Here is a follow up to the story below which I put up yesterday and this my be the way things will go every were in the future:
February 27, 2009 12:48 PM PST
Hearst to publish its periodicals electronically
by Dong Ngo
Looks like the e-paper revolution is really about to start.
Hearst Corporation, one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, announced Friday that it has developed an electronic reader for newspapers and magazines, the way that Amazon's new Kindle does for books.
Soon you'll be able to read magazines and newspapers on an e-reader.
(Credit: theoprahmag.com)
The news, first reported by "Fortune", is really significant as Heart owns about 16 daily and 49 weekly newspapers and has influence on hundreds of magazines. Examples of those include the "San Francisco Chronicle," "O," and "Cosmopolitan."
It's unclear if the device Hearst has been working on has anything to do with the eReader that Plastic Logic unveiled recently but its principle seems the same. It's a handheld device used to read digital content, much like the Kindle. The main difference would be the Hearst's e-reader has a much larger size to accommodate the format of newspapers and magazines.
It's also speculated that Hearst's e-reader is going to be physically flexible and even foldable. The first version would come in black and while with the later coming in color and even with video-playback capability.
Once implemented, this would change the way newspapers and magazines are published. Instead of getting a print copy, you can just download the newest issues on the e-reader, wirelessly. No printing or paper is involved. Aside from the environmental factor, this would cut down about 50 percent of the cost to circulate a periodical.
It's also not clear when you can get the first issue of "Cosmopolitan" on this new e-reader but considering the recent launch of the Kindle 2 and the upcoming e-reader from Plastic Logic, Hearst's new e-reader will probably be launched in 12 or 18 months.
Dong Ngo is a CNET editor who covers networking and network storage, and writes about anything else he finds interesting. You can also listen to his podcast at insidecnetlabs.cnet.com. E-mail Dong.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Over the last three or four years we have discussed the death of the paper news paper. Well it seems in America it's closer then ever:
Crisis in the US newspaper industry
By Max Deveson
BBC News, Washington
If the economic crisis goes on much longer, will there be any newspapers left in the US to write about it?
America's newspaper industry has been badly hit by the downturn, and a number of titles face closure.
The latest casualty is the venerable San Francisco Chronicle, whose owners on Wednesday announced they were planning to cut a "significant" number of jobs to meet cost-cutting targets, and that if the targets are not met, then the paper would be sold or closed down.
The Chronicle, which was founded in 1865, soon after the gold-rush hit California, lost more than $50m (£35m) in 2008, and so far 2009 is looking even worse for the title.
Circulation fell by 7% in the six-month period running up to 30 September 2008, and advertising revenues are plummeting.
The Hearst Corporation - the Chronicle's owners - last month proposed similar measures for another of their titles, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
And the owners of Denver's Rocky Mountain News announced on Thursday that the newspaper would publish its final edition on Friday. The Tucson Citizen also faces the axe.
Biggest names
Without these titles, Seattle, Denver and Tucson would still be served by at least one newspaper each.
But the demise of the Chronicle would leave San Francisco with no paid-for newspaper (the city's other main newspaper, the Examiner, is given away free).
Even the biggest names in the US newspaper industry are feeling the recession's bite.
“ You take readers and advertisers who were already migrating away from print, and add a steep recession, and you've got serious trouble ”
James Surowiecki
New Yorker
The New York Times is struggling to service debts of some $400m, amid dwindling cash reserves and plunging revenue. Last year it had to mortgage its gleaming new headquarters (built in 2007 with much fanfare) to bolster its cash flow.
The Tribune Company, which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun and many other titles, filed for bankruptcy in December, and although its newspapers remain in publication, the repercussions of the bankruptcy filing are likely to lead to restructuring.
Three other newspaper companies have also filed for bankruptcy in recent months: the Star Tribune Holding Corporation (which owns the Minneapolis Star-Tribune), the Journal Register Company (which owns the New Haven Register and a number of other titles in the North-East), and Philadelphia Newspapers LLC (which owns Philadelphia's two top newspapers, the Inquirer and the Daily News).
Although some companies are doing better than others, and some companies (like Tribune Co) took on more debt than was advisable, the bankruptcies and closures are all attributable to an industry-wide malaise.
And the reasons for that malaise are not hard to figure out.
Free content
Newspapers used to get their income from two sources: their readers (who either paid by subscription or at the newsstand) and advertisers.
As more and more newspapers started making their content available on the internet free of charge, the first source of income dried up, as readers stopped paying for articles that they could get free on the web.
Newspapers hoped to make up for the sales decline with increased advertising revenue, as the market for online adverts exploded.
But the rise of classified advertising websites like craigslist.com cut into newspapers' revenue stream, while the recession has led to a drastic reduction in the amount of advertising companies are willing or able to pay for.
"You take readers and advertisers who were already migrating away from print, and add a steep recession, and you've got serious trouble," writes the New Yorker's James Surowiecki.
Of course, print circulation losses are being partially offset by increases in online readership.
The problem for the newspapers has been finding a way to turn increased readership into increased revenue.
"It's said that for every dollar the newspaper gets in print advertising, that same dollar translates into the equivalent of less than a dime in its online counterpart," says Professor Neil Henry, Dean of the Journalism School at the University of California, Berkeley.
He worries that the widespread cost-cutting and possible closures threaten to devalue journalism - and democracy - in America.
"An important and vital part of democracy is vanishing before our very eyes, whether the public realises it or not," he told me.
Time magazine's Walter Isaacson suggested in a recent article that newspapers and magazines should adopt a system of micropayments.
Readers would pay a couple of cents for an article, a bit more for access to a full day's edition, and a couple of dollars for a monthly pass.
But as Michael Kinsley explains in the New York Times, micropayments are unlikely to generate enough revenue to make up for the advertising shortfall.
"The [New York] Times sells just over a million daily papers. If every one of those million buyers went online and paid $2 a month, that would be $24 million a year. Even with the economic crisis, paper and digital advertising in the Times brought in about $1 billion last year. Circulation brought in $668 million."
"Two bucks per reader per month is not going to save newspapers."
No crisis?
Other commentators have suggested that newspapers could reorganise themselves as not-for-profit trusts, backed by rich patrons, and stop relying on sales or advertising for their revenue.
Professor Henry warns that this could cause problems of its own.
"What happens if journalism must depend for its survival solely on the altruism of rich people, whose own special interests may invariably sway coverage?"
His faculty is experimenting with a new business model.
"We are developing a number of... local news sites in digital format for neglected communities in the Bay Area, in which our students are producing content from our reporting classes for academic credit and as paid interns... There's a long way to go, but it's a start - and it's truly galvanizing our students, faculty, and local communities."
Whatever model the newspapers of the future adopt, the current crisis is likely to put at least some titles out of business, with only the strongest surviving.
Less competition could mean more business for the survivors and the industry is likely to consolidate, with cities and regions being served by fewer newspapers; we could perhaps see a truly national newspaper market develop in the US.
But with US newspapers competing with one another, as well as with international news providers (including the BBC), there would still be plenty of choice for news consumers.
"With even half a dozen papers, the American newspaper industry will be more competitive than it was when there were hundreds," writes Michael Kinsley. "Competition will keep the Baghdad bureaus open and the investigative units stoked with dudgeon."
The "crisis" in the newspaper industry may, therefore, be more of a crisis for the journalists and publishers who are currently facing job losses and bankruptcy.
But if it is merely the quantity, but not the quality, of journalism that declines then - for readers - there may not be a crisis at all.
REACTIONS TO THE EVENTS AT THE CHRONICLE
I see this as an opportunity squandered. Here was the paper atop Silicon Valley that should have seen the changes in our world clearer than any other, that should have anticipated the importance of October, 1994, when the commercial browser was introduced, that could have reinvented itself over a luxurious decade and a half. But now, instead, it's hurry-up-or-die for the Chron.
Jeff Jarvis,
As much as I'd like to think a major city can survive without a newspaper, I'm not super-excited to try the experiment personally. San Francisco has some of the nation's most tech-savvy citizens, but are they really ready to get their local news only from virtual sources? If the Chronicle gets shut down within weeks, as seems to be Hearst's intention, they may have no choice but to find out the hard way.
Jen Phillips,
The trend towards reading news online is better established in the technophiliac Bay Area than elsewhere. It no longer seems so unfathomable that the Chronicle might close. The shame is that not many people might mourn its passing.
Owen Thomas,
Here's one way of looking at this somewhat shocking news: This is Hearst trying to strongarm the union into complying with whatever demands they try to shove down their throats. They are basically saying "concede to layoffs, loss of vacation and severance, or we will shut it down." The question is, how will the union members respond to these bullying tactics? Will individuals hope that their jobs won't be the ones cut, or will they call Hearst's bluff? Another way of looking at it: They're broke as all hell, and they will shut it down. Which seems to be the most likely scenario.
Brock Keeling,
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7913400.stm
Published: 2009/02/27 02:08:10 GMT
Crisis in the US newspaper industry
By Max Deveson
BBC News, Washington
If the economic crisis goes on much longer, will there be any newspapers left in the US to write about it?
America's newspaper industry has been badly hit by the downturn, and a number of titles face closure.
The latest casualty is the venerable San Francisco Chronicle, whose owners on Wednesday announced they were planning to cut a "significant" number of jobs to meet cost-cutting targets, and that if the targets are not met, then the paper would be sold or closed down.
The Chronicle, which was founded in 1865, soon after the gold-rush hit California, lost more than $50m (£35m) in 2008, and so far 2009 is looking even worse for the title.
Circulation fell by 7% in the six-month period running up to 30 September 2008, and advertising revenues are plummeting.
The Hearst Corporation - the Chronicle's owners - last month proposed similar measures for another of their titles, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
And the owners of Denver's Rocky Mountain News announced on Thursday that the newspaper would publish its final edition on Friday. The Tucson Citizen also faces the axe.
Biggest names
Without these titles, Seattle, Denver and Tucson would still be served by at least one newspaper each.
But the demise of the Chronicle would leave San Francisco with no paid-for newspaper (the city's other main newspaper, the Examiner, is given away free).
Even the biggest names in the US newspaper industry are feeling the recession's bite.
“ You take readers and advertisers who were already migrating away from print, and add a steep recession, and you've got serious trouble ”
James Surowiecki
New Yorker
The New York Times is struggling to service debts of some $400m, amid dwindling cash reserves and plunging revenue. Last year it had to mortgage its gleaming new headquarters (built in 2007 with much fanfare) to bolster its cash flow.
The Tribune Company, which owns the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun and many other titles, filed for bankruptcy in December, and although its newspapers remain in publication, the repercussions of the bankruptcy filing are likely to lead to restructuring.
Three other newspaper companies have also filed for bankruptcy in recent months: the Star Tribune Holding Corporation (which owns the Minneapolis Star-Tribune), the Journal Register Company (which owns the New Haven Register and a number of other titles in the North-East), and Philadelphia Newspapers LLC (which owns Philadelphia's two top newspapers, the Inquirer and the Daily News).
Although some companies are doing better than others, and some companies (like Tribune Co) took on more debt than was advisable, the bankruptcies and closures are all attributable to an industry-wide malaise.
And the reasons for that malaise are not hard to figure out.
Free content
Newspapers used to get their income from two sources: their readers (who either paid by subscription or at the newsstand) and advertisers.
As more and more newspapers started making their content available on the internet free of charge, the first source of income dried up, as readers stopped paying for articles that they could get free on the web.
Newspapers hoped to make up for the sales decline with increased advertising revenue, as the market for online adverts exploded.
But the rise of classified advertising websites like craigslist.com cut into newspapers' revenue stream, while the recession has led to a drastic reduction in the amount of advertising companies are willing or able to pay for.
"You take readers and advertisers who were already migrating away from print, and add a steep recession, and you've got serious trouble," writes the New Yorker's James Surowiecki.
Of course, print circulation losses are being partially offset by increases in online readership.
The problem for the newspapers has been finding a way to turn increased readership into increased revenue.
"It's said that for every dollar the newspaper gets in print advertising, that same dollar translates into the equivalent of less than a dime in its online counterpart," says Professor Neil Henry, Dean of the Journalism School at the University of California, Berkeley.
He worries that the widespread cost-cutting and possible closures threaten to devalue journalism - and democracy - in America.
"An important and vital part of democracy is vanishing before our very eyes, whether the public realises it or not," he told me.
Time magazine's Walter Isaacson suggested in a recent article that newspapers and magazines should adopt a system of micropayments.
Readers would pay a couple of cents for an article, a bit more for access to a full day's edition, and a couple of dollars for a monthly pass.
But as Michael Kinsley explains in the New York Times, micropayments are unlikely to generate enough revenue to make up for the advertising shortfall.
"The [New York] Times sells just over a million daily papers. If every one of those million buyers went online and paid $2 a month, that would be $24 million a year. Even with the economic crisis, paper and digital advertising in the Times brought in about $1 billion last year. Circulation brought in $668 million."
"Two bucks per reader per month is not going to save newspapers."
No crisis?
Other commentators have suggested that newspapers could reorganise themselves as not-for-profit trusts, backed by rich patrons, and stop relying on sales or advertising for their revenue.
Professor Henry warns that this could cause problems of its own.
"What happens if journalism must depend for its survival solely on the altruism of rich people, whose own special interests may invariably sway coverage?"
His faculty is experimenting with a new business model.
"We are developing a number of... local news sites in digital format for neglected communities in the Bay Area, in which our students are producing content from our reporting classes for academic credit and as paid interns... There's a long way to go, but it's a start - and it's truly galvanizing our students, faculty, and local communities."
Whatever model the newspapers of the future adopt, the current crisis is likely to put at least some titles out of business, with only the strongest surviving.
Less competition could mean more business for the survivors and the industry is likely to consolidate, with cities and regions being served by fewer newspapers; we could perhaps see a truly national newspaper market develop in the US.
But with US newspapers competing with one another, as well as with international news providers (including the BBC), there would still be plenty of choice for news consumers.
"With even half a dozen papers, the American newspaper industry will be more competitive than it was when there were hundreds," writes Michael Kinsley. "Competition will keep the Baghdad bureaus open and the investigative units stoked with dudgeon."
The "crisis" in the newspaper industry may, therefore, be more of a crisis for the journalists and publishers who are currently facing job losses and bankruptcy.
But if it is merely the quantity, but not the quality, of journalism that declines then - for readers - there may not be a crisis at all.
REACTIONS TO THE EVENTS AT THE CHRONICLE
I see this as an opportunity squandered. Here was the paper atop Silicon Valley that should have seen the changes in our world clearer than any other, that should have anticipated the importance of October, 1994, when the commercial browser was introduced, that could have reinvented itself over a luxurious decade and a half. But now, instead, it's hurry-up-or-die for the Chron.
Jeff Jarvis,
As much as I'd like to think a major city can survive without a newspaper, I'm not super-excited to try the experiment personally. San Francisco has some of the nation's most tech-savvy citizens, but are they really ready to get their local news only from virtual sources? If the Chronicle gets shut down within weeks, as seems to be Hearst's intention, they may have no choice but to find out the hard way.
Jen Phillips,
The trend towards reading news online is better established in the technophiliac Bay Area than elsewhere. It no longer seems so unfathomable that the Chronicle might close. The shame is that not many people might mourn its passing.
Owen Thomas,
Here's one way of looking at this somewhat shocking news: This is Hearst trying to strongarm the union into complying with whatever demands they try to shove down their throats. They are basically saying "concede to layoffs, loss of vacation and severance, or we will shut it down." The question is, how will the union members respond to these bullying tactics? Will individuals hope that their jobs won't be the ones cut, or will they call Hearst's bluff? Another way of looking at it: They're broke as all hell, and they will shut it down. Which seems to be the most likely scenario.
Brock Keeling,
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7913400.stm
Published: 2009/02/27 02:08:10 GMT
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
What do you think about this from Slashdo?
| AP Considers Making Content Require Payment |
| from the you-see-there-is-this-thing-called-web-2.0 dept. |
| posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 23, @13:30 (The Media)|
| http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/23/1657242 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press is poised to be the next
in a long line of news organizations to completely bungle their online
distribution methods by [0]making their content require payment. While
this wouldn't happen for a while due to deals with others, like Google,
to distribute AP content for free, even considering this is a massive
step in the wrong direction. "Also, I know we point this out every time
some clueless news exec claims that users need to pay, but it's worth
mentioning again: nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay.
Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make
people pay. Instead, they think that if they put up a paywall, people
will magically pay -- even though the paywall itself is what takes away
much of the value by making it harder for people to do what they want
with the news: to spread it, to comment on it, to participate in the
story. Until newspaper execs figure this out, they're only going to keep
making things worse."
Discuss this story at:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/02/23/1657242
Links:
0. http://techdirt.com/articles/20090220/1802393852.shtml
| AP Considers Making Content Require Payment |
| from the you-see-there-is-this-thing-called-web-2.0 dept. |
| posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday February 23, @13:30 (The Media)|
| http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/23/1657242 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
TechDirt is reporting that the Associated Press is poised to be the next
in a long line of news organizations to completely bungle their online
distribution methods by [0]making their content require payment. While
this wouldn't happen for a while due to deals with others, like Google,
to distribute AP content for free, even considering this is a massive
step in the wrong direction. "Also, I know we point this out every time
some clueless news exec claims that users need to pay, but it's worth
mentioning again: nowhere do they discuss why people should want to pay.
Nowhere do they explain what extra value they're adding that will make
people pay. Instead, they think that if they put up a paywall, people
will magically pay -- even though the paywall itself is what takes away
much of the value by making it harder for people to do what they want
with the news: to spread it, to comment on it, to participate in the
story. Until newspaper execs figure this out, they're only going to keep
making things worse."
Discuss this story at:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=09/02/23/1657242
Links:
0. http://techdirt.com/articles/20090220/1802393852.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
