A post-advertising future of newspapers

Writer James Surowiecki has an interesting article in the December 22 New Yorker magazine about where and how the newspaper industry is going in the face of dwindling subscribers, diminishing ad revenues, and shrinking resources. 

Among his solutions:  Foundation-based funding and deep-pocketed investors.  (Hope there’s a “Plan C” out there…)

As I was reading the story, I was musing about the future of the New Yorker, too.  I had subscribed to the magazine (in print) for a long time, but gave up about two years ago when I decided: a.) I didn’t actually get around to reading most issues and b.) 95% of the articles I wanted to read were available online for free. 

Although I find value in the articles, I must admit that I probably wouldn’t be willing to pay for them, if the New Yorker went to a “paid” access model, nor would I consider going back to a paper-based subscription.

I may be their biggest fan and worst nightmare rolled into one.  Tough business to be in…

How paperless I am?

Last year around this time when I was doing a year-end computer backup and paper shred, I thought it would be interesting to find out just how much paper comes into my life in a year.  So, I decided that instead of shredding it throughout the year, I'd save it in an expandable file this year to see just how big the pile would be after a year. 

The results are below:

 

After 12 months, I ended up with a 3-inch pile of paper.  It includes everything I wasn't able to "avoid" -- receipts, insurance forms and policies, tax packages, a few things from clients, and credit-card offers.   Except for the credit-card junk, I scanned everything as I received it, so as soon as I do my year-end computer back up, I'll shred the pile.

So, what did I learn from this?  Well, I think I've reached the point where I'm as "paperless" as possible right now.  I've checked with several of my "paper sources" to see if I they can turn off the stream, but the answer, for now, is no.  For example, probably half is comprised of insurance policies and statements of benefits, but my insurance companies say that state law requires them to provide this stuff on paper.  On the plus side, with the economy tanking, the flow of credit card offers ought to be slowing down soon...

Is wired the new wi-fi?

Interesting article in the Chicago Sun-Times today about the advantages of returning to a wired home network, rather than using wi-fi to serve to growing number of Internet-connected devices and appliances we all seem to have proliferating around the house.

I use a mix of wired and unwired on my own system, and I can’t say that I notice a major speed difference from device to device. 

Wired:

1. Office desktop
2. Network storage
3. Slingboxes

Unwired:

1. Kitchen system (draft N)
2. Tablet (draft N)
3. Laptop (G)
4. TiVo's (G)
5. PDA phone (G)

After switching to a draft N router, I saw enough of a speed improvement that I can stream video with no drops or glitches (standard, not HD) among any of my devices, so I’m satisfied with wireless speed right now. 

Is it fast enough for HD?  Time will tell.

Another view of electronic magazines

Blogger, GTDer, and digital fellow traveler Howard Robson has posted on his blog a very interesting response to my comments about the end of Mygazines.com.  Howard makes a strong case for why magazine sharing through a site like Mygazines is detrimental to the magazine business even beyond the outright piracy issues, noting that the circulation of these journals can't be audited.  That, in turn, can erode a magazine's advertising base -- and even drive it toward bankruptcy.

He also points out that magazines are different from both time-driven news stories and evergreen music files in that they have a timeliness, but don't last forever.

These are good points, and I'm very sympathetic to the arguments, being a copyright holder and magazine writer myself.  There's no doubt in my mind that copyright violation is wrong, and I have seen firsthand how dwindling ad revenue can break a magazine.

But, as a digital cheerleader, I have to ask: Wouldn't it be smarter for publishers to change their model to meet the needs of the age than for them to protect a dying approach that can't be secured?

Rather than comparing magazines to newspapers or music -- although they obviously share some attributes of both -- I'd argue that a better comparison is with commercial television.  Most magazines -- at least ad-supported ones -- operate much as commercial television does, by presenting a product that attracts and holds a reader's attention long enough to expose them to advertising images.  But, unlike television, magazines charge both the advertiser and the consumer for the service.  Ironically, rather than creating two income streams, this has left magazines doubly vulnerable -- as readers abandon ship for other information and entertainment options, advertisers are willing to pay less to reach smaller audiences. 

My sense is that publishers ultimately will have to choose what business they're in:  Are they creating content that readers value?  If so, they need to find new ways to monetize the value -- and limiting access probably won't work.  Or, are they selling advertising opportunities?  If that's their business line, they face even bigger challenges, since the very platforms where they propose to place the ads are rapidly disappearing.

Tough business to be in, Howard...