Using the iPad to consume journalism is an exhilarating experience. It is, almost certainly, a game changer for the way media consumption will evolve.
Just as the internet revolutionised the paradigm of media useage more than a decade ago, imagining where this kind of light, portable, rich, instantaneous, bespoke iPadish platform could go feels very much like another Gutenberg moment.
But, for the future of newspapers and old media, it also feels very much like a Hindenburg moment.
All the hype bloviating from newspaper companies about how the iPad will secure their future seems so much like wishful thinking based on mindless logic, for these reasons:
- It is an internet device, which means that every free website is available on equal terms to every paid app or website on the iPad. Conclusion: there is no obvious advantage in charging for content on iPad devices.
- Advertising formats for the iPad have yet to evolve. Conclusion: there is no understanding of how or even whether advertising revenue (the lifeblood of print media profitability) will materialise on iPad devices.
- Advertising will be charged on a so-called CPM (cost per thousand) basis. Conclusion: because iPad advertising is measured like all internet advertising, advertisers will only pay for the eyeballs that view or respond to the ads, which means the currency of $50,000 print full pages or $100,000 30-second television commercials — which is what made old media owners rich — will never translate to these new platforms. Like the internet, an old old media advertising dollar will become a few cents in iPad advertising revenue.
The source of the financial success of almost old media media — television, radio, newspapers and magazines — has been built on a gigantic con job, which enabled them to charge extortionate ad rates without accountability or accurate measurability.
The internet blew the first big hole in that con job. Now iPad-like devices are set to complete the demolition.
I mostly read tech sites online. The ones I do read which refer to the iPad, and which have noted “the Australian” and “Wired” apps were very very critical.
The Australian forces you to watch ads between reads. Its an eyeball capture device which in principle I can see justifies their horrendous charge to the ad market: of course it begs the question why we also have to pay for the privilege: Rupert wants to make money both sides of the deal. None of the tech reviews are complementary on this. And, since the eyeballs will go elsewhere, the value proposition to the ad payer will be a declining sell: Once Nielsen or some other engine of measurement assesses the net worth and retention, its game over.
Wired is tired. Its a 400mb bloat download. They haven’t worked out how to use markup sensibly. This is a real story: the emerging fight back from publishers for an open format which (and this is going to be hard) can recognize their IPR, but also is an open format for documents which works, cross platform.
I think its too soon to call game over on this one. I think that niche marketers should get used to building market share by digging a deep hole. If “the monthly” did an app, I’d expect it to be free. After all, “slow TV” is free, and thats about as online as they get.
-G
Why does that not surprise ? Has there been a single instance of Crikey not talking of the death of newspapers with some glee/joy/smug self satisfaction?
Apparently nothing will save them Eric…so why try? The fact that in Australia, newspapers still sell very well has escaped your notice?
Eric there is very little I agree with you on and that makes me feel good about myself.
However amigo, on the iPad and it’s soon to be felt impact, I agree with you totally.
It will change the entire game and I suspect that you will benefit greatly from that change – so long as you get rid of the knob Keane.
One aspect of the coming change to publishing that will greatly benefit society, will cutback in paper use.
I would be selling my shares in any industry associated with the production of paper. In 10 years paper, other than for wrapping, will not exist.
1. It is an internet device, which means that every free website is available on equal terms to every paid app or website on the iPad. Conclusion: there is no obvious advantage in charging for content on iPad devices.
Not now, but maybe NewsCorp and others are planning to shut down the free internet HTML browser version of their papers, or try charging for it much as the AFR presently do — including using the AFR’s multi-layer ‘scrambling’ technology to make it difficult to copy and paste articles and circulate them or blog on them.
If these things become commonplace in electronic publishing, however, a lot of blogs will be killed due to starvation of easily cut and pasted material. The question is also whether people will pay some pittance to read the online papers using a micro-billing approach a la the Apple apps.
Naturally, money-making spinoff sites owned by the media companies like online dating, classified ads, job sites, househuntign sites, etc, will still be freely available via web browsers.
The iPad is sensational and so convenient – it is a revolution. I spend a few months overseas each year and I miss reading the Sydney Morning Herald. So with my iPad I can sit under an umbrella and read the daily paper, update the cricket scores all whilst listening to my iTunes – that simple.