Old media is just that... Old...

I always get mixed feeling very time I hear, read and watch news and editorial media corporations talk about the state of the industry. For one - I know they are right. The expectation that consumers have to get free content over the internet has eroded the budget of all news rooms and valued editorial services. 90% of all quality news reporting comes from less than 8% of the news outlets out there... That is because there are very few outlets that invest in investigative and quality journalism whereas the other outlets are reactionary (they just jump to the scene of the news and report on it). This has lead to the layoff of editors, photojournalist and the overall staffing of the news room... because we as consumers do not differentiate between the New York Times (who might had invested time and money to bring you the news) and CNN who picked up the story and is reporting it life - 24/7 with a sexy cast, holograms and their tiring and frustrating habit to interview themselves because there is no one better (or no one available).

Then you get Rupert Murdoch explaining why they have to lift paywalls for their quality content - since his news papers do not get the ad revenue that CNN has as it lacks the sex appeal (and the paying readers)... That is all fine - but in their current state - it hasn’t worked. Few people pays for a internet subscription to read on a browser. The phone is much too small and the laptop is inconvenient in most casual locations. It has not worked. It will not work...

Well guys - this is your chance... I’m not going to imply that the iPad is going to save your industry - the device is just but an example... It could be any device to which you will try to position your content... The example I want to illustrate is not the medium - its the model.

The iPad is released in the US. Since I’m Canadian I do what all Canadians do... wait until the device is available. Apple announces its going to take one more month before its available internationally - so I do the next logical thing... Drive to Buffalo with my best friend and buy not one... but two...
Now - exited, I like to see what the news and printed media is doing with regard to embrace what EVERY one is calling a vehicle for their survival. I’m perfect target. Between 36 and 42, male, good income, news junkie who hates to get printed material (unless the paper is extraordinary). This is what I found out:

• Most of the news papers native application are boring. Really boring. They don’t take any advantage of the platform. None. In fact - I might as well just open the browser and go to their websites which are better layed out and have more content. Which begs the questions - why did they invest in the app in the first place? Lame, lame and its not going to get them anywhere. No wonder Steve Jobs was not amused with the New York Times iPad application. But they are all BAD... The BBC app is just as bad.
• The magazines apps - most of them are just a PDF of the magazine. There are exemptions were clever layouts and imagery makes them worth while...
• Generic apps are not bad - as they are, well... generic. Zinio comes to mind. It will be hard for them to exploit the device’s features and still have the same magazine function across platforms (that don’t share the feature)... so the experience will always be blend.

But the problem these guys will be facing with regards to adoption is their old business model - and my point for this rant...:

HOW CAN A ELECTRONIC MEDIA PRODUCT COST MORE THAN THE EXISTING PRINTED PRODUCT?

Guys - come on... Yes - I do want to see (and expect) to see rich media out of periodicals such as Wired Magazine. But periodicals such as Time Magazine or The Economist which I wanted to subscribe to - their cost surpasses the printed form. A printed “The Economist” subscription is C$1.25 per issue.



The Zuine electronic version of the same periodical (which I was about to purchase) is C$2.69... 48.4% MORE than the printed version.

This either tells me:

• one - they are too greedy and don’t get it... (and perhaps will not get it until they find themselves into dire straights or worst...
• two - they suck at negotiating distribution channels and cost.

If they claim that electronic publishing of essentially a PDF (because god knows I have not seen anything impressive in terms of rich content from them) is more expensive than the material, labor and associated printing budget - as well as the national distribution and retail margin - then they deserve to go bankrupt.

Out with the OLD and in with the NEW. One way or another these business will have to change. As the saying goes - “You are either at the table, or on the menu”. With these greedy or uncooked models - they are certainly not at the table.