Photoshop Master-Mixing Eye Thriller

Here’s a graphic rap for you:

From CollegeHumor.com

Paper E-Paper?

There’s been a lot of focus on electronic paper in recent years – that is, portable electronic displays that mimic the high-resolution, color and flexibility of real high-quality, four-color printed paper, but with virtually infinite capacity and immediacy (reload and refresh anytime capabilities).

Many media-tech experts agree that, in some shape or form, this is the next evolutionary step for “print publishing.” I’ve been following developments in this arena for a few years and I'm fascinated by the prospect of the high-resolution presentation and portability-enhancing flexibility and wi-fi capabilites these devices promise.

Now a report comes out detailing what seems to be a bizarre and maybe even ironic twist on the idea of e-paper: Disposable, paper-based e-paper!

On the surface, everything about it is pretty cool, except the most obvious question: why would you want to make it disposable? Well, because it’s cheap, it keeps the paper companies in business and we can always use outer space for the next landfill.

Read The Guardian’s full report about this latest development here.

Flexible, Paper-Thin Screens

I’ve been following the development of various e-reader devices and digital edition technology for the past several years. And, despite the significant progress from the relatively simple and limited Kindle (still the best pure book-like reading experience, I’ve seen, with its partially reflective surface) through Apple’s game-changing iPad (with its multifunctional, brilliantly colorful, glowing backlit display), which clearly excels in many other functions, we’re still just in the infancy of e-reader device development.

In only a few more years, the devices and the digital reading experience is likely to be something more like this, I believe. And while it will offer high resolution, brilliant color, unlike today’s computer screens, I think, it will be largely (or wholly) reflective, rather than back-lit, requiring much less battery power and creating an easier experience on the eyes. We’ll see, and most likely sooner rather than later.

Merely Survive, or Thrive?

A recent PBS Mediashift report (read it here) provides an interesting overview of an ongoing exploration by Ourblook.com of the future of journalism as seen by a variety of industry veterans and thought-leaders – all nicely packaged in 12 short, digestible quotes. It covers a wide range of topics, from the evolution of the advertising model, digital opportunities and pitfalls, to citizen journalism and what audio and video can and can’t add to more traditional text-based reporting. A worthwhile read for those of us navigating our way through this “difficult and exciting time” in journalism.

The Problem with Digital Info

As I’ve often said, here and elsewhere, I’m not necessarily a cutting edge early adopter, but I am interested in – and, occasionally, even bedazzled by – new technology. And while I am now intrigued by the development and potential of electronic reading devices – ubiquitously referred to as “eReaders” (because everything is now either “e” or “i” whatever ... maybe I’ll have to start referring to myself as “iBill”) – I’m foregoing the current Betamax versions (Kindle et al) until the manufacturing powers-that-be get it right. That is, until they make it a durable, magazine-thin and flexible, high quality four-color, interactive and wireless device. I give it another three years or so and we’ll be there.

But digital devices aside, a bigger concern to me as a media professional and avid reader in all mediums is the ramifications of the difference between how we consume and comprehend the digital word versus the printed word. Studies by technology-usability expert Jakob Nielsen and others have, not surprisingly, shown that we absorb online information differently than we do printed information. In fact, our comprehension of the information presented digitally is more superficial. “It’s not a deep learning,” Nielsen says.

This is why the demise of the otherwise outdated print publishing industry worries me. Our culture is already dumbing down at a blinding pace. Will it be pure free fall once print consumption is a rarity (or a for-elites-only endeavor)?

TIME magazine recently addressed this issue to a degree in an interesting article looking at how financial institutions are increasingly pushing clients to opt for online statements rather than printed ones. While this is positioned as an admirable “green” initiative, the real motivating factor is the cost savings to the bank or broker ($1 per statement, according to the TIME report). The “cost” to the account holders is that they’re not absorbing the financial information when delivered online to the extent that they did with the printed statements.

However, the TIME article does go on to point out some of the potential advantages of electronic financial statements – so far mostly unrealized, of course. The examples cited highlight the true value proposition of digital information in this era of both ink and bytes. That is, using the web and digital devices in ways that capitalize on their unique attributes, to do what print can’t do, rather than simply employing them as substitutes for more traditional forms of communication. The best of both worlds is out there, if we’re creative and ambitious enough to find it – and then manage to keep it in balance.

A Palatable (and Workable) Model?

I don’t want to pay for content that I’ve been used to getting for free on the web any more than the next person does. But, I also do not want to see a wide variety of high quality news sources disappear all together because there’s no longer a business model that will support them.

It’s not too hyperbolic to ask, “What will all the exploiters of free content on the Web – from HuffPo to every Tom, Dick and Harry blogger – do when there’s no more New York Times, Reuters, Esquire, etc. from which to pilfer, react and sometimes expand? Where will that leave us would-be informed consumers?” Since it seems that advertising alone is no longer able to support quality journalism enterprises (whether print or digital), a new business model must be found. And, one way or another, something’s got to give.

A model such as the one outlined in this recent Newsosaur blog post may represent one of the more promising solutions – or at least the genesis of a sensible online monetizing system that would be palatable to consumers. It is by Alan Mutter, a former journalist and serial CEO in Silicon Valley who teaches a course called “Journalism in the Age of Disruption” (love that title!) at U. Cal. - Berkeley. Mutter was one of a select few presenters at a semi-secret meeting of the heads of many of the nation’s leading newspaper publishers that was convened in Chicago on May 28. In his post, Mutter outlines a system called ViewPass, an approach publishers could use to monetize online content without creating too much of a logistical impediment to users. He also briefly addresses related copyright protection issues. It’s obviously something that he believes in, as he has a vested interest in the project. (There are some good reader comments on his post, too.)

To me, ViewPass seems to be yet another variation on what can loosely be described as the Cable TV subscription model (or now, in Mutter’s analogy, the credit card system) that some of the more forward-thinking “state of the media industry” pundits have advocated in recent months. Such a model would enable customers to select a personal menu of sources to which they would get full access (and, ideally, other meaningful benefits, too) and for which they would pay one reasonable monthly fee. Ads would still help support the costs of the enterprise, but not to the extent of being so overwhelming that they devalue the user experience. In fact, under such a system ads could be much more targeted to the user’s interests – so theoretically less of an annoyance.

I’m sure there are more nuances and details to be worked out on these approaches, but of the various options I’ve seen presented thus far, this is more appealing than the outright gated community, pay-as-you-go model of accessing content site by site. In the end, the money has to come from somewhere, and until there is some substantial benevolent outside source of funding discovered, we should be considering the least painful and most effective ways we would pay for good content.

Personally, if my favorite newspapers and magazines were no longer available in print and accessible only digitally with an associated fee system, I could comfortably transfer some of my current print subscription and newsstand payments in order to have online and mobile access to that content. I say “some” because if the publishers are achieving substantial savings in printing and distribution (i.e., trucking/mailing) costs, then I would expect to see some cost break, too.

There’s a long way to go until the final chapter of this saga is written, but the plot does seem to be coming together. We’ll see what twists and turns remain between here and the final page.

Keeping Publishing Viable ...

Execs from the nation’s leading newspapers companies have been meeting to try to figure out how to salvage their industry. One of the main issues they’ve reportedly been discussing is how to charge for online content. While that might seem fair from a business standpoint, the odds are against it working. The horse is already out of the barn on this one. As some suggest, there may be other models of getting revenue for content delivered digitally that would be more palatable to consumers. Here are a couple of recent suggestions:

Getting Money from Readers Who Won't Pay for Online News – by Steve Outing, Editor & Publisher, 5/20/09 ... Comments on the potentially suicidal efforts by some publishers to begin charging for content on their websites. The alternative proposed here sounds a bit like a different spin on the public television membership model. Short of a formidable, accompanying grant/endowment structure, I'm not sure that would work by itself, but it's an intriguing suggestion.

A Potential ‘Solution’ for the Newspaper Industry: Follow the Cable TV Model of Subscription Access. Here’s Why and How – by Paul Bermel, Editor & Publisher, 5/15/09 ... This seems like a sound idea that I’m surprised more people aren’t embracing. Maybe I’m missing something.

Top Magazines Explore iPhone Apps Online Clubs, Other Revenue Streams – MediaBuyerPlanner.com, 5/26/09 ... This one highlights the need to focus on monetizing mobile access and enhancements (i.e., applications), rather than trying to get people to pay for web access to content they’re used to getting for free.