Posted on 02/15/2010 7:55:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Apple's latest device has been heralded as a savior for print journalism. But if it drives readers even further away from old-fashioned newsprint, it could inadvertently send revenues into freefall.
Publishers of newspapers and magazines who see potential for great reading experiences in Apple’s forthcoming iPad should be careful what they wish for. The device, if sufficiently successful, could be the next major blow to print publishing—possibly a fatal blow.
To be sure, the potential gain from the iPad is, no doubt, real. Take The New York Times, the publisher of the most-viewed newspaper or magazine Web site anywhere. Today, the Times offers a site that is comprehensive, creative, rich, and deep, constantly updated, and taking great advantage of many of the new tools and techniques the Web offers. But the Times site, however well executed, remains a Web site—a “sit forward” experience, highly imperfect for narrative reading, and nearly impossible to use in a manner that yields a sense of completion, a feeling of having read it all the way through, that can be a critical attribute of something to which you “subscribe.”
The folks at the Times recognize this, of course, and have responded with at least two interesting and innovative products. The first of these is Times Reader, a downloadable software application that takes the notion of a computer-delivered edition of the daily newspaper to new heights. It is beautifully and intuitively laid out, easy on the eyes, and fairly comprehensive in its rendering of the contents of the print publication. (The important exceptions here come in the absence of the statistical packages in business and sports and the listings in arts and culture.) On days when the print paper fails to be delivered on time, Times Reader is a passable substitute. But it remains a “sit forward” experience as well, and is no more portable than a laptop. Times Reader does have a few advertising positions, but at least as I receive it, all are used for house advertising.
The big limitation of Times Reader, of course, is that the heart of its content is updated just once a day. That brings us to Times Skimmer, a new Web-based product. Its display and organization is similar to Times Reader, but it is updated in nearly real time and includes not just the print sections but also Times blogs, many of them quite valuable. (The statistics and listings remain missing.) There is a bit more advertising than on Times Reader. But Times Skimmer is offered as part of the Web site, in effect an alternative interface. In fact, when you click on an article, you are taken to the Web site itself, with the Skimmer becoming just a frame, eliminating many of the design advantages introduced with Times Reader. The “sit forward” and portability issues remain.
Which brings us to the potential of the iPad. It solves the portability problem (at least in places with connectivity, which is, increasingly, everywhere). And it solves the “sit forward” problem by offering a reading experience that it far more variable, natural, and comfortable. Times Skimmer on an iPad, particularly with the content displayed in Times Reader rather than Web site format, would be an excellent substitute for the print paper.
And therein lies the problem. Some have noted that it could make sense, from the perspective of circulation economics, to induce newspaper readers to switch from print to iPad. That well may be true: The savings on circulation marketing, printing, and delivery costs would be significant. Such inducements could take the form of discounts on iPad purchases. The Times has actually experimented with an analogous program using Times Reader and a Samsung netbook, offering $100 off the hardware to new non-print subscribers to the software.
But newspaper economics are not limited to circulation economics. In fact, most newspaper revenue comes from advertising. And one of the most important realities about the state of newspapering these days is that online advertising revenue, on a per reader or per impression or any other relevant basis, lags so far behind print revenue that it seems destined to never catch up—never to come even close.
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST
just an easier way to avoid all those useless car and condo ads.
ANd there is another problem.
The Times Stinks.
if buying an iPad meant the death of the NYTimes... i’d buy two
Well, at least newspapers are absorbent...!
I hope that newsprint does not go away. It would be tragic if puppies didn’t have a NY Times editorial section to piddle on.
The iPad answers a question no one asked. If they want it to be a reader, it should be priced around $100. If they want a breakthrough product, it should double as a cell phone.
I hope that everyone realizes the main reason online advertising pays way less than print advertising is because folks decided to be too clever by half, and instead of putting the advertising graphics and text into the html or xml source code for the page, they allow them to come from another site, or at least be loaded from a separate directory, or stick them in pop-up windows, thus letting ad blocking software and anti-pop-up settings work to suppress them.
If they were just part of the newspaper’s web pages where the news is reported (or propaganda is printed) like they’re printed on the newsprint, newspapers could command more revenues for online advertising since online readers would actually see it.
Don’t give them any ideas.
What can it do that other i-Whatever things can't do?
Just another gadget to sell people as far as I can see.
YAWN. That's what they said about the television. Then the personal computer. Then the iPod. Then the iPhone...etc., etc.
BTW, just read Ken Auletta's book on Google ("Googled"). With or without the iPad, print media will be dead before the decade is out. All advertising will be done online and will be precisely targeted to the right demographics.
Never happen. Newspaper is much more absorbent than iPad.
Newspapers don’t need the ipad to kill themselves.
The NY Post hired the slut involved in the Spitzer case to give advice on, I guess, matters of romance. Sunday’s column included a letter frome someone wanting to get a 3 way going with their spouse.
Now, for the first time since I learned to read, I will have no paper to buy...on an ipad or any other way. Newsday and the Daily News are leftist rags and now the NY Post is just Stupid. Oh Well.
Eventually we’ll all have plastic sheets as laptops. The Ipad is just one step in the inevitable process.
The iPad is too little, too late. If it had come out before all the eReaders it would have been a milestone. If it had waited until it was more powerful and more flexible at the same price point it would be a bargain. As it is now it is an underpowered and software-tethered netbook and will need to be replaced ASAP. It won't live long in its current configuration. Too limiting and/or too expensive compared to the competition on both sides price-wise.
there was a scene in 2001 a space oddysey which had a padd device for newspaper reading. “dave” was reading it.
After the newspapers have been beat almost to death, the Ipod wants to claim it can kill them?
As soon as MSM media is available for the iPad, they will rename it to the “liePad”.
Yeah, no kidding. They can branch out into the pet market. “New York Times Birdcage Litter - Now Ink Free!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.