What online newspapers and e-book readers have in common: Consumers value them less than publishers
In today’s Observer, ex-Guardian editor Peter Preston sums up the problem facing newspapers as they migrate online by once again reminding us that on the Internet, most of us don’t read newspapers. We read news. And there’s a big, big difference:
“Only hardened readers of newspaper editions, including journalists, read the newspapers as though they were digital papers. And the rest of us just click quickly through in pursuit of some other face or picture. No branding or devotion: only utility…”
“That’s what you, the reader or non-reader in America or probably the UK, tell journalists as you use the web. You say that papers online are not a majority port of call. Your real enthusiasm is for sites that do specific things – like PerezHilton.com for gossip, or perhaps, nearer home the Mirror’s new football site for soccer’s statistical nerds.”
That Peter Preston article (the whole thing is worth reading) came to mind when moving onto a Beta Tales post: Why e-readers may be a great platform for newspapers.
John Einar Sandvard tested out the Amazon Kindle and found that the user experience when reading a paper was good.
John says that e-readers won’t replace reading newspapers in print and they won’t replace newspapers online, but could be a half-way house, something I gather a lot of publishers are banking on.
Yet, coming back to Peter Preston’s article, I wonder if making a conscious decision to read a newspaper on anything other than in print, is only of interest to news nerds. I’m one for sure, but I don’t need a Kindle.
I’m perfectly able to read the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Independent and The Daily Telegraph (and watch the evil-doers channel Al Jazeera) on my iPhone.
I also, over the weekend for the first time, tried reading an e-book (Remix, by Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig) on the iPhone, and actually, the tiny screen kept my attention for much longer than I thought it would.
Which brings me to Information Week’s article “e-book readers need to get a lot cheaper.” US consumers told Forrester Research that to be value for money, e-books should cost around $50 (£37)…which is less than the price of an actual screen on something like the Kindle.
Forrester’s estimates are that two million Americans will buy e-book readers this year with one million having been bought last year. Yet to put that into context, 110 million Americans own an MP3 player.
“The majority of consumers don’t care enough about reading or technology to invest in this type of single-purpose device at anything close to realistic prices says the study.”
I think they do care. But there are plenty of other ways to get the same job done – as my (and plenty of other consumers’) iPhone experience shows. That’s something that e-book manufacturers and newspaper publishers like Rupert Murdoch have in common.
They assume their product is more essential than it really is, when cheaper and more functional alternatives exist.
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
Thanks so much for taking the time to comment John and I take your point on board about reading the text.
I'm not so sure whether an e-reader is better due to e-ink than something like an iPhone for reading books.
I was under the same impression until I tried it, and was surprised at how much reading a book on the iPhone exceeded my (I admit low) expectations.
And thank you for that link – really useful and I completely agree, people are much more single minded in terms of what they are after news-wise.
Thanks for referring to my posting in BetaTales. This is a very interesting discussion, in which there are no clear answers yet as far as I can understand.
First let me correct you on one minor point: I did not write that the user experience when reading a paper on Kindle was good. Rather I pointed out that reading text is pleasant, while the present newspaper product as such was described as "crappy". But I do think that this platform may be more useful for newspaper consumption in the future – provided that the technology keeps improving.
My guess is that people actually will keep more devices in the future – for different purposes. E-readers will be the device of choice when you really want to concentrate on a text, like reading a book. Yes, you can do it on an iPhone, but the e-ink technology is actually better for this particular purpose. It does also offer some other clear benefits, like much longer battery life and a better screen for outdoor reading.
That being said, you may have a point when you write that editors often will tend to overvalue their product in the new digital era. News are no longer only consumed as edited packages, but more and more as single pieces of content. This disaggregation of news makes it necessary for editors to rethink what is the true value of their service.
Only one thing is for sure: The future is truly exciting!