Evan Rudowski: Web Transplant

iPad: The Mediamorphosis is Finally Happening

Today's article by Stan Schroeder in Mashable does a good job of articulating what the iPad is likely to be - a device for consuming content.

Content creators and website developers will increasingly need to begin to think about how to deliver their content to the iPad, presuming it enjoys wide adoption over time. If Apple gets the form factors right -- and they seem to be good at this -- as well as the marketing, adoption should follow.

People have been trying to build tablets for a long time, and the time may be right now that the technical limitations (battery life, memory, screen cost) can be overcome.

Those who remember their media history would probably agree that a shout out is due to Roger Fidler, who for many years ran the Knight-Ridder New Media Lab and as long as two decades ago was advocating in the newspaper industry for development of a tablet device. Roger, now program director for digital publishing at Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute in Columbia, Missouri spent years building prototypes and articulating the future vision that Apple may have delivered yesterday. His 1994 video on the subject is below. That's 16 years ago.

Roger's 1997 book, Mediamorphosis, is still available on Amazon.

Staci Kramer gets the Newsday story right

via paidcontent.org

Staci Kramer of PaidContent.org has put in perspective why the disclosure of 35 paid subscribers to Newsday.com is not relevant to paid content efforts at other newspapers.

We are already seeing the "anti-paywall" contingent latching on to this bit of information in an attempt to support their position -- Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian gleefully tweeted the 35 subs number almost as soon as it came out. If we are to have a useful discussion about the benefits and the risks of paid content efforts, we need to be willing to understand what's really going on. Staci's article helps.

Commented on "ContentNext Network"

Staci, this is some good coverage that puts the information in perspective. Well done. We are already seeing the "anti-paywall" contingent latching on to this bit of information in an attempt to support their position -- Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian gleefully tweeted the 35 subs number almost as soon as it came out. If we are to have a useful discussion about the benefits and the risks of paid content efforts, we need to be willing to understand what's really going on. Your article helps.

Originally posted as a comment by evanrud on ContentNext Network using DISQUS.

Report: Only 35 People Will Pay To Get Past Newsday's Paywall

via www.businessinsider.com

It's been reported that Newsday.com has had only 35 sign-ups to its paid website. 

Opponents of so-called "paywalls" will cite this as evidence that they don't work. And it is stupid of Newsday to put its entire website behind a subscription barrier.

Nevertheless, there are some mitigating points:

1. You can get a seven-day print subscription to Newsday for $4.50 per week. As a subscriber you get Newsday.com access for free. So why pay more to get only the website?

2. Subscribers to Cablevision (Newsday's parent) also get free access. Cablevision has several million subscribers in the New York area who also get free access to Newsday.com.

So there is very little reason to subscribe just to Newsday.com. These numbers are not very instructive for The New York Times or anyone else.

Rusbridger Fights a False Battle Against Paywalls

Alan Rusbridger is a thoughtful man but he's aligned himself with an absolutist point-of-view -- no paywalls.

Along with Jeff Jarvis (whom, unsurprisingly, he's hired as a columnist), Rusbridger is quickly becoming one of the leading opponents of the paid content strategy. However, the entire term "paywall" is a mischaracterization.

There may be some who think they should erect a wall completely around their content. However, in reality an effective paid content strategy is more subtle and nuanced.

It should be entirely possible for a newspaper like the Guardian, filled with fantastic talent, to create successful paid content products alongside the core free product. Considering the Guardian is losing £30 million per year, creating additional revenue streams ought to be a priority. It's certainly better than laying off more journalists and editors.

Paid content products might not close the gap entirely, but they will help. And if the core free product continues to erode, their importance will only increase.

Yet Rusbridger keeps arguing against the straw man of paywalls. There is no nuance to his argument - - it's black and white. Paywalls or free.

For such a thoughtful man, it's a surprisingly simplistic and narrow view. And because he's gone so far out on a limb, it will be that much harder for the Guardian to climb down and try new things.

Rusbridger is certainly a great philosopher regarding the future of journalism. But he is offering no new business ideas, and his current model is broken. So instead of pondering, and arguing unnecessarily against the false construct of "paywalls," he'd be better off getting on with finding some new revenue streams.

Originally posted as a comment by evanrud on ContentNext Network using DISQUS.