Can Print Be the Next Vinyl?

One of the more interesting trends in the music world is the “return” of the vinyl LP.  While sales of CD’s continue to fall in the face of digital downloads, vinyl LP sales continue to rise:

Consumers purchased 1.88 million new vinyl LPs in 2008, an 89 percent increase over 2007 and the highest sales volume recorded in the 17-year history of Nielsen SoundScan. Further, in good news for some physical retailers, two out of three vinyls LPs were purchased at independent record stores.    LINK

There are a number of reasons for this, but the most obvious is that the LP is a tangible object that can’t be easily reproduced and can only be shared through a physical, real-world exchange.  For true fans, the LP is a sort of badge of fandom, proof of just how much you love the band.  Compared to a digital download or a CD, the LP is a crafted thing, complete with large-scale artwork and often other inserts.

While it isn’t likely that LP sales will eclipse digital downloads anytime soon, it is also highly unlikely that the LP market will be undercut by piracy.

Could these same factors be a forecaster for the future of printed books and newspapers?  It is hard to imagine that these items, so easily digitized, will be able to maintain their current position on top of the mountain and we are already seeing the rapid decline of the newspaper business.

In the cases of both newspapers and books, it might be that their only hope in surviving over the long-term is to invest in elements that can truly not be pirated.  As David Eggars points out in a recent Salon interview:

I think newspapers shouldn’t try to compete directly with the Web, and should do what they can do better, which may be long-form journalism and using photos and art, and making connections with large-form graphics and really enhancing the tactile experience of paper. You know, including a full-color comic section, for example, which of course was standard in newspapers years ago, when you’d have a full broadsheet Winsor McCay comic. So we’ll have a big, full-color comic section, and we’re also trying to emphasize what younger readers are looking for, what directly appeals to them.     LINK

Now, I am not saying that comics section will save newspapers, but the point is to make the object something desirable to possess in physical form.

For the moment, we are going to see traditional publishers fight futilely to maintain the status quo but the ground is quickly falling away beneath them and it is going to take some innovative thinking about the value of printed matter to keep them in the game.

Five Bucks a Month for New York Times Online? Yeah, Right.

Lot’s of people are talking about a New York Time’s survey asking if folks would pay $5/month for full online access to the “paper.”

Gawker thinks its a great and necessary idea while Business Insider says they should charge more.

They’re both wrong.  Here’s why:

1) If the NYT erects a pay wall bloggers will be far less likely to link to them and their own readers will be less likely to share links. This is the life-blood on the online world and without it no site can survive.

2) There is FAR too little original content to convince readers to pay the New York Times for news that is widely reported by, well, everyone else.  Unless every single news reporting site agreed to similar pay walls (not gonna happen) the New York Times simple places itself in a barren desert with nary a reader in sight.

There are more minor reasons this would fail, but those are the big two.

Oh, and in response to Business Insiders comment that:

Kindle pricing also forces the question: If Times stories without video, without interactivity, without color — and without all the other stuff at nytimes.com — are worth $14 a month on the Kindle, why in the world is the web site only worth $5?

Except, how many Kindle owners are actually subscribing to the NYT via their Kindle?  Even if a good number are doing so, Kindle owners are by definition affluent and so what’s another few bucks.

Vancouver Set to Become Terrorist Photography Haven

Thanks to BoingBoing, I have learned that Vancouver is throwing all caution to the wind and opening themselves up wide for the unspeakable terrorist acts they are now all but supporting with their official stance on public photography:

Vancouver police are not allowed to seize cameras or cell phones from anyone, unless they have consent, a warrant, or the person has been lawfully arrested. Constable Lindsay Houghton tells the Province newspaper the policy has always been there, but it’s now in writing and updated in their official regulations manual.    LINK

Can you imagine the chaos that would erupt in a city like New York if police officers simply allowed people take pictures of anything they could see with their own two eyes?!

Luckily, for the citizens of New York, police officers regularly harass tourists and locals alike for treasonous behavior such as taking pictures while riding the subway or, even worse, of the actual subway cars.

I certainly feel safer in a city where police feel completely entitled to stop anyone they think looks “funny” and force them to turn over not only their cameras and cell phones but makes them empty out their bags and purses just for the right to ride the train.

“Aged News” vs. #IranElection

Everyone, including myself, is talking about the stark difference between the mainstream media’s reporting on events in Iran versus the real-time feed of citizens reporting on events via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and FlickR, among others.

Clearly, we are reaching a tipping point, a time after which newspapers will simply not have a significant role to play in the reporting of the news.  Sure, we will always be interested in reading well-written commentary and longer, in-depth explorations of complex topics, but the idea of the newspaper as a place for actual news is becoming laughable.

As I mentioned the other day, my favorite part of the Daily Show takedown of the New York Times was when Jason Jones called said the paper was full of “aged news.” It looks like the term is catching on:

The speed of change is leaving newspapers dead in the water. While some like the Guardian have managed to maintain active blogs on the events unfolding, most seem unable to compete with realtime speed, what use is their aged news when we can’t use it today?  LINK

Daily Show Nails New York Times for “Aged News”

There have been lots of posts about The Daily Show’s Jason Jones and his takedown on The New York Times on Wednesday night’s show.

For me, the deadliest moment came when Jason asked about the “aged news” in the paper.  He challenged an editor to show him anything in the paper that had happened today.  Clearly, he was unable to do this.

The point, however, is not that large news organizations are a dying breed but that the physical newspapers they continue to insist are their core business are basically obsolete.

Instead of worrying about how to charge for content online, newspaper companies should be wholly focused on how to get the hell out of the printing and distribution business.

Service Journalism: Brilliant MicroPayments Takedown

Many in the newspaper industry are exploring the potential of building revenue online through charging readers micropayments on a per-article basis.  This is sometimes referred to as a iTunes approach.

Most arguments against this plan have been based on why is not economically sound – any newpaper that puts up a paywall will simply drive most users to find the same or similar news on a free, ad-supported site.

Greg, at The Digitalists, has an even better argument against micropayments for journalism:

What exactly do these people think that newspaper execs will do with data showing exactly how profitable every single article is? Just sit on that information? Or will they use it to make business decisions about which departments, types of articles and individual journalists are delivering the most ROI? “Sorry, Woodward, we know you won the Pulitzer last year, but your articles only generated $97.85 in revenue, so we’re going to have to let you go.” Of course, it wouldn’t just influence the executives. Journalists themselves would start shading their stories to what sells, and the most successful would be the ones who were the best salespeople (or who knew the most tricks). Get ready for a lot less zoning-board recaps and a lot more “Top 10 Sexual Positions.”

Greg goes on to make some excellent points about what it is newspapers should be doing instead of focusing on micropayments.

Read the whole thing here.

Kindle DX a Poor Newspaper Replacement

Yesterday, I wrote about why I thought the Kindle DX was a terrible choice as a replacement for the traditional textbook.  I also suspected the Kindle DX would be a terrible choice as a newspaper replacement.

Early word from CNet begins to confirm these suspicions:

Since most of us can’t simply increase the amount of time we spend reading the paper each day, I’m afraid that the Kindle approach to e-news will actually reduce the amount of news we read.

The issue is that neither the format nor interface of the Kindle DX makes the process of skimming feasible.  With a dead-tree newspaper, it is a quick process to flip through all the content and dig deeper when you catch an article that interests you.  The way the Kindle DX handles the content forces a constant “flipping” from screen to screen at a rate that is slower than physically turning a page.  On top of that, each “page” only holds a fraction of the content one can capture on a page of the newspaper.

And what about the Kindle DX as compared to the iPhone or a laptop?  Not good:

These devices have active displays with fast update rates, greatly reducing the page-turning delays. I use The New York Times application on my iPhone pretty regularly (once or twice a week, at least), and it’s really quite easy to flick through the day’s top stories, which appear on the iPhone with the headline, a thumbnail photo, and usually about half of the lede…At home, on my laptop, The New York Times Web site is even faster. It’s easy to skim the titles and ledes of about a dozen stories on the main page for each “section,” and loading a story takes no more than a second or two. Once loaded, again, there are no further delays.

So, not only isn’t the Kindle DX superior to a real newspaper, it is a far less capable newsreader than either the iPhone or a laptop.

Did I mention it costs $500 and only displays in greyscale?

Kindle DX an Absurd Textbook Alternative

Amazon has released their oversized and overpriced new eBook reader, the Kindle DX and is claiming that the two greatest things about this device are how it will expand the reach and availability of newspapers and provide and fantastic alternative to dead-tree textbooks.

Sounds great but here are some potential issues.

1) The Kindle DX is currently almost $500.  Even if the price is subsidized and cut in half it is not a cheap device.  The idea of bundling a cheaper version of the device with newspaper subscriptions is only a benefit if the buyer isn’t just paying for a all the subscriptions to newspapers on top of the supposedly lowered price.  In other words, if the Kindle DX is your for $200 if you also sign up for a $100/yr sub to the NYT that’s not a great savings.

2) For all the Kindle DX can do, it is nowhere close to as powerful or useful as, say. a $500 netbook computer.  If you want to replace hardcopy textbooks with digital versions, that’s a great idea but locking those digital copies into a closed system like the Kindle defeats the entire purpose.  Not only is the Kindle stuck in greyscale – a factor that would seriously effect the value of many textbooks – but it is impossible to easily integrate the textbook into a student’s workflow when the data is stuck on another device.  For instance, a digital version of a textbook that a student can read on his computer is great.  He can quickly highlight and search sections online, cut and copy bits for notes or ideas or questions, etc. and have all that stuff in one place when it comes time for test prep and paper writing.  No way the student can do that with a Kindle.

3) It’s yet another device to carry around.  One that is somewhat fragile and now annoyingly large.  It can be folded up or tossed into a pocket.

The Nation’s Newspaper Solution? Collusion, of couse.

There are numerous reasons why traditional newspaper are facing the need to change or die.  Technology is evolving to a point where many people simply don’t see the need for a dead-tree format while at the same time the technology needed to obtain and transmit news has allowed many more players onto the field.

Of course, the majority of old school thinkers simply blame “the internet” for stealing the news and then giving it away for free.  This is such a Luddite view of the world and misses almost all the important factors that have led to a change in the way news is gathered and disseminated. This wrong-headed thinking has led to some presumably smart people making really dumb statements about how to “save” newspapers – a concept they often confuse with saving news or saving journalism, things that do not need newspapers to thrive.

For my money,  Michael Moran, writing for “The Nation” has made one of the most bone-headed suggestions yet:

The online information ecosystem that has grown up around their freely proffered content will barely notice if one–or even a half-dozen–major publications put their news behind subscription walls. The only way newspapers can save something of the franchise that took hundreds of years to create is to work together to stop giving away their content without charge.

Call it NOPEC–the Newspaper Owners Print and Electronic Cartel. Only when newspapers cast aside the ethos of free content can the revenues needed to support serious journalism at home and abroad return.

That’s right, Mr. Moran is suggesting that newspapers collude in a price-fixing scheme that will somehow remove any form of competition and force people to pay an artificial price for new reporting.

Besides being highly unethical and possibly illegal, it’s complete unworkable.  There will always be those who either want to provide news for free or who are able to make a profit through other revenue models than subscription or micropayments.

NOPEC is my winner for Worst Idea Ever to “save” newspapers.

LINK

Newspapers Want You to Pay for Online News

This is a pretty obvious desire from the newspapers but it is a pipedream.  Look at this bit from the New York Times (that I am linking to and reprinting here without explicit permission or making any sort of payment…)

Faced with an ad market that no longer supplies enough revenue to meet costs, many newspapers are now considering putting up pay walls on their Web sites, long an anathema in Internet culture. Consumers used to roaming freely across the Web in search of news and opinion may soon find themselves being asked to register at news sites and, in some cases, to fork over a credit card number. (LINK)

First of all, is it crazy to think that the problem isn’t so much that ad revenues can’t support newspapers as much as that the budgets newspapers have been using in the past are no longer relevant?

In other words, while the old model of what a newspaper is and how it is created might no longer be sustainable on advertising alone that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to produce equally “good” news for the amount of revenue that can be generated just from advertising.  One would think that after well over a century with the same basic plan, it might just be time for the big shakeup.

The problem isn’t the amount of revenue available but the unwillingness of bloated, mismanaged and wasteful newspapers to change their ways.

The good news from a consumer perspective is that the market will always drive change.  Unless newspapers can prove that the news they provide is worth paying for WHILE being bombarded with ads they will be unable to beat smarter, faster, more agile folks who see a way to make a profit and provide good news without making the people pay directly.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Media Equation: Papers Try to Get Out of a Box (nytimes.com)
• ‘Hyperlocal’ Web Sites Deliver News Without Newspapers (nytimes.com)
• NYT puts ads on front – media world to end! (collegemediainnovation.org)