The Auricle

by Derek Morrison, 7 July 2009

Does the following represent as possible “get out of gaol” for the newspaper industry? Or is it just an interesting cul de sac? The current generation of ebook readers don’t do visual multimedia, they try to be a two dimensional paper analogue; al la paperback format, e.g. Sony Reader or alternatively a clipboard format, e.g a Kindle DX or the forthcoming Plastic Logic reader; and that’s a problem for those interested in rich content delivery, including newspapers and magazines.

There is an interesting digital vehicle for delivering a multimedia version of the New York Times called the Times Reader which is based on Adobe Air. The ubiqutious Flash is used for many web-based multimedia applications including the online version of the BBC iPlayer and Adobe Air enables some Flash based applications to work offline.

The New York Times solution may be interesting but it still ties the user to a relatively expensive computer and that’s still one big usability and aesthetics issue which gets nowhere near the convenience or the design values of a paper newspaper. There is an inherent tension in unifying the benefits of the portable devices with usability and high design values possible in other media. The NY Times solution would make more sense if delivered by an instant on, light weight, flexible portable, robust long battery life ebook device with sufficient processing power and appropriate display technologies for multimedia. But the nearest we get to such devices are netbooks and even they are too inconvenient to become ubiquitous alternative newspaper delivery vehicles.

The current generation of ebooks also don’t cut the mustard for what the likes of the New York Times is trying to do which is deliver an enriched multimedia newspaper which reflects something of their design values from their paper heritage. Unfortunately that requires a solution as ubiquitous and flexible as paper – and that’s the problem. In one hand we have laptops/netbooks etc. In another we have iPhones et al. In yet another 🙂 we have dedicated ebook devices which don’t do rich visual media. And none of these offers a “get out of gaol” for the dilemma facing a media industry whose income stream is drying/dying day be day and that is desperately trying to find a way of reinventing a business model that works in a digital age where advertising revenue is disappearing to other sources and ‘free’ online content is normalised.

Why is this relevant? I offer a a few reflections.

1. As you would expect from a long term blogger I obviously value the disintermediation potential of the so called Web 2.0 technologies like blogs, wikis, and their various descendants. But I think we also need to value some of the mediated offerings which strive to offer us more than headlines and sensationalist or inaccurate narrative. I personally value the analysis and synthesis mediated by others even when I don’t always agree with it and am happy to point to such mediated sources in my disintermediated offerings. I think disintermediation carries as many risks as it does affordances. Each magazine or newspaper that closes because it can no longer afford to support its mediators, i.e. feature writers, journalists, editors etc also closes down channels of communication by people whose day job is to provide analysis for those who lack the resources or talent to do so. Who or what will replace them? Twitter feeds? Facebook? I don’t think so. These may sometimes offer useful and sometimes outstanding synergies with the traditional media but as a replacement?
2. But you may say the said journalists and feature writers can go online? But, in part due to earlier decisions made by the media itself, many people now don’t expect to pay for such online content; but professional analysts and writers will need to be paid from somewhere but the paucity of advertising revenue is making that difficult to impossible. Consequently, I think we are entering a period where the concept of ‘free’ content will be increasingly challenged (see postscript for free copy of Chris Anderson’s new book “Free”). But here I think the nature of the delivery vehicles, the cost of the content and its richness will really matter. But as I indicate above: the delivery vehicles aren’t there yet; content suppliers need to avoid being perceived as greedy, and rich integrated multimedia content is still mainly locked to a Windows, Apple, or Linux computer (because it can provide visual real estate) in spite of the existence of iPods, iPhones etc.
3. The format of a newspaper or magazine offers a design landscape far superior to that currently offered by most browsers and certainly portable devices. At best the latter two can only offer a narrow window best suited to linear text or the playing of a single media item outside of the rest of its visual context. This is hardly conducive to the rapid scanning of headlines or their associated narratives and the eventual mental “zooming in” and focus that is facilitated by a larger visual landscape. Overall even today portable multimedia technologies provide a somewhat degraded or disassociated experience that hardly encourages prolonged engagement with, or deeper reflection about, a narrative – an issue we are only just becoming aware that has signficant implications for learning behaviours in the digital age, e.g. see Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience – Final report released (Auricle, 12 May 2009). Desktops and laptops may be able to get closer to providing a more integrated media experience but they fall down on the portable convenience front. The forthcoming generation of internt connected LCD televisions look promising but are hardly going to be whipped out of a commuter’s case on the way into work. So until ‘epaper’ can offer a multimedia newspaper/magazine experience I think the newspaper and magazine industry (an perhaps eventually even the scholarly journal industry) is in deep doo doo. So it might be in all our interests to keep some of these mediators alive. If not, I have got a feeling we may eventually come to much regret their passing.

Postscript

Chris Anderson author of the Long Tail (first published as a Wired essay in October 2004 and later a book) is now offering free digital copies (including audiobook) of his new book “Free” from his Wired blog.

The Oxford Internet Institute’s biannual report The Internet in Britain 2009 (PDF, 2MB) contains some very worthwhile data and commentary on online news. Time poor readers may find the summary of this aspect of the report contained in the 22 June 2009 OII press release Internet Use and Online News (pdf, 40KB) of interest. For example:

… nearly six out of ten (58%) Internet users said they read a newspaper or news online, compared to three out of ten (30%) two years ago. The survey also shows, however, that most users are continuing to read print versions of newspapers as well as reading online news … only 4% of Internet users who read a newspaper said they only read it online, which the report suggests shows that online news is complementing rather than substituting more traditional media.