed around is that of the newspaper as a not-for-profit institution. The argument is that its role is so central to the public good that it can be protected as a non-taxed, not-for-profit entity.

While the argument may be compelling, I don’t think you can call it mainstream. Well-known newspaper analyst Lauren Rich Fine says for-profit newspapers haven’t done all they can to adapt to new market realities. I agree; Newspapers in the United States have been for-profit ventures for their entire existence, and just because their business model is being challenged today doesn’t mean their industry is obsolete.

But that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with a news organization that does figure out how to succeed as a non-profit.

An increasing number of non-profit news organizations exist, such as MinnPost and the hyperlocal, hypermodest Heights Observer, for which I’m an active volunteer — and which is part of a growing list of other loosely affiliated Observer projects in and around Greater Cleveland. (Not all of them are not-for-profit; they have in common technology platform — Ninth Estate Software — and a singular evangelist, Jim O’Bryan, founder of the for-profit Lakewood Observer).

A not-for-profit trial balloon has been floated (and seems to be losting altitude) for the troubled Boston Globe.

Now, one of the existing not-for-profits is going the other way; Geoff Dougherty, editor of the 4-year-old Chi-Town Daily News (Chicago)  writes in his blog that the non-profit experiment is over. He says the online citizen journalism news organization needs $1-2 million a year in donations to fulfill its mission. With grants running out and grant-sources ready to move on to other projects, Dougherty indicates private donations peaked at only $300,000 — and even that amount is doubtful this year.

“We are talking with local nonprofits that have expressed an interest in acquiring the [Chi-Town Daily News] website and neighborhood reporting program,” Dougherty writes.

“Ultimately,” he continued, “we believe we will be able to fulfill the same mission we set out to accomplish with the Daily News, though with a new name, a new company, and a different business structure.”

Why the URL is less important every day

I remember reading, in the early days of the Web, how large companies were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to purchase meaningful URLs. For instance, McDonald’s wasn’t the first owner of www.mcdonalds.com.

About 9 years, ago, I tried to sell a URL that I was abandoning. I found a broker who promised to auction it off, estimating that it might be worth $15-20 thousand. The bubble burst, the auction never happened, and the URL simply expired — sitting unused until sometime in the past year when another company started using it.

The URL remains a most important locator for online information. But the importance of branding a URL — or of obtaining a URL that perfectly matches your brand — is declining.

Jonathan Richman at iMedia Connection offers 4 technologies that are responsible for its declining importance.

They are:

Search engines: The power of search is well-known. More people find websites through search than by typing in the URL;

Browsers: New-generation browsers like Google Chrome and Firefox skip the need for going to a search engine; just type a search term in the address box and they deliver search results;

URL shortening: Sites like Twitter, with strict limitations on size, force URLs to be shortened dramatically. Tools like TinyURL and Bit.ly exist to do this. Which means the URL for this page, as an example goes from https://themarketfarm.com/themarketfarm/wordpress/2009/09/08/why-the-url-is-less-important-every-day/ to http://tinyurl.com/nq6d2y — which is pretty efficient, except any unique branding disappears.

The QR code: Popular in Asia and Europe, you take a picture of the QR code on your smart phone, and it will take you directly to the related website.

Overlooked in Richman’s blog, which is more detailed and well worth reading, is a fifth technology of social networking. More and more businesses are using Facebook, Twitter and other sites to attract audience; these work based on the names of companies and communities — not web addresses. So the brand of the company once again becomes more important than the brand of its URL.

The ultimate point, though, is that if you have a URL you like, don’t spend too much to brand it. And if you have a URL you don’t like, you can work around it.

A new perspective on the media meltdown

I’ve spent a lot of time describing why advertising and traditional media are on a downward curve. To be sure, the curve has been exaggerated this year by the recession. But it was exaggerated by the last recession too and there’s no doubt that traditional sponsor-based media models are like the classic rollercoaster: in between the highs and lows, the ongoing trend is down.

seth-godin-blogIn a recent blog post, marketing guru Seth Godin puts his own take on the trend. The issue in his mind is that there is a sudden attention surplus — too many people spending so much time looking for all kinds of information that marketers don’t know what to do about it. He calls these micromarkets and says the old media models couldn’t serve them; social media marketing does — though he doesn’t use that terminology

Godin and I come at this from different ends of the business, and in the end reach the same conclusions.

I’m coming at it from the perspective of the media business, where decisions are based on the requirements of the paying customer — the advertiser.

I’m not claiming the audience is ignored; I don’t believe that for a second. But the changes that we’re seeing in old-line businesses — magazines rushing to digital-only editions, newspapers trying to figure out how to charge for online content, etc. — are not at all driven by the opinions of audience. They’re driven by the spending desires of advertisers.

Godin’s perspective is consumer based: He’s observing what the audience wants — and notes the challenge for marketers who are on their way toward getting it.

His explanation strikes me as novel, true, and worth sharing: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/08/the-massive-attention-surplus.html.