The publishing industry -- particularly News Corp. -- takes a regular beating for being out of touch when it comes to the future. Media moguls like Rupert Murdoch spend their days crying about having their content stolen by the likes of bloggers and Google, seeking ways to return to the golden days when people paid for things.
But publishers should get a little bit of credit, at least, for being more realistic and thoughtful than the music industry, whose initial (and, in some cases, lingering) response to the Internet involved freak-outs, fines, and lawyers. Even if all the publishing industry's answers are wrong, suggestions like micropayments for digital content at least acknowledge that there's a willingness to accept that these times are a-changin'.
So it's with a little golf clap but also a furrowed brow that I discuss a joint venture among News Corp., Hearst, Conde Nast, Time Inc., and Meredith, through which they're preparing print publications for a future on e-readers.
For the record, I am not yet on board with e-readers, as I note in part two of my vblog series on Tech I Don't Want (for the holidays):
But considering that the universe, for some bizarre reason, has yet to start following my every command, the aforementioned publishing companies have set out with a goal to create a common set of technology standards for e-readers.
According to a press release issued today:
The goal of this digital initiative is fourfold, to create: a highly featured common reading application capable of rendering the distinctive look and feel of each publication; a robust publishing platform optimized for multiple devices, operating systems and screen sizes; a consumer storefront offering an extensive selection of reading options; and a rich array of innovative advertising opportunities.
In other words, the goal for publishers is to get hip to the digital times while also maintaining control over how content is paid for and distributed.
It sounds fair enough, but will it work? This solution doesn't rectify a couple of remaining problems, namely, that people still aren't willing to pay for a whole lot; and that reading content on mobile devices is not entirely ideal, especially if doing so costs money. Sure, maybe it's a good solution for free content, but in this digital "store" some content will be "sold." While some content will be ad-supported, it's hard to see how the revenue from that will satisfy the original problem -- that publishing companies would like to start making money again.
Of course, there are people who are already paying for content -- people who own a Kindle, for example, or an iPod -- which represents possibly the biggest problem for publishers: going up against the runaway success of digital stores run by Apple and Amazon.
While the idea of a digital storefront puts publishers more in touch with reality, it's a bit presumptuous to think their solution will become the industry standard when Amazon is already satisfying the periodical market, especially if publishers try to exercise the same level of control over their digital content as they do with print. In the age of consumer control and customizable content, despite the industry's best efforts, this digital store may meet its irrelevance before enough people even hear about it.
In the meantime, print publishers have a lot of letting go to do (commission structures, distribution methods, etc.) before any of this comes to pass. Just how much of the profit piece they're willing to cede, in fact, may be the single, largest determinant of their collective future.
Would I be willing to read my newspaper digitally? Of course, I do it everyday. I haven't touched a newspaper in years, although I still do get magazine subscriptions in the mail every month and find that reading a print magazine is somewhat more convenient than a printed news paper.
But would I be happy paying for a digital subscription? Nope. I'm too used to getting stuff free online. But maybe I could be persuaded to pay...
I do remember as a teenager, the frequent promotions our Columbus (0hio) Citizen-Journal newspaper used to run. One comes to mind easily, a good looking woman would carry the newspaper around town, and the first to find her and say 'You are Miss Citizen-Journal' would win a cool prize or cash.
The contests and promotions were a mainstay for the newspaper and seemed to work well. Well enough that I still remember the contest fifty years later.
Maybe creative and fun contests could be a regular feature promoting online paid content? I'd pay a small sum to be entertained, get my news, and have a small possibility of winning something!
Although digital publication might contribute to protect more the environment and limit deforestation, I would prefer print publication. I hate being before the screen all the time reading.
I'm not an internet addict nor an e-readers fan and I always like to feel the paper on my fingers while reading.
I'm with you, Terry. But as Nicole points out, it is a sign of awareness that the industry is slipping away from them and an attempt to get back in the game.
Having said that, that does not mean that they can define the standards separate from the existing competition with the market leaders. The horses are already out of the barn.
There are enough e-reader standards as it is. If they don't pick one of the most widely supported standards - pdf or html - their venture will fail. At this late in the game, they don't get to just create some new "standard" and expect people to go buy the latest versions of their chosen e-reader just because it supports whatever they come up with. How much you want to bet that whatever "standard" they create won't even be an open one? And you'll have to use their special software to publish in it?
It may be little. It may be late Terry. But you will agree that experiments like these are necessary to arrive at the winner business model (silver bullet) for publishing. This *may* fail. But publishing industry is in hot waters anyways.
This Gang of 5 and its placeholder efforts are rather late to the party, in my opinion. The considerable brains and collective resources behind Hearst, Conde-Nast et al are indeed formidable, but are they enough to overcome the sizable advantage and presence and knowledge base of iTunes or Amazon? I doubt it, but more power to them if they can pull this off, or just break even.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
We're live on IE Radio with Naomi Baron, author of Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, and professor of linguistics and language at American University.
Hey, IE Radio fans! We hope you're ready for another exciting interview. Today we're welcoming Naomi Baron, author of Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World, and professor of linguistics and language at American University. Baron is joining us at 2:00 p.m. ET.
The Internet is making us stupid. No wait, the Internet is making us smart. Multi-tasking helps us consume more information... orrrr it reduces the amount of knowledge we can retain.
The Web has become the preferred spot for documenting personal flaws. With every online confession, Web users are crafting their detailed autobiographies and setting them free for the public's consuming pleasure.
Earlier this week, Facebook made a big fuss over the fact that it has allegedly registered its 500 millionth user. In an effort to celebrate, we here at Internet Evolution called for your Facebook Horror Stories. Hoo boy, was this going to be fun!
Getting to Work on Smart Work: How IT Is Transforming the Implementation of the 'Internet of Things' Organizations in all industry sectors are becoming more instrumented, interconnected, and intelligent -- and that's changing the way they approach virtually every facet of their operations. It's up to IT to help organizations adopt a "Three I's" approach that leverages the emerging Internet of Things and enables them to work smarter. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
We do love our social networking, but, according to computer scientist Jaron Lanier, we may be diminishing ourselves when we join the hive. “May be? Ha!” says Mr. Cramer.
There's a public-policy war on copyright that nobody is winning, and inconsistencies in viewpoint and interpretation seem to be multiplying. We need to step back and think our policies over again, or we risk having a strategy that fails everyone.
Ultraviolet is an industry-wide attempt to standardize video content delivery across multiple platforms. Apart from the fact that it’s based in the cloud, relies on the DRM system, and isn’t backed by Apple… it sounds great!
The FCC's Sixth Broadband Report has a hidden secret. But here’s a hint: The regulatory body plans to regulate broadband as a telecommunications service.
Once defined by epic journeys, planning, and maps, the phrase "on the road" takes on new meaning in a digital age, where we can make all our decisions using our connected devices en route.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
