Seriously, I know that many of us had a relationship with our newspaper. From the favorite journalists, to the editorial imprint, the layout, the sections, the political persuasion - down to the feel for the recyclable paper.
When the Wall Street Journal redesigned its print publication again (Jan. 2, 2007), the new layout was dissected by many. The narrower and more colorful format for the print edition was greeted with mixed feelings. David Pybas was the lead page one art director and lead designer for the new print edition of WSJ.
Print was to concentrate on analysis stories and to leave the breaking news that used to make up almost half the newspaper for the online edition, which publishes throughout the day. Bringing the front was business news - the most sensitive to a time cycle.
Recognizing that the value of a breaking story diminishes as more publications publish their own online versions within minutes, WSJ aligned its own online property more closely with the print version. I saw it as a good move. Others objected to the smaller size of what they fondly thought of as a more substantial publication just selling out and on the path to becoming irrelevant.
The news of yet more changes to the journal came as recently as April, 2008. Conde' Nast Portfolio.com sounded the alarm by saying that WSJ loads up on opinion, some of it liberal. It was interesting to discover that one of the revamped areas addresses the impact of digital technology on business.
If there is so much passion about the format of a print publication, we are quite adjusted to seeing online layouts change fairly frequently without batting an eyelid. Is this because we do not have a relationship with digital publications? It's not something you hold in your hands, where you turn the pages over coffee or breakfast - a mouse is a mouse is a mouse, whatever site you end up landing on and reading.
What I look for in a digital environment is good navigation and usability so I can find the news bits and occasionally do a deeper dive. I do not mind the stories that scroll over 5 pages or clicks. What I look for in a newsprint publication is also stories. Yet I hold that, turn the pages and fold it as I see fit. One could argue that today they are both quite portable, even as the print may be lighter and easier to discard (I am quite aware of the environmental impact and recycle mine).
The print souvenir is also a much stronger representation of the news organization's brand. It's the physical representation, what we call the hard copy. Online is soft. Is it too soft to invite to a relationship with the brand? What am I missing?
[WSJ Redesign on Flickr, Eston]
My online relationships with digital publications are more casual, but they are relationships nonetheless. Be it a national paper or a small niche blog, if I subscribe to the feed, it has my attention.
There is a difference in reading patterns when I buy a physical edition. Until recently, I would read through more articles, even if I wasn't too interested in the stories.
I put this down to having paid money for a physical product. Not consuming the whole thing felt like a waste of money.
But that's rubbish and I've trained myself away from this attitude. Since I already buy a paper for a specific reason, it justifies the cost of the item anyway. It already represents good value for money so I needn't feel bad if I skip what doesn't interest me.
This new approach (i.e. treat it as I would a digital publication), saves a great deal of time, which is obviously worth a lot more than money.
I would say that I now search for good value in what I am reading and consuming (be it digital or physical). If it can provide that value, I'm more likely to come back to hear what that person or group has to say, and I am more likely to make contact with them to at least thank them for their work.
Posted by: Martin | June 16, 2008 at 04:59 AM
Martin:
I like your approach!
I wonder if you had the same approach for digital publications you pay for. Would you pay for sections of them or the whole thing? Which part would you not pay for?
As the newly issued AP report states (blogged about it Sunday of last week), new media may figure out ways to chop information to deliver on entry points and then expand with conversation and depth.
There is another consideration - how do you know which part of the publication will provide value to you? Case in point, I often end up learning by reading a story that I might not have selected to receive content-wise. In a newspaper and magazine, I would come across it as I leaf through.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | June 16, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Apparently the preferred nomenclature is "electronic editions" (see also Rexblog who blogs and publishes and BPA Worldwide)
"Digital editions" makes sooo much more sense.
Irrespective, great post. I hope my red herring was informative...
Posted by: Nathan Ketsdever | June 18, 2008 at 05:25 AM
As things stand, I would rather pay for an entire publication, rather than single sections. However, I have commented on this before (on Nick Burcher's blog) and would accept a well thought out solution:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8200358893539431848&postID=2646893210933868379
How do I know which part of the publication will provide value to me? I don't have a clue, but I don't want to buy every physical publication just so I don't overlook an interesting story.
So currently, when it comes to newspapers and some magazines, I subscribe to full RSS feeds and treat these feeds like a leaf through. I get the same satisfaction flicking through 100 stories and finding one or two great articles.
Posted by: Martin | June 18, 2008 at 08:04 AM
@Nathan - I prefer the term digital as well. It's a broader definition.
@Martin - the reason why I asked is that many publications measure their success story by story. We have discussed the fragmentation of media in the past. Could news organizations act as disaggregated networks? We talked about it here http://tinyurl.com/272j2t I'm with you on not knowing which part will provide value.
Posted by: Valeria Maltoni | June 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM