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.

With Insight Like This ...

It’s both laughable and pathetic that the head of any newspaper in the world today would deem it necessary to utter the following words: “Newspaper companies that survive will not consider themselves newspaper companies.”

Yet, that was a highlight from Dallas Morning News Publisher James Moroney’s (I’ll refrain from the obvious jokes about the aptly named publisher) recent letter to his staff marking the publication’s 125th anniversary. This might have been a reasonable statement 15 years ago (even 10 years ago ... maybe), but in 2010?!

If you work at a newspaper and you’re so cement-headed that you need to be told that the game now is about the dissemination of relevant information through any and all means your various constituents desire, then you and your organization are surely doomed ... and deservedly so! However, my guess is that the people in the trenches are well aware of where things stand, it’s the newspaper’s execs who are just coming to this realization (or finally able to utter it out loud). Hate to tell ya, fellas, not only are the horses no longer in the barn, they’ve been grazing over yonder for nigh on a while!

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.

Big Co’s Scheming to Undermine Net Neutrality?

The news of the alleged negotiations (i.e., conspiring) between Verizon and Google to undermine the principle of net neutrality, as reported today in The New York Times and elsewhere, should be more than a bit concerning to all of us who use the internet as an information source and are wary of large corporations wielding even more control of the media industry. Media pundit Dan Kennedy outlines the ramifications of such corporate conspiring in today’s post on his Media Nation blog (read it here).

Google has since denied the veracity of the reports, claiming its ongoing commitment to net neutrality. Be that as it may, if you care about the First Amendment and your variety of choices regarding digital news and entertainment, then this is something you might want to keep an eye on.

If you find the prospect of an increased stratification of the here-to-fore reasonably equitable playing field of the Internet disturbing, consider registering your concern here. The number of citizens voicing opposition needs to grow significantly to gain the attention of the powers that be and counter corporate lobbying efforts.

Friends As Curators? ... Social Media & Customized Magazines

Yesterday’s Associated Press report on a new Apple iPad app that produces personalized “magazines” – really a collection of links – curated by those in one’s social networks (i.e., Facebook and Twitter) is an intriguing prospect that shows the tech sector’s continuing creative thinking in the face of the publishing industry’s wheel spinning and teeth gnashing.

We’ve all heard about how our society is moving from the information age to the “social age” in media and technology. This new app, called Flipboard, represents one of the more interesting and progressive steps in that transformation. In a nutshell, Flipboard creates a visually engaging consolidated news feed – based on links (to articles, pictures and video) that those in your social network have posted to Facebook or Twitter. The assumption being, if it’s stuff your friends like, you’ll be interested, too.

Here’s the quintessentially Apple-esque promo spot for the app, featuring Flipboard CEO Mike McCue (his partner in the venture is ex Apple iPhone guru Evan Doll) :

There is, however, at least one potential problem with this otherwise clever, useful and interesting app. Namely, the current trend by some of the world’s most reputable media companies (Time Inc., The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist et al) to put the most succulent fruit of their labors behind pay walls. If this trend continues and expands, as some industry insiders anticipate, some of those “socialized” links won’t offer much beyond a graphically appealing headline or image and a bit of teaser copy. The real meat of the content will be locked away out of reach – until you pay for it. Of course, this won't just be a problem for Flipboard, it’ll also affect the value of the links on FB and Twitter, too.

So beyond your friends own photos, videos and text-based diatribes and, inevitably, a plethora of YouTube videos, more substantial news reports and thoughtful analysis could be quite lacking in your Flipboard “magazine.” That, I imagine, is a surmountable problem. For the right price and/or degree of market penetration, I’m sure the media companies in question will be glad to work out deals with the Flipboard folks that will unlock those content doors.

If that happens, then consider me enticed. Off course, I’d want to make sure such an app had preference settings to control who exactly in my social network was curating the content appearing in my daily “magazine.” Having experienced the ... uhh ... “breadth” of our social networks for a while now, I doubt any of us would want every one of our long-lost buddies feeding that stream.

Flipboard will certainly be something I’ll be keeping an eye on in coming months. I just might have to get an iPad sooner than I thought.

The Google View on the Future of News

... It’s not necessarily what you think.

This article by James Fallows in the June issue of The Atlantic offers a very interesting and surprisingly upbeat view of the future prospects for serious journalism. It explores potential paths through the current business challenges facing the news industry and sheds light on how technology can enhance substantial coverage and context, rather than undermine it in favor of dumbed-down, superficial content. It’s a very lengthy (it is The Atlantic, after all) but insightful and worthwhile read.

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.

Time Is Right

The title of a new Feelies’ song (much on my mind since last Friday’s outstanding concert) seems an apropos entré to this brief shout out to Time magazine’s recent special issue highlighting “10 Ideas For the Next 10 Years.”

In 10 brief essays by leading thinkers, researchers and analysts (many from the New America Foundation), Time offers a fascinating overview of how America stands with one foot over the threshold of the new century, as well as some prognosis for the coming years. Overall, it’s a thought-provoking, remarkably optimistic and reasonably centrist (well, just left-0f-center, it is Time, after all) analysis of the United States’ evolving place in the world economically, politically, culturally and militarily. It holds a mirror to our recent history, and highlights key impulses already at play in our society or now percolating just beneath the surface.

The introductory essay, in particular, “The Next American Century,” by Andres Martinez, puts a surprisingly positive spin on our current national sense of society going to hell in a hand basket. It’s followed by thoughtful pieces on “Remapping the World” (bad borders and realistic means to minimize their ongoing detriment in light of current and future challenges), “Bandwidth Is the New Black Gold” (revealing how bandwidth issues will soon affect us all), “The Dropout Economy” (the future of work, education and social constructs in light of the growing libertarian impulse in America), as well as essays on U.S.-China relations, growing “white anxiety” in our increasingly diverse nation, and what it means to live in the “post-trust” era.

All worthwhile reads. Whether you go old school and pick up a copy at the newsstand or read them all online, spend 20 minutes with this Time.

Template for the Newspaper of the Future?

Following up on yesterday’s rather pessimistic posting on the morbidity of print media models, this piece from BayNewser about McSweeney’s experimental newspaper project is intriguing, if not a full solution for the challenges at hand.

Chronicles of Demise

In yet another sign of the accelerating death of print media of all sorts, Nielsen Business Media today announced the closure of the 125-year-old magazine of the publishing industry, Editor and Publisher, as well as the venerable book industry periodical Kirkus Reviews. Frankly, as a veteran editorial executive, I don’t think Editor and Publisher has been a very well-executed or particularly forward-looking publication for quite some time (especially compared to Folio: magazine and other newer media industry newsletters and websites). But it is, nevertheless, another marker in the cathartic transformation affecting all media – and especially print media – today.

The simplistic argument about the snowballing death ride of print always falls back on citing the Internet as the cause. This is only partially true. It is less about the Internet per se, than it is about the increased diffusion of advertising dollars across all the various media buying options today. Some of those dollars are, indeed, going to the Internet, but the reality is that less advertising dollars overall are being spread among more outlets. And while Internet advertising is increasing, and print advertising has been falling dramatically, the added digital revenue doesn’t come close to making up even a fraction of the lost print revenue. So those with their tills open for business in both arenas are still losing out, and those trailblazers whose focus is wholly (or even primarily) in the digital realm (whether web, email, mobile, whatever) are squeaking by at best. And for most of those clinging to a solely print-based model, well, the numbers speak (quite loudly) for themselves. That business model is dead and gone for the vast majority of publishers.

Alan Mutter’s recent post in his always perceptive blog, Reflections of a Newsosaur, puts the daunting realities facing the newspaper end of the industry in stark perspective – complete with bar graphs illustrating the decline that started well before the current economic malaise. Mutter sums it up succinctly in noting that the newspaper industry (not exclusively print, but clearly primarily print-dependent) has lost almost half of its annual revenue in just the last four years.

On the brighter side, at least one media company is bullish on print media, or at least one sector of it: The 28-year-old privately held Bloomberg media company has been aggressively making its first forays into the acquisition market, most notably with the recent purchase of

Business Week magazine. Clearly, Bloomberg execs believe in the future profitability of business and financial reporting, so they’re gobbling up the bargains to be had in the current market.

There are plenty of pundits today who contend that the only print businesses that will survive the current sea change are those delivering very specialized business or financial information and those serving small niches of enthusiasts who are passionate about very specific topics. Anyone care to sign up for a charter subscription to Tennis Ball Can Collector’s Illustrated?

From ‘Collateral Gore’ to Bliss on the Cloud?

Once again, New York Times writer David Carr puts the current maelstrom of the news media in meaningful context with the flare of a jedi wordsmith. While I agree with the shards of optimism Carr plucks out of the sky in the last few graphs of his commentary, it seems a bit abrupt after he has spent 1,000 words or so detailing the carnage-strewn landscape of the industry. And while the boundary-busting exuberance and creativity of technologically empowered youth might merit eager anticipation, it is not likely to prove the savior of the substantive media that we’ve been seeing steadily falling by the wayside over the past couple of decades.

I am not a defender of the old order – with its pervasive flawed business models and the celebrity-like living of the Manhattan media elite (a very small portion of the industry, let me assure you!) – but neither am I smitten with visions of a technology-centric means of qualification when it comes to the media I consume.

Call me elitist, but everyman, citizen journalism (whether tweeted, blogged or You Tubed) is not an adequate replacement for dedicated, adequately funded, professional journalists – a welcome and needed complement, yes, but not a substitute. Yet, the print media’s current tactic of cranking out articles with a self-declared value of $20 a piece (as detailed by Carr), is hardly going to yield high-quality content that will attract and engage readers. Maybe it is time to just throw in the towel and bring on the You Tube News Report and Roland Headley’s Tweets from the Trenches. Who needs thoughtful journalism when we have algorithms to wield?

Ahh, but all is not lost, at least not for all of us. The information-haves – those, in the near future, willing and able to pay the steep prices destined to be attached to content that surpasses the Entertainment Weekly standards employed by the rest of the media industry – will still be able to get their fix.

We’re entering and age, it seems, in which we’ll see, to quote Carr, “a new scarcity of quality content for niche audiences that demand more than generic information.” The day is coming when those who want substantive, accurate, reasonably-unbiased news – and are able to pay a premium for it – will be the niche rather than the mass. What that means for the state of our nation, well ... that’s another matter entirely.

Welcome to the niche, my friends.

Beyond Smoke and Mirrors

Publishing industry consultant and champion of the technology-driven evolution of the business Bob Sacks makes a good point about content – i.e., the words and the message – needing to remain front and center in the business proposition in his column, “A Reminder: We’re Still in the Word Business” in the current issue of Publishing Executive. A brief but worthwhile read.

Making Journalism Better

Matt Thompson’s Newsless.org site features a very astute analysis of the shortcomings of journalism today and highlights a few fundamental shifts in thinking and approach that would make journalism better and more vital.

Thompson is a strong believer that the web offers opportunities to redeem traditional news organizations, but his outline of the key news elements that are all-too-often missing in journalism applies to all platforms, as do his recommended corrections.

In agreement with Thompson, I have long held that media today fails to present meaningful context to readers (or viewers, for that matter. As a result, it lacks credibility and usefulness. In short, it does not facilitate genuine understanding of the important issues of our day. All too often we miss (or forget) the forest for dissecting the needles of one tree.

A key part of the credibility gap in journalism today, Thompson argues, is the need for more transparency in the process: Media must do more to let people in on “the details of their quest to uncover the truth.” This would enhance the audience’s understanding and enjoyment, he writes.

I agree that journalism needs to be more entertaining and, like Thompson, emphasize that that can be done in conjunction with – rather than at the expense of – providing more substance, too. Context helps to engage readers and retain them beyond the basic details of the headline and the lead.

As basic as it may seem, journalistic organizations – be they newspapers, magazines, websites, TV or radio – must refocus reportage beyond “What just changed” to the essential questions of:

• What we know

• What it means

• Why it matters

• What we don’t know

• Where do we go from here

In a world increasingly inundated with information and sensory overload, it’s more important than ever for journalists to connect the details back to the big picture.

Was Radio to TV as Print Is to Digital?

Here’s another recent Wall Street Journal column that offers an interesting historical anecdote to provide some perspective on today’s media industry struggles.

There are those who believe that history is cyclical, almost repeating itself every now and then. Maybe we are reliving “The New Media Crisis of 1949” in 2009.

Video Mag ... Literally!

I’ve been scratching my head over this one since seeing mention of it on AdAge.com yesterday. CBS and Pepsi have teamed up to create a video ad in select issues of the upcoming Sept. 18 issue of Entertainment Weekly. Yes, an embedded video ad in print! This takes those annoying greeting cards with the sound chips to another level entirely. While I get the novelty factor – and the hoped for accompanying buzz – I can’t help but wonder why we (people and businesses) insist on forcing square pegs into round holes.

You’ve got to find some humor in watching the media industry stumble its way into the digital future like a drunken Frankenstein: First, creating web-based digital editions that lamely mimic print magazines with print-page design and virtual turning pages, etc. – (Do media execs really think that’s the best way to present content on the web or mobile devices? Do they really misunderstand the medium that much, or do they simply have that low of an opinion of their print readers’ ability to adapt to the digital domain?) – and now, creating ads that pretend to be TV on the printed page.

It’s an interesting experiment, no doubt, but to what end? Does anyone really think there’s a commercially viable future (or purpose beyond the buzz of precedent) in delivering video on a paper page?

In a related note, while I give points to CBS for its creativity in “placing” its marketing messages (as detailed toward the end of the AdAge article), I’m also kind of repulsed. It’s bad enough that we’re now smothered in advertising messages every which way we cast our eyes, do we really need to see ads for the latest TV shows on the shells of our eggs? Where does the madness stop?

Apple’s Kindle Killer in Waiting ...

The tech, business and publishing worlds have been emitting at least a low-level buzz in recent months about what the ever-secretive Apple Inc. may (or may not) be on the verge of doing on the e-book reading device front. That is, are they poised to launch a Kindle killer?

Inevitably, they have something up their sleeve, and given their track record on hardware development, odds are it will be game changing. This recent “Silicon Alley Insider” column from BusinessInsider.com lays out a couple of interesting possibilities and makes what seems to be a reasonable speculation on how things will shake out.

Most of the book/magazine/newspaper-lovers (i.e., readers) I’ve talked to have been quite skeptical about the Kindle and similar e-readers up to this point. While I agree the current technology leaves A LOT to be desired, I do believe that once we get beyond the Betamax equivalents of e-readers, they will be something that readers of books and magazines can and will embrace. That is, when they are conveniently portable (flexible and roll-upable, like a printed magazine), wirelessly connected to the all of the world’s literature and periodicals, energy efficient, touch sensitive and full color with image quality equivalent to today’s glossy magazines.

From what I’ve been reading, whatever Apple is working on won’t likely be all of those things right out of the shoot. But it will probably be the equivalent of a 50-yard gain – moving the e-reader ball well down the field.

Assuming all of the above does occur, my main and lingering reservation about these devices is the tradeoff for having a full library at your disposal anytime, anywhere is you will also have an expensive and fragile device to look after (i.e., protect from damage and theft). Gone will be the carefree reading of a paperback that you can lose or pass on to a friend and the hassle-free discarding (recycling) of a magazine that you’ve finished reading. When your e-reader is with you, it’s with you ... and it’s not fond of sand, water, extreme heat or cold, direct sunlight, being dropped, etc. Nevertheless, that tradeoff might still be worth it.

The Compact Between Advertisers, Publishers and Consumers

This recent Advertising Age column offers an insightful look at the implicit agreement between consumers (readers/users) and advertisers, by way of publishers – that is, who gives what in order to get what. It spells out in concise and simple terms how that has historically worked, how it is now breaking down, and the ramifications of its disintegration.

One of the problems evident here is the disconnect between the thinking and actions of consumers en masse vs. those of the individual consumer. For example, we might all agree in theory that in order to continue to have access to good content (for free or even at low cost) we as a class of consumers must be willing to put up with advertising messages in some way shape or form. Yet that understanding does not make any one of us more willing to sit through commercials (print, web or TV). It’s TiVo time all the time, isn’t it?

I don’t claim to have a solution for this, though the author of this column presents a reasonable and seemingly easily implementable one. I do wonder if we’ll have to suffer the loss of access to good content before we’re willing to compromise and either put our money down and pay for things we value or else not only put up with ads, but give up the info that would allow for more effective targeting of those ads – which would make them more palatable but also raise privacy issues. (It’s another whole debate, but I think our privacy went down the drain a long time ago – and most of us can’t even fathom all the ways.)

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.

Magazine Queen’s Confessions ... and Predictions

I've never been a big fan of magazine queen Tina Brown (primarily for her role in the increasing “celebrification” of magazines in America over the past 25 years, which she now seems to regret to some degree), but this article from The Telegraph includes some interesting (and probably on the mark) comments from the former Vanity Fair and New Yorker editor – particularly about the need to focus on finding a business model that will support good journalism in the future, as opposed to worrying about saving newspapers or magazines. It’s intriguing that she thinks this may take a whole generation to fully play out.

Darwin’s Business

While the debate about the validity of Darwinian theory seems to have (amazingly) once again become a matter of public debate, the validity of Darwin’s concepts is playing itself out right before our eyes on a daily basis in today’s business world – not the least of which in the publishing industry. Book publishers – like newspaper and magazine companies – are subject to evolutionary challenges just like everything else.