Digital Edition versus Old School

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amanda on June 24, 2008 at 10:41am

As a reader and not a publisher, I 100% prefer paper. I agree that digital editions are making a lot of money in ad sales and I think it's much more preferable to many people, but for me not so much. I enjoy getting a magazine in the mail, clipping pieces like recipes or pictures for a scrapbook collage, having something to bring with me on a long car ride. I don't think digital will kill print, I think they're complimentary.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marcus on June 24, 2008 at 12:08pm

I agree w/ Amanda... But we're living in a great time - publishers can produce content any way they like relatively affordably: print, digital edition, web, etc... and they NEED to, because different readers are drawn to different formats.

I think the real challenge today is not to CHOOSE which format to publish in, but find ways to publish in all of them, so that the readers can find the content in a format they want.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Lateefah Simpson on June 24, 2008 at 12:48pm

That makes sense, I didn't think of it that way. Personal preference (regarding format options) should definitely be considered. For me personally, the concept of a Digital Edition (DE) is amazing, but you can't take it with you on a plane/long car ride if you don't have a laptop.

Although DE's don't take up shelf space, what happens if your computer crashes and all files are lost? How are tip-ins handled with DE's? Inserts? I'm not against DE's, I just don't prefer them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Marcus on June 24, 2008 at 2:13pm

"I'm not against DE's, I just don't prefer them." - I'm the same way about mobile, but then again: I have a ten minute commute. I think I'd feel much different if I were a train commuter.

RE: DE's, most companies these days (disclosure: including the one I work for :) ) deliver the DE in an internet browser and the reader has the option of saving it offline... Only about 10% do. The publishers, though, will have the issue available for a minimum of one year, so you shouldn't "lose" the magazine, even if your computer dies. Regarding tip-ins and inserts, it all depends on the system you're using. Generally speaking, this is the type of request that the bigger brand names can handle and the smaller ones can't. The publisher just needs to decide how vital it is to them (and - more often - how important it is to the advertiser who might get dropped).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Matyskiel on June 24, 2008 at 3:39pm

So for you a magazine is really an artifact - you may read it, but it has other value for you. There's one school of thought that says mass magazines will disappear, but one niche they will retain is for people who simply like the physical object - kind of like the way people buy hand-made objects today.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amanda on June 25, 2008 at 12:16pm

I think it's actually beneficial for magazine publishers to have readers who prefer digital—think of how much money they'll save on delivery and printing! However, no I'm not one of those readers. I'm the artsy fartsy type and can think of a hundred things to do with a magazine :) And while with that train of thought you'd think books would be free reign to go digital. But I disagree with that as well for the same reason I don't think DVDs will ever disappear... people like to collect and show off :)

Despite all that blather on my personal preferences though, I do think digital is the future, just not the only future. I hear Make: Magazine offers a complimentary digital edition with a subscription to their print edition. Last I heard they have about 60% that opt in to the digital edition. GREAT IDEA. I think the next best idea is for The New York Times to give a free Amazon Kindle to anyone who chooses to subscribe to a digital edition instead of paper. Despite the cost of the Kindle, they'd save way more by not mailing and printing. If I was a New York Times subscriber, I would 100% go for this, because newspapers are messy and turn my fingers black! I bet you all of those commuters on the train would subscribe to the NYT to be able to read it on a Kindle or something like it instead of leaving it on the seat next to them when they arrive at their stop.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Convertito on June 25, 2008 at 1:42pm

Sorry, but eff a Kindle. no room for more gadgets in my pockets... I agree the MAKE mag offer is perfect for that audience tho... Side note: the trend here in SF seems to be leaning against massive + freely distributed print – possibly even to be locally outlawed soon, joining styrofoam and plastic bags...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Amanda on June 25, 2008 at 3:11pm

Haha, to each his own. The Kindle is still pretty big and heinous looking, but I'd take a digital reader for a newspaper over finding a place to trash it any day.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shelly Sherman on June 26, 2008 at 2:14pm

Personally I completly agree, I prefer actually having the magazine (book) physically in my hand.

However, with the popularity of everything "green" right now I think this is a great time for us as publishers to promote Digital Editions as a way to reduce our environmental imapct. We can help reduce the use of paper, ink, fuel and much more - simply by offering those who are willing to transition a way to get our great content without needing the actual copy.

Still I think print and digital editions are partners for delivering readers what they want to see in a way they want to see it rather than competitors for readers and as such I don't think digital is killing print.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ian Hunter on June 24, 2008 at 5:45pm

Hi Lateefah

It is a little early in the world of digital publishing to be asking this question.
Digital Publishing has a long way to go before a fair assessment of your questions can be made.
You may have difficulty in finding a lot of votes for digital as being a preference, which is quite understandable when you consider what is being offered as digital publishing at this time. This will change.
When the economics and advantages of digital become apparent to the Old School, they will be the ones that drive the industry forward.
Digital sooner rather than later will go a long way to 'killing the paperback star'
Probably in around 10 years it will be the vinyl of the publishing industry.

Ian

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark Loeffler on June 24, 2008 at 8:50pm

I don't believe DE's are killing paperback, rather media consumption is changing. In my opinion, the publications that will succeed long term are the ones who realize that the way their subscribers digest content has changed. By developing strategies that meet the changing needs of your audience you should be able to grow your brand through multiple channels. Personally I still receive print magazines and for some of my interests I don't think I will ever want it any other way. I also spend time reading magazines online through DE's and also spend time on web sites reading blogs and online only content. I am quite certain that at some point in the near future there will be a 'new' way for me to get information that will appeal to me - publishers need to be flexible enough to change with the times.

Mark

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kevin Convertito on June 25, 2008 at 12:31pm

a printed magazine is a thing you can hold and become irrationally attached to, digital editions can't be beat for information + escape when you need it NOW (like here at work). Some print + web mag versions are absolutely complimentary, some aren't.... i want my cake and eat it too...BTW i think WIRED kills it in both realms...

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last