Journalism Issues

fyi only. -- BILL

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/technology/10carr.html

ORIGINAL HEADLINE: Forget Blogs, Print Needs Its Own IPod

Published: October 10, 2005

By David Carr
The New York Times

SOMETIMES what appears to be a threat is actually a life preserver.

The poor defenseless music industry cowered - then prosecuted - when the
monster of digital downloads came lurching over the horizon. Then the iPod came
along and music looks like a business again - a smaller business, eked out in
99- cent units - but still a business.

Cable channels were supposed to gut network television, but instead have become
a place where shows like "Seinfeld" and "Law and Order" are resold and
rewatched. The movie industry reacted to DVD's as though they were a sign of
the imminent apocalypse, and now studios are using their libraries to churn
profits.

Which brings us to the last of the great analog technologies, the one many of
you are using right now.

The newspaper business is in a horrible state. It's not that papers don't make
money. They make plenty. But not many people, or at least not many on Wall
Street, see a future in them. In an attempt to leave the forest of dead trees
and reach the high plains of digital media, every paper in the country is
struggling mightily to digitize its content with Web sites, blogs, video and
podcasts.

And they are half right. Putting print on the grid is a necessity, because the
grid is where America lives. But what the newspaper industry really needs is an
iPod moment.

According to a nifty piece of polling, directed by Bob Papper of Ball State
University in Muncie, Ind., and released last week, average Americans spend
more time online, on the phone, punching the remote, the radio and the game
console than they do sleeping - a total of nine hours a day. And much of the
time, they are using more than one medium simultaneously, answering e-mail
messages while returning calls with a TV buzzing in the background.

For all the print newspaper's elegance - it is a very portable, searchable
technology - it has some drawbacks. A paper is a static product in a dynamic
news age, and while every medium is after eyeballs, the industry has to take
that quite literally. You cannot read this story while driving in your car -
which is how most of America commutes - and you cannot have it on in the
background. America is hooked on "companion" media, a pet platform that sits in
the corner and pays attention to you when you pay attention to it.

No wonder that print is taking a hit. In the Ball State study, the Internet in
all of its incarnations beat out reading print materials in all forms in every
age bracket up to 65.

Print's anachronisms, whether it is the last-mile delivery, the slaying of
forests, or the sale of thick packages that most consumers use only small
slices of, make change inevitable once a better answer is available.

Consider if the line between the Web and print matter were erased by a device
for data consumption, not data entry - all screen, no baggage - that was
uplinked and updated constantly: a digital player for the eyes, with an
iTunes-like array of content available at a ubiquitous volume and a low,
digestible price.

Sure, there are tablet PC's and so-called viewpads out there, but they need to
boot every time they are used - they are just computers without keyboards. The
iPod was not a new kind of CD player, it was a new way of listening to music.
And the dangling white headphones became something that brought joy to the ears
and also cachet to the wearer.

"There are all sorts of devices coming along," said Dick Brass, who built the
first spelling checker that worked and a format for e-books for Microsoft.
"When something is good enough and close enough to paper for people to say, 'I
want to use this,' then things will change quickly as they have with the iPod."

Newspapers might live long on such devices, but again, there are hurdles, some
technical, some economic.

"It looks simple to come up with a tablet that works, but it is not," said
Esther Dyson, a consultant on digital issues. "In order to have the power and
portability you need, you need power. The screen is the part of the device that
uses the most power."

Mr. Brass and others have suggested that superthin lithium batteries will do
the trick, or that the power source can be built into the spine of a fold-out
two-page device.

But even when such a gadget is finally in a form consumers will glom onto,
newspapers will have to fight for space and mindshare. And it is axiomatic thus
far that online customers are much lower-margin customers than print customers.
Because there is no scarcity of ad space on the Web, you cannot charge nearly
so much for a banner ad on a page with millions of hits as you can for a
double-page spread in a national paper.

The real peril of the industry has been the uncoupling of the editorial model -
still salient if the Hurricane Katrina coverage is any indication - from the
business model, which relies in part on classified advertising. The Web gives
classifieds a functionality that print will never match. (Thank you,
Craigslist.) And everybody knows consumers on the Web do not want to pay for
what they can get free, right?

Maybe not. As iTunes has demonstrated, there is a vast swath of consumers who
are willing to pay for what they want and avoid the moral taint of unauthorized
use.

There is already a crisscross of intention on the part of the current content
providers. The primary gesture of Google and Yahoo - search is actually content
- is now being woven with video, paid columnists and, ye gads, even some
reporters. Television networks are beginning to explore whether people would
pay for an on-demand version of their product. Blogs are federating into
verticals of quality to be sold to advertisers. Broadcast radio worries about
competition from satellite radio while satellite wonders if it can get people
to unplug their iPods.

That is the future that newspapers have to prepare for. Readers no longer care
so much who you are, they just want to know what you know.

That may sound grim for big media brands, the kind of proposition that will not
provide enough cash flow to finance a squad of reporters examining what a
hurricane left behind or venturing out onto the streets of Baghdad. But in a
frantic age where the quality of the information can be critical, being a
reliable news source humming away in everyone's backpack sounds just useful
enough to be a business.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This article above is copyrighted material, the use of which may not have specifically authorized by the copyright owner. The material is made available in an effort to advance understanding of political, economic, democracy, First Amendment, technology, journalism, community and justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' as provided by Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Chapter 1, Section 107, the material above is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this blog for purposes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

// posted by newshare @ 5:25 PM