Digital-First Strategies Deliver for Publishers, Advertisers

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["Whatever the Way, the master of strategy does not appear fast....Of
course, slowness is bad. Really skillful people never get out of time,
and are always deliberate, and never appear busy." -Miyamoto Musashi,
Book of Five Rings: The Classic Guide to Strategy]

Digital-First
Strategies Deliver for Publishers, Advertisers http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com

Three years ago, the Christian Science Monitor “began a
jump-in-the-deep-end version of digital transformation,” describes the
Poynter
Organization. The daily newspaper went to a weekly print edition,
maintaining daily news online. If that sounds like a surrender, guess
again: The Monitor garners about 42 million page views a month and 8 to
10 million unique visitors, which is five times what it was before the
transformation. Plus, ad revenue and content sales have grown more than
50% for the fiscal year closing April 30, “The best we’ve done
financially since 1963,” writes editor John
Yemma.

What the Monitor did which, for example, the New York Times and Wall
Street Journal have not, is to largely surrender its print edition-a
gamble, but a strategy that has worked arguably as well as the NYT and
WSJ strategies. And it placed more of an emphasis upon online advertising.

The challenge for the Monitor is somewhat like that of the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting: It is funded largely by endowments (The First
Church of Christ, Scientist for the Monitor, government and corporate
endowments for CPB). But endowments expand and contract, and have not
held the Monitor above water any more than they hold up public
broadcasting, else there would be no semiannual “pledge drives” on
public television. “You might see the systematic decrease of our
longstanding subsidy as similar to the erosion of print ad revenue at a
locally based newspaper,” wrote Yemma.

And like newspapers, the Monitor is going digital, treading water until
the digital strategy pays off. The Monitor has an operating budget of
$18.6 million, and is down $4.5 million for this fiscal year, and
budgeted for $3.3 million next: but it counts on the digital
transformation to turn it around by 2017. (“Trading print dollars for
digital dimes,” as Digiday describes the dilemma.) And those dimes are
coming from high-end brands like Infiniti and Nokia.

Quit Crying Over Print

Digiday
summed up the challenge by digital to print media: “$40 billion
evaporated with little likelihood of return [but] rather than waste more
time pointing fingers, publishers need to get on with figuring out
what’s next.” For years, the news industry depended upon classified ads
which Google, Facebook and Craigslist now own. “This market dynamic
continues to move so quickly that its last owner, Yahoo, has already
faltered into a lesser tier.”

The solution for publishers is, simply, to carve a niche and own the
distribution. “A marketplace where buyers have multiple channels to
reach the same audience only leads to a race to the bottom.”

The Monitor is somewhat like the Huffington Post-it is the demographic
that differs. Both have a distinct audience, Scientologists (among
others) for the Monitor, a younger-and-progressive skewing demo for
HuffPo. Both endeavor to provide high-end first-hand content: Both have
global and U.S. correspondents monitoring world events, the campaign
trail, the Supreme Court, tech, science, and the environment. And the
Monitor wins the occasional scoop: CSM on April 9 covered the reversal
of immigration from Mexico, hitting the presses a week before a Pew
report confirmed the trend. But HuffPo was a digital-only product that
never had to throw off the shackles of a print edition and make the
transition to digital.

Both Monitor and HuffPo skew to an educated late 30s-early 40s
wage-earning demographic-a sweet-spot for digital reading. That’s what
works for them: They meet the readers.

Similarly, Penton
Media’s Technology Media Group in February announced that, in
response to audience and marketer demand, it would transform all of its
brands to all-digital beginning this month. “We conducted research
amongst our audience and advertisers and found that they were really
looking for an enhanced digital experience and were becoming less
reliant on print magazines,” said Peg Miller, Penton technology market
leader. Miller noted that the Penton audience is largely one of IT
professionals and developers working in a digital environment. Penton
had double-digit gains in digital edition subscriptions FY 2011-2012,
and “We’re finding that our audience prefers to learn about technology
through multiple channels – whether it be printed words, videos, audio,
screencasts and in-person events.” Penton Technology Media Group brands
include Windows IT Pro, SQL Server Pro, DevPro, System iNetwork and The
VAR Guy, among other titles.

Penton is hardly stepping raiding Monitor or HuffPo’s readerships: but
the lesson is the same. Successful publishers meet the readers where
they are and with a unique value proposition. And that in turn means
value for advertisers.

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

DOJ Book Suit Recalls Magazine Investigation of the 1990′s

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of
truth." -Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)]

DOJ Book Suit Recalls Magazine Investigation of
the 1990′s

By John Harrington

As has been widely reported, including in The New Single Copy (4/16/12),
the U.S. Justice Department recently filed a civil lawsuit against Apple
and five major book publishers alleging collusion in the pricing of
e-books. Since, in 2010, before the publishers and Apple adopted a
so-called “agency model” of pricing, the online retailing giant, Amazon,
had an e-book market share of nearly 90%, there is concern that that the
DOJ action will allow Amazon to resume its previous pricing policies. As
David Carr, media columnist for The New York Times wrote, “That’s the
modern equivalent of taking on Standard Oil but breaking up Ed’s Gas ‘N’
Groceries on Route 19 instead.”

It would seem that government anti-trust investigations and actions have
a way of too often resulting in the notorious unintended consequences.
Many in the magazine retail distribution business will recall how a DOJ
investigation in the 1990′s contributed to a period of profound
consolidation and concentration at the wholesaler level, and left the
entire channel economically fragile, a condition that still exists to
this day.

At the beginning of 1994, there were more than 300 magazine wholesale
agencies, owned by just fewer than 200 companies. The 300 wholesalers
operated in compact geographies, where they were generally the sole
supplier of mass market magazines to retailers. The largest wholesaler
group accounted for about 10% of sales, and only a handful represented
as much as one percent. It was a system basically determined by major
publishers, who through the control of regional editions of their
titles, limited the markets a wholesaler could service. TV Guide, which
at one point published nearly 150 editions and averaged weekly single
copy sales of more than 10 million copies, was the most influential
publisher. Additionally, publishers issued “suggested prices for
retailers,” which were widely followed by wholesalers.

Sometime that year, reportedly in response to a complaint from a smaller
publisher, the DOJ instituted a civil investigation of the magazine
distribution business, initially contacting a few wholesalers and asking
for vast amounts of their financial records, contracts, and
correspondence. Eventually, well over half of the wholesalers, many
publishers, most national distributors, and most industry trade
associations were subpoenaed and their records reviewed. The cost of
complying, especially for smaller and medium size companies was
overwhelming. DOJ’s action also had a smothering impact on the normal
communications of the channel.

Retailers, especially large chains, had never been pleased with the
restrictions on their choice of magazine suppliers, despite the fact
that magazines were demonstrably one of their most profitable products.
From time to time, chains requested wholesalers to extend their delivery
lines, but, invariably, publishers, by limiting their copies, resisted
those efforts. However, in mid-1995, while DOJ was deep into its
investigation, a major west coast chain demanded that all wholesalers
servicing one of its divisions bid on the entire market. Partly out of
fear of the DOJ, most of the wholesalers complied and one, whose offer
expanded on the business’ normal pricing model, was selected.
Publishers, also wary of the DOJ, and also then parts of larger
corporations than had historically been the case, agreed to increase
supply to the wholesaler.

Within a period of several months, nearly every major retail chain in
the country was soliciting bids from its servicing wholesalers.
Virtually, overnight, the relationship between magazine wholesalers and
retailers was upended, and a period of virulent competition ensued,
resulting in a previously unimaginable level of consolidation and
concentration at the wholesale level. By the late 1990′s, four
wholesalers accounted for nearly 90% of the market.

Today, three represent that amount. Just as significantly, the once
enviable economics of magazine wholesaling were shattered, with most of
the margin being passed along to retailers. Even today, the survivors
maintain their profits are slim, if not non-existent.

The presence of the DOJ investigation was certainly not the only factor
that changed the magazine distribution channel. Retail chains were
expanding, changing from regional to national in scope. Changes in
media had reduced the power of individual publications. TV Guide still
had many editions, but its sales had declined to less than five million
per issue. Some wholesalers, nearly all of them private, family-owned
businesses, were not prepared to make the investments needed in an
increasingly technology-based business environment. Consolidation had
been taking place for years, although generally at a manageable pace.

Still, it is not unreasonable to imagine that, without the ominous
presence of an on-going DOJ anti-trust investigation looming over the
business, that a more orderly transformation could have occurred – one
that would have preserved reasonable levels of wholesaler profits and
still protected the interests of publishers, retailers, and consumers.
As it is, the wobbly economics of wholesaling have, among other things,
resulted in a considerable reduction of retail locations selling
magazines, since wholesalers could not afford supplying smaller stores.
The shaky finances have also led to reduced merchandising and marketing
levels, even at large stores, lowering magazine sales.

Certainly the growth in media options, particularly digital, are
factors, but the fact remains that magazine retail unit sales have
declined by around 50% since 1995.

So, now 17 years after an anti-trust investigation began ostensibly to
protect publishers, fewer retailers sell magazines, meaning consumers
have fewer choices, many medium-sized and small wholesalers (and some
large ones as well) are out of business, the wholesaling of magazines is
dominated by three large companies, and magazine retail sales have been
reduced by half.

DOJ officially ended its investigation in 2005. It is far from likely
the magazine retail sales business described in the above paragraph is
what the department envisioned when it started the process 11 years
earlier.

Postscript: Over that 10 year period, two wholesalers, both relatively
small, pled guilty to anti-trust violations and paid fines. A third,
charged with violations, was found not guilty in a jury trial.■

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

David Carey: Be Unorthodox / Hearst Publishing on Digital vs. Print

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["It is especially important to encourage unorthodox thinking when the
situation is critical: At such moments every new word and fresh thought
is more precious than gold. Indeed, people must not be deprived of the
right to think their own thoughts." -Boris Yeltsin (Russian President
(1991-1999). b.1931)]

David Carey: Be Unorthodox

Hearst Magazines president talks about shaking up industry culture

By Lucia Moses

At a time when magazines need to create content for a variety of
platforms, the old culture of operating in silos can’t continue, said
Hearst Magazines president David Carey.

“We have to set aside long-held orthodoxies and come together to create
great content,” said Carey, who spoke at Adweek’s NexTech Summit on May
1, part of the digital NewFronts [1].

Carey ticked off a few examples of that content that Hearst has been
involved with, from Cosmopolitan’s app for guys to tablet edition
subscriptions to Hello Style [2], Hearst’s new women’s lifestyle channel
on YouTube.

“It used to be editors and publishers were involved with three revenue
streams,” he said with pride, referring to advertising, subscriptions
and single-copy sales. “Now, it’s probably nine.”

Getting back to Hello Style, Carey singled out one of the shows on the
channel as a great example of how Hearst’s brands can translate to video.

“If you look at the content, ‘Sexy vs. Skanky’ for Cosmo is great fun,”
he effused.

Not that the work ends once all that content is created. One of the
challenges facing content developers is making sure their product gets
seen-an issue for tablet apps and more recently all the new original
content channels that are starting to populate YouTube. If you’re not
one of a tablet’s highly promoted apps, for example, Carey said, “you’re
almost invisible.” He added quickly, “The manufacturers are listening to
us. They’re all good partners.”
__________

Hearst Publishing
on Digital vs. Print Hearst Publishing on Digital vs. Print
__________

Publishers
Cite Tablets As Top Tech Priority

by Mark Walsh

Publishers are making tablets a top priority when it comes to technology
development this year. About 60% of business-to-business and
business-to-consumer publishers cited tablets, mobile publishing and/or
new Web products as a “high priority,” according to a new survey by the
Software & Information Industry Association.

Other types of projects were not mentioned nearly as widely.

About four in 10 (42%) of the 85 publishers surveyed by the SIIA named
licensing and syndication as a key area of focus this year, while 19%
cited video.

The study found that B2C companies tend to prioritize tablet publishing
above all else, while their B2B counterparts put the creation of new
Web-based offerings slightly above mobile and tablet publishing.

When it comes to management’s perspective, C-level and VP-level
executives are more focused on tablets than director-level company
officers, suggesting that the former are looking further ahead than less
senior managers. An even bigger divide was seen between sales and
marketing employees. Only one-quarter of sales staffers mentioned
tablets as high priority, compared to 70% of those in company marketing
departments.

Salespeople tended to heavily favor Web-based publishing, with
three-quarters rating online efforts a top consideration. When it comes
to mobile platforms, the vast majority (68%) are currently publishing on
the iPad and 58% on the iPhone. Android-based phones and tablets have
attracted only 38% and 35% of publishers, respectively, to date.

Just 17% have created apps using Facebook’s Open Graph, and 16% have
created content tailored to the Kindle. But since Facebook has only
recently begun expanding Open Graph to new types of apps, and the Kindle
Fire was launched last November, those figures are likely to increase.

At the MPA Digital: Swipe conference Tuesday, keynote speaker Paul
Verna, a senior analyst at eMarketer, encouraged magazine publishers to
extend content to tablets to generate new revenues as the print business
will have flat-to-negative growth in the next five years. “The only
thing more challenging than digital monetization is print monetization,”
he said. eMarketer projects that more than a quarter (27.7%) of
Americans will use tablets by 2014, up from almost 11% in 2011.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bauer to launch intelligent’men’s mag

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move
in the opposite direction." -E. F. Schumacher]

Bauer
to launch ‘intelligent’ men’s mag takes on Condé Nast’s Wired

By Sebastian Joseph

Bauer Media is hoping to take on Condé Nast’s Wired magazine with the
launch of an “intelligent” men’s monthly that it believes will give
brands an opportunity to target a broader range of readers than its
other men’s titles.

The first issue of ‘Wonderpedia’ launches on 24 May and will include
articles on historical events and conspiracy theories with content on
futuristic technology and nature.

It will target “successful” and “intelligent” men aged between 25 and
54, a demographic the publisher says want to know “something about
everything and everything about something.”

Bauer Media hopes to create a new “knowledge” category and claims that
the title is the first of its kind.

Launch advertisers include Peugeot and beer brand Staropramen.

The publisher is rolling out a £1m marketing campaign on 10 May) that
will include
200,000 free samples being distributed to existing Bauer subscribers as
well as to London museums.

Additionally, Bauer Media will use its portfolio of specialist titles
such as Empire, Digital Photography and Trail alongside its radio
stations to promote the launch.

Abby Carvosso, managing director of Bauer Media Lifestyle and
advertising, says there is a “growing thirst” for knowledge from young
men fostered, for example, by the appeal of scientists such as Brian Cox.

She adds: “We’ve tried to make Wonderpedia entertaining and in a way
more random than anything that’s out there. We’ve married this approach
to editorial to how we approach advertisers. You can have the randomness
of the advertising with the randomness of the editorial.”

It hopes to fill the gap left by the long-term decline in circulation of
its lads’ mags FHM and Zoo. it also comes as rival Loaded was bought by
millionaire pornographer Paul Baxendale-Walker after its owner Vitality
Publishing called in administrators after stacking up £1m of debt with
creditors, less than two years after buying the magazine from IPC Media.

The news and current affairs sector, which Wonderpedia will join, was
one of the few remaining growth sectors in the UK, according to the
latest ABC audit, with circulation figures up 12.3% in the second half
of 2011. However, the Men’s Lifestyle category, which includes Loaded
and Bauer’s FHM and Zoo, saw a 2.5% decrease during the same period.
__________

Trouble in Magazine
Land: We’re Running Out of Celebrities!

By D. Eadward Tree

An early peak at First Quarter newsstand numbers shows a slowing decline
in U.S. magazine sales, but also an ominous portent.

Noting that retail sales of gossip-oriented titles are in the tank,
industry consortium MagNet told its affiliates this week that, “One of
the major hurdles affecting weekly celebrity publications is the ability
to find new celebrities and subject matter that consumers are interested
in discovering.”

Brad & Angie don’t cut it. Early sales data for editions of People and
OK! featuring the couple’s recent engagement, MagNet said, “indicate
that both issues will produce sales results at least twenty percent less
than previous issues’ average sales,” MagNet said.

That’s a huge disappointment to many in the industry who were hoping for
yet another boost from Brangelina. (For the record, we at Dead Tree
Edition never considered the engagement big news: After having six
children, the couple has obviously been engaged in something for quite a
while.)

“Late in the fourth quarter of 2011, we started to see a slowing of the
downward sales trend for magazines,” MagNet reports. Led by non-weekly
titles, the trend continued in the First Quarter of 2012. The overall
decline in dollars from a year ago was an estimated 5.6%, versus the 10%
year-over-year declines typical of 2011.

As we say in the magazine industry, “Slightly down is the new up.”

One of the big successes was the April issue of National Geographic
featuring the Titanic, which is on track to sell nearly 200,000 copies,
more than 50% above the three previous issues. (Note: The cover story
was about the real Titanic, the one that sank 100 years ago, not the
Hollywood version, in which celebrities swim about in water frigid
enough to cause immediate muscle spasms while spouting inanities like
“Promise me you’ll survive.”)

If disasters, not celebrities, are now the key to retail success, will
we be seeing a lot of cover stories about the U.S. Postal Service?

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

Apple, not Amazon, is Microsoft’s NOOK Motivation

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just
squandered." -George Best]

Apple,
not Amazon, is Microsoft’s NOOK Motivation

By Chris Davies

Barely was the e-ink dry on Microsoft and Barnes & Noble’s $300m NOOK
agreement when pundits were questioning the wisdom of adding Amazon to
the software company’s existing roster of big-name rivals. Microsoft is
already under attack in mobile and computing, so the commentary went;
throwing one of the biggest retailers around into the mixture was at
best foolish and at worst evidence of Microsoft spreading itself thin
when it needs to be extra lavish with its strokes. That analysis is
wrong, though. Make no mistake: Apple, not Amazon, is in Microsoft’s
sights today.

It’s an easy mistake to make. Barnes & Noble is a book retailer – one of
the old guard – which found a (perhaps surprising) degree of success
with its NOOK ereader line. Its natural rival is Amazon, another book
retailer (albeit one that has blossomed into so much more), and a new
upstart at that; sneeringly confident with its Kindle and its rocketing
dominance of the ebook scene.

So, Microsoft buys into ebooks; it’s natural to assume that Amazon is
its target. Safe, but wrong. Amazon isn’t a natural competitor for
Microsoft. We’re not going to see the Windows maker suddenly decide to
start offering vacuum cleaners, and coffee machines, and Nike shoes. In
fact the only thing Microsoft could learn from Amazon is its ecosystem,
Kindle hardware supporting Kindle ebook sales with a heaping of lock-in
thanks to a proprietary platform.

It has a better example of that already.

Apple is eating Microsoft’s lunch in mobile, and it’s stealing its
allowance too to spend on computing treats. Windows Phone has grown too
old to fit into the “bold new upstart” category and is now being eyed
warily as the not-quite-convincing challenger that’s yet to prove it can
fight in its weight category. Microsoft’s position in tablets is
laughable; PC sales are, despite the best efforts of Intel and its
ultrabook investments, sluggish. And all the time, across the aisle,
Apple is selling Macs, iPhones and iPads as fast as it can make them.

What Apple has – and what Microsoft has finally woken up to – is an
ecosystem. iTunes, the App Store, iCloud; they all pull together and
make owning several pieces of Apple kit not only pleasant but
justifiable. They simply work together better than a mismatched bag of
piecemeal hardware. It’s no surprise that the average Apple household,
researchers have found, owns not one but 2.4 of the company’s devices.

“Microsoft has struggled to convince when it comes to ecosystem”

Microsoft has so far struggled to convince when it comes to ecosystem.
Zune suffered for its lateness to the dedicated PMP market and then the
subsequent lateness of Windows Phone to the converged smartphone market.
Xbox LIVE has made tentative inroads across phones and PCs, but we’re
yet to see the compelling cross-platform gaming that Microsoft promised
us would make Windows Phone the only choice for Xbox
360 owners.

The big push comes with Windows 8, Microsoft’s opportunity to show us
how its currently disparate elements of computing and mobile can finally
play nicely together. Adding ebooks – both reading and, via likely
integration with Office, creating – to that ecosystem is a no-brainer,
just as Apple added the iBookstore to its iTunes and App Store line-up.

Will we see a NOOK tablet based on Windows RT? Quite probably, yes; it
doesn’t take much to imagine Barnes & Noble pushing a larger ereader,
sticking to the LCD touchscreen of the existing NOOK Tablet rather than
e-paper, and running Microsoft’s finger-friendly OS on affordable ARM
chipsets. Similarly, this is a digital partnership not just a hardware
OEM deal to use Windows 8, so expect Metrofied NOOK apps for Windows
Phone, Windows 8-based tablets and PCs, along with most likely SkyDrive
integration for that all-important sync.

It also gives Microsoft a proposal to drape around a lower price point.
Cheap Android tablets struggled to compete with the iPad because buyers
came to them with broad expectations, dreams fueled by what Apple’s
slate was promising. By reframing them as Android-based ereader-tablets,
retailers like Barnes & Noble have rationalized those expectations: a
solid ebook experience with garnish, if you like. That’s something
Microsoft – and its other partners – can use to their advantage when it
comes to making legitimate cases for $150-300 Windows RT models.

We won’t see all the hardware straight away. Windows 8 is fast
approaching, after all, and it will take time for Microsoft and Barnes &
Noble to get their product roadmap in motion. The new OS needs to launch
with a NOOK tile sitting proudly front & center in Metro, however, and
preferably one on Windows Phone at the same time. Microsoft has a chance
to reignite its ecosystem strategy, but it’s coming late to the game
again and it lacks the track-record to convince us success is inevitable.

Author Bio

Writing for R3 Media since 2006, Chris Davies is currently executive
editor for SlashGear, Android Community and the other network sites.
Based in London, UK, he’s responsible for SlashGear’s editorial
decisions and covers all forms of consumer technology. You can follow
him on Twitter.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of SlashGear

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The keys to tablet magazine publishing success

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["The sky is the limit. Obviously, there is plenty of continued room for
growth in the U.S., which is still pretty far ahead of the rest of the
world in terms of iPad adoption. Just as important, however, is the
potential for brands and titles to go global. We're already seeing an
encouraging number of international buyers and expect this to continue
as tablets go to places like Sweden, China and Australia more deeply."

This new ability of global outreach empowers a new style of publishing
that I call "Universal Niche", an idea, concept or hobby enjoyed by a
few but on a global basis. Basically the scale of the available
readership redefines small as big. No matter what your niche is, large
or small, it can and should be considered a global enterprise. As
obvious as this is, the lucrative potential is missed by many and it is
beyond our traditional understanding.

I am here for a purpose and that purpose is to grow into a mountain, not
to shrink to a grain of sand. Henceforth will I apply ALL my efforts to
become the highest mountain of all and I will strain my potential until
it cries for mercy. -Og Mandino (1923 - 1996)]

Mag+
CEO Gregg Hano: The keys to tablet magazine publishing success

BY CHUCK LENATTI

TabTimes speaks with Gregg Hano, CEO of Mag+. Hano was an early advocate
of magazines on the iPad, and Popular Science, published by his company,
was one of the first magazines on Apple’s tablet.

As a member of The Association of Magazine Media’s Tablet Metrics Task
Force, Hano also helped create a set of guidelines for reporting tablet
data, as well as launch the Audit Bureau of Circulations’ first
consolidated media report last year.

TabTimes: What did you see early on that so intrigued you about the
potential for magazines on the iPad?

George Hano: Popular Science actually wrote about the future and
potential of tablets prior to the iPad launch, and it was clear to all
of us that this was the future. Being one of the first gave us the
opportunity to define the direction of content on the platform and
establish it as a viable, sustainable business. We realized we could
provide valuable and engaging content, and offer our readers something
they would be glad to pay for because it would provide an experience
they couldn’t’ get with any other medium.

Why was Popular Science the right publication to lead with on the iPad?

We actually had an internal competition with some of the other Bonnier
brands to see who could come up with the best tablet publication and the
Pop Sci team won. Beyond that, we know our readers, and there was no
question they would be among the first iPad adopters.

What types of magazines seem to be resonating particularly well with
readers on the iPad?

In general, technology-based brands tend to perform very well. The
medium is also a slam-dunk for highly visual publications like Popular
Photography, which dedicates a lot of space to describing how particular
images are made. The format makes describing and showing those concepts
very easy and helps the reader understand on a deeper level.

Your approach takes advantage of the capabilities of the device. Are
digital replicas a bad idea on the iPad? And is there a danger of too
much rich media?

There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach, and creating
something unique and immersive takes time, resources and vision. In some
cases it requires new and different content. Obviously, it is easier to
charge a premium for content that takes full advantage of the medium,
but some people are happy with the convenience of having a digital
replica rather than a print copy, so it just depends on the situation.
Either way, you absolutely can overdo it with rich media. It still needs
to make sense and enhance the experience. Functionality for
functionality’s sake is not good. Just as is the case with good website
design, certain standards and protocols are likely to emerge.

What have you seen over the past two years since the iPad was introduced
that encourages you about the tablet as a magazine publishing platform?

Sales and projected sales for the iPad and other tablets are extremely
exciting. Newsstand has been a tremendous catalyst. The entire Apple
ecosystem (and Kindle Fire ecosystem) is hugely beneficial. It is
particularly useful in demonstrating the value of subscriptions vs.
single-issue sales. We’re seeing subscription renewal rates that tend to
be at least on par with print, if not better. We’re also seeing a great
deal of readers opting for print and digital subscriptions. Beyond that,
we’re seeing huge numbers of completely new readers and larger numbers
of younger readers and higher income readers.

It seems inevitable that publishers will have to derive the majority of
their revenues from advertising, just as they have in print.

I don’t necessarily agree with that assumption. There is certainly an
investment that needs to be made to produce great digital content, but
there are also some tremendous savings in printing and distribution.
Based on the number of new subscribers, combined print and digital
subscribers and a willingness of customers to pay for good content,
there is a very real potential for a number of business models to be
successful, including some that have yet to be developed, such as a
pay-per-article model.

Why aren’t we seeing more innovative advertising on the iPad, even as
the magazine content itself becomes more dynamic and interactive?

First, it is still a relatively new medium and there’s a lot that
advertisers and agencies still are figuring out. Second, there are some
technical issues that need to be addressed. Right now, the process of
creating interactive ads for multiple platforms is a bit challenging.
HTML 5 should be a big help in that regard. Third, the industry needs to
do a better job about measuring readership and other success metrics in
a transparent and uniform way so that advertisers can make more informed
decisions about how and where to invest. This is something I have been
heavily involved with in the past and will continue to push for in my
new role.

Tablets combine several benefits of different media for advertisers:
quantifying behavior and targeting like the Internet, attractive display
advertising like a print magazine, rich media like television, and the
potential for interactivity, sharing and virally spreading the word as
with social media. How and when do you see that all coming together in
tablet advertising?

A lot of changes will happen once agencies can more easily deliver
creative content to publishers. Ultimately, the best formula for success
will be engagement. Advertisers need to think differently about what and
how much content they provide. Depending on the type of magazine, ads
are actually considered valuable content by the readers, particularly in
enthusiast/special-interest publications. In many cases, there will be
opportunities to go much more deeply with content while still not
interfering or becoming intrusive. This should be a huge benefit to
advertisers and readers. Ford/Lincoln are doing some great tablet-only
ads in Pop Sci.

How will the guidelines you helped create as a member of The Association
of Magazine Media’s Tablet Metrics Task Force help facilitate the growth
of paid display advertising in iPad magazine apps?

To be successful, we need consistent metrics and we need to share data.
Transparency, consistency and timeliness are key.

We’re familiar with the economics of advertising in a print magazine,
including positioning ads, rate cards, selling a certain demographic,
etc. How will these translate into a magazine app for tablets?

There will be some similarities. The more publishers know about their
readers, the better they will be able to position themselves.
Fortunately, it seems readers are pretty good about sharing their
information. At the end of the day brand quality and trust – regardless
of the medium – are what will keep CPM high.

Do you see a point where tablet magazine apps bring in enough revenues
to compensate for the decline in print revenues?

That really depends on the publication and what they offer in print and
digitally. And, of course, we will soon see a growing number of new
publications that exist only in digital form.

Finally, how would you gauge the revenue potential for iPad magazine apps?

The sky is the limit. Obviously, there is plenty of continued room for
growth in the U.S., which is still pretty far ahead of the rest of the
world in terms of iPad adoption. Just as important, however, is the
potential for brands and titles to go global. We’re already seeing an
encouraging number of international buyers and expect this to continue
as tablets go to places like Sweden, China and Australia more deeply.

Chuck Lenatti writes about digital media, marketing, advertising. He
lives in Pacifica, California.

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

“Heard on the Web” Media Intelligence
Courtesy of BoSacks and The Precision Media Group
America’s Oldest e-newsletter est.1993
www.bosacks.com [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8vLR5NMf5q-_w3I_h6Lasy43p05tTlncm4FKcKpb9DFpWuA-Jm3P_5dOGHQHQUdN1BdRIt4wUrvfji2-1G5pd-_sTP3FHIomO5QM7T_fov8g==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads
to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we
have the wisdom to choose correctly.

Woody Allen (1935 – ), My Speech to the Graduates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s Why Google and Facebook Might Completely Disappear in the Next 5 Years

Eric Jackson, Forbes Contributor

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/04/30/heres-why-google-and-facebook-might-completely-disappear-in-the-next-5-years/

[http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8yZJhoWzBrJHJ4ANBcnI25CNI1lzgKd8cHYqey7VOVbjsrb4R_gJ36Os6Rq-fBE6BRJv7fH9LTkrSsjJtiGj21kYeodXT8fb8sM88xFQn56R0Axnz7bEMHDmxEuTOD-QY7Iw6S1ei0Gzz2BlJ1l1xSd7cz3D3Lku9Ggr74D6oelqyvvOfgJShFl5ccc_nirPXUdtFj2dsTKhyiNiKqt9du6cwyKcbm_oGiW16EUAhV8HsbUSVlaN5g2ooF97c9onc=]

We think of Google [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8TW3zMNibmcZhfQ0V3oUaaaNMEOTNeNqwEr2Z_TgGx56KrrZzAHSRKEZeiawWLVf-n0tiYyi4aTosmxk91ipzM6fi-GR5DUJobhc6DwXa8Vl94CQyytUj7JslXBf6OEO8=]
and Facebook as Web gorillas. They’ll be around forever. Yet, with the rate that
the tech world is moving these days, there are good reasons to think both might
be gone completely in 5 – 8 years. Not bankrupt gone, but MySpace gone. And there’s
some academic theory to back up that view, along with casual observations from recent
history.

When I was a PhD student 15 years ago, I studied with Don Hambrick who is a scholar
known for a career showing the effects of management teams and directors (for good
and for ill) on their organizations’ strategies and performance. One of the central
tenents of this school of thought on organizations is that senior teams and directors
have an outsized influence on organizational outcomes. What’s more, their backgrounds
(including education and career paths) have a big effect on how they see the world,
various competitive situations and the choices they make.

There’s another school of thought which takes the opposite view called population
ecology or organizational ecology which put forward that managers don’t really matter
all that much. This view grew out of sociologists who’d taken to study organizations
in the 1970s. They assert that organizational outcomes have much more to do with
industry effects than who the CEO is and the choices he or she makes. They study
birth and death rates of populations of organizations, as well as the effects of
age, competition and resources in the surrounding environment on an organization’s
birth and death rate. Most of these organizational ecology scholars come out of
the University of California at Berkeley.

As a graduate student, I didn’t have much time for this ecology line of thinking.
I believed in the power of the individual executive to overcome all challenges
in the external environment. We can always point to dynamic CEOs as case studies,
even though the sociologists would say those are the equivalent of celebrating the
smarts of lottery winners.

As I age and watch what’s happening in the world of technology and mobile, I can’t
stop thinking of these ecologists though.

More and more in tech, it seems that your long-term viability as a company is dependent
on when you were born.

Think of the differences between generations and when we talk about how the Baby
Boomers behave differently from Gen X’ers and additional differences with the Millennials.
Each generation is perceived to see the world in a very unique way that translates
into their buying decisions and countless other habits.

In the tech world, we’ve really had 3 generations:

* Web 1.0 (companies founded from 1994 – 2001, including Netscape, Yahoo [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8Ema9P7GKcJsybQGQy_oXxzJTooPOvx8SjzjLyYz4v9cvv0HWWOOOKOE6QLZx9ygGhKt_-hUzFuTtZ_gzYSC5gtQ74-K9__w2hRDbU23mPhCT5RZiIPLkrUrcqkL-eN50=]!
(YHOO), AOL (AOL), Google (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN) and eBay (EBAY)),
* Web 2.0 or Social (companies founded from 2002 – 2009, including Facebook (FB),
LinkedIn (LNKD), and Groupon [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne9cpFhhhE9HwZyc6Q_TC2sCK5cYFzhUpDHvUdTVvk4uoOnp3MskuS3VkdHO-ML9kavZnWv778Z_21KnwlI3aWAY55LzFxKn0-vIqHAq7TKggkNVi6vGWgeTNASzCWqjPhI=](GRPN)),
* and now Mobile [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_7-g1Y92g1VYXSjk0HjGQipXpnGdQsz_78poZ7vaCbIQ8eNaNAz-xPcOSyrIaVeOuL2b3b8AD5g4tHyIHw0J1aGzg7zABT17O7mBLAyCozRtThbVBVmF_LDDVMpJWAis0=]
(from 2010 – present, including Instagram).

With each succeeding generation in tech, it seems the prior generation can’t quite
wrap its head around the subtle changes that the next generation brings. Web 1.0
companies did a great job of aggregating data and presenting it in an easy to digest
portal fashion. Google did a good job organizing the chaos of the Web better than
AltaVista, Excite, Lycos and all the other search engines that preceded it. Amazon
did a great job of centralizing the chaos of e-commerce shopping and putting all
you needed in one place.

When Web 2.0 companies began to emerge, they seemed to gravitate to the importance
of social connections. MySpace built a network of people with a passion for music
initially. Facebook got college students. LinkedIn got the white collar professionals.
Digg, Reddit, and StumbleUpon showed how users could generate content themselves
and make the overall community more valuable.

Yet, Web 1.0 companies never really seemed to be able to grasp the importance of
building a social community and tapping into the backgrounds of those users. Even
when it seems painfully obvious to everyone, there just doesn’t seem to be the capacity
of these older companies to shift to a new paradigm. Why has Amazon done so little
in social? And Google? Even as they pour billions at the problem, their primary
business model which made them successful in the first place seems to override their
expansion into some new way of thinking.

Social companies born since 2010 have a very different view of the world. These
companies – and Instagram is the most topical example at the moment – view the
mobile smartphone as the primary (and oftentimes exclusive) platform for their application.
They don’t even think of launching via a web site. They assume, over time, people
will use their mobile applications almost entirely instead of websites.

We will never have Web 3.0, because the Web’s dead.

Web 1.0 and 2.0 companies still seem unsure how to adapt to this new paradigm.
Facebook is the triumphant winner of social companies. It will go public in a few
weeks and probably hit $140 billion in market capitalization. Yet, it loses money
in mobile and has rather simple iPhone and iPad versions of its desktop experience.
It is just trying to figure out how to make money on the web – as it only had $3.7
billion in revenues in 2011 and its revenues actually decelerated in Q1 of this
year relative to Q4 of last year. It has no idea how it will make money in mobile.

The failed history of Web 1.0 companies adapting to the world of social suggests
that Facebook will be as woeful at adapting to social as Google has been with its
“ghost town” Google+ initiative last year.

The organizational ecologists talked about the “liability of obsolescence” which
is a growing mismatch between an organization’s inherent product strategy and its
operating environment over time. This probably is a good explanation for what we’re
seeing in the tech world today.

Are companies like Google, Amazon, and Yahoo! obsolete? They’re still growing.
They still have enormous audiences. They also have very talented managers.

But with each new paradigm shift (first to social, now to mobile, and next to whatever
else), the older generations get increasingly out of touch and likely closer to
their significant decline. What’s more, the tech world in which we live in seems
to be speeding up. Tim Cook [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8BhomfaC6o9GOgZUEcADz7mwZKD0jWDzny211S9Q6eLPythsYFyyxfOHBESrrofCxWs2nSv9OFibCzLR_73PxgKerQ2Q0mSgiQ9yR8AqNWXSH6Za9g1lNToTqLwVyU-aE=]
had an interesting line about the velocity of change in his earnings call last week
[http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_BoAHrxYhbvb4LZMa-J_gMujwUDy_QStq4Jh4ahHCmqIeAewoUpXVpKAfhYXR_h_TdhFpkFUJrzJKqw6XFiIRxI_sdvFM5KT2B1Hblyu13tlImNWHxkN9kF7vLmqzxb2Ag_NUefj6VoZGrpxLecxpniwFHj8UnGLpPi7WANRfA6aI32PeK8nccKMM176SH6S6xAG7GkdizcndLCGXE-x4Wm4u06PClzKcTJnqZOMq2BQ==]:

through the last quarter, I should say, which is just 2 years after we shipped the
initial iPad, we’ve sold 67 million. And to put that in some context, it took us
24 years to sell that many Macs and 5 years for that many iPods and over 3 years
for that many iPhones. And we were extremely happy with the trajectory on all of
those products. And so I think iPad, it’s a profound product.

Yahoo is already a shell of its 2000 self. There is increasing chatter (including
from me [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8zpPXGJDS4-fvujIJz24aD7pSWSOjJdc1kF_67vdv4GGxv0QVRFyCa7pqhji8ITI-sOWV83JG94wH1WBa0OnTV3rhNWKx9MGSfrkH0JVt5cZdLZ7r75NZAL8xFK1MBY2f_ET5vuyHHGjLafUKG6nalibW5zkkpNRJeh07NRp1vIlaTSgyFgY_v7EbAb5D62jk=])
about how Google’s facing a painful multiple contraction, once its desktop search
business (still accounting for the vast majority of its revenues and profits) starts
to fall off a cliff as users dramatically drop traditional search for new ways of
getting information they want in a mobile world. Is Amazon destined to decline?
There seem to be no signs of it today and people will still need to buy stuff
in a mobile world, but the new mobile platform will certainly open the possibilities
for new entrants that Amazon can’t even imagine today.

Facebook is also probably facing a tough road ahead as this shift to mobile happens.
As Hamish McKenzie said last week [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne9195353Irk3CvOrn_qR-KIFa0YOvFlIX_QzAst7pIHrbb_VoV0Eg2OpR-nlNc_T8F8rUQmAbX-wG_itzPiXoX5NCUzI7EfwYAVIoqwECAC4O5Y2G1hSNZ8PRHTMostpmV4rT_DK2HhsRCxfRFADvok48hFcu0gJ2fch6S2qqNp3XcQGu-DStb_],
“I suspect that Facebook will try to address that issue [of the shift to mobile]
by breaking up its various features into separate apps or HTML5 sites: one for
messaging, one for the news feed, one for photos, and, perhaps, one for an address
book. But that fragments the core product, probably to its detriment.”

Considering how long Facebook dragged its feet to get into mobile in the first place
[http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8K2EiuhPAxBkPds2geWF_3dL7T9_QCCFWFSiF4phcW02rj73ktiPP97blYFUf0EKXiXp-0NQahF4aWo2ZFhgMkwtVUkBh2RxMFCJt0zKHdRppHa7vfSMgvQGgEt-vfzhpWeI3_pLBYgoeuWJoCDufC46VkA__slhWoZD2EpNYE25QImLK1PQDeDDBEnP6nwLEkL_LAPELbrDuajNbSJBYPbZtHcyjXbAT7YFi001qq5aSayJrQHd8bI0yaGXsGqSGXcUqv8smSMg==],
the data suggests they will be exactly as slow to change as Google was to social.
Does the Instagram acquisition change that? Not really, in my view. It shows they’re
really fearful of being displaced by a mobile upstart.

However, why would bolting on a mobile app to a Web 2.0 platform (and a very good
one at that) change any of the underlying dynamics we’re discussing here? I doubt
it.

What about Apple? Where does it fit in to this classification scheme?

Apple is really a hardware company, so it’s difficult to put it into a bucket related
to web apps. It certainly seemed very Web 1.0 with its Ping social application.
Yet it’s succeeded in mobile from making the best hardware and software ecosystem
for apps to proliferate on. In some ways, as long as it has a successful iOS platform,
it doesn’t care which Web 1.0, 2.0 and mobile companies fail or succeed on top of
it. Maybe that’s why so many non-mobile companies seem to want to emulate Apple.
Google bought Motorola Mobility (MMI) to get into the hardware business. Facebook
and Baidu (BIDU) are rumored to be launching their own mobile OS.

The bottom line is that the next 5 – 8 years could be incredibly dynamic. It’s
possible that both Google and Facebook could be shells of their current selves -
or gone entirely.

They will have all the money in the world to try and adapt to the shift to mobile
but history suggests they won’t be able to successfully do it. I often hear Google
bulls point to the market share of Android or Eric Schmidt’s hypothesis that Google
could one day charge all Android subscribers $10 a month for value-added services
as proof of future profits. Yet, where are all the great social success stories
by Web 1.0 companies? I imagine we’ll see as many great examples of social companies
jumping horses mid-race to become great mobile companies.

It’s a lot easier to start asking Siri for information instead of typing search
terms into a box compared to thousands of enterprises ceasing to upgrade to the
next version of Windows. Google’s 76% market share. Facebook’s 900 million monthly
users. They just aren’t as sticky as they seem.

And does anyone think the pace of change is going to increase in the next 5 years
versus the last? That we’re going to see fewer innovations, fewer start-ups trying
more stuff on cheaper and more powerful processing power? In all likelihood, we
could have an entirely new way of gathering information and interacting with ads
in a new mobile world than what we’re currently used to today.

The Googles and Facebooks of tomorrow might not even exist today. And several Web
1.0 and 2.0 companies might be completely wiped off the map by then.

Fortunes will be made by those who adapt to and invest in this complete greenfield.

Those who own the future are going to be the ones who create it. It’s all up for
grabs. Web monopolies are not as sticky as the monopolies of old.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Industry that Vents Together
Stays Together”
Responses to all Articles and Bo-Rants are greatly encouraged
and may be included in ” BoSacks Readers Speak Out” =======================================
All news items and the various opinions expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily
the opinion of, nor in agreement with the opinions of BoSacks. They are just interesting
thoughts and other opinions that BoSacks thinks you should know about.
After all, as the Japanese proverb goes:
“If you believe everything you read, perhaps you better not read.”
“Heard on the Web” Media Intelligence:
Courtesy of The Precision Media Group.
Print, Publishing and Media Consultants
PO Box 53, Copake NY 12516
Contact – Robert M. Sacks 518-329-7994
BoSacks@aol.com

http://www.bosacks.com

WHO IS BOSACKS?

http://bosacks.homestead.com/BoWho.html

========================================

SUBSCRIBE – If this free opt-in newsletter has been

forwarded to you, and you wish to subscribe,
simply go to www.bosacks.com [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8ZM6OOkHMAyzLkM7c1OzJAOoUYpNEoaKEWLTWHpWFeWsw9XML1LjyTUkKUcTe9uhePZEL26EKGVo2QErwTFGC0cFDwOdoePz8=]
————————————————————–
UNSUBSCRIBE -
Look at the bottom of this email for the unsubscribe button
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BoSacks Sponsor
pub press2 [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8VDXNnHLMFPUGKOd37SQOE07b2YTsgQRKapu68lKd2aLpRAG65FL9Tz-cp_-uawnPxZhoyAP7dZRNsAtjuKjsN_gCXDRpB4hCUEX3zJoxq_UsygxD3iZDvzH8J0GTIx0b5sH4WianXRQ_YXCzaBszEJDcx-EryVP4KDqcmMU7K7IVMj2N77RfD]
Publishers Press [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne-rFzjGQjP2clr-5fiDVhrvmNolx7b-SQTbhi_mv1QFFXWGE6WnnWHTen5D5E8evUq0BGN3nQzAGSFdRh2WTu3C-93GZrg4nMYdGnKZR3OX0g==]
is a Valued Bosacks [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne-rFzjGQjP2clr-5fiDVhrvmNolx7b-SQTbhi_mv1QFFXWGE6WnnWHTen5D5E8evUq0BGN3nQzAGSFdRh2WTu3C-93GZrg4nMYdGnKZR3OX0g==]
Sponsor [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne-rFzjGQjP2clr-5fiDVhrvmNolx7b-SQTbhi_mv1QFFXWGE6WnnWHTen5D5E8evUq0BGN3nQzAGSFdRh2WTu3C-93GZrg4nMYdGnKZR3OX0g==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BoSacks Sponsor Sherdian [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_oZ4aunvDHzTpM7OmJ3L1HaWrGHW8gt-yGH6MksaaZciFmwQrJOWjXFVMA1B3-1WS3Rv5K6ZMV5DEI8GLQwBSGXM67lyE0yZLlrICw-FYsveHM92nIf340]
Sheridan Magazines [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_oZ4aunvDHzTpM7OmJ3L1HaWrGHW8gt-yGH6MksaaZciFmwQrJOWjXFVMA1B3-1WS3Rv5K6ZMV5DEI8GLQwBSGXM67lyE0yZLlrICw-FYsveHM92nIf340]
is a Valued BoSacks Sponsor [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_oZ4aunvDHzTpM7OmJ3L1HaWrGHW8gt-yGH6MksaaZciFmwQrJOWjXFVMA1B3-1WS3Rv5K6ZMV5DEI8GLQwBSGXM67lyE0yZLlrICw-FYsveHM92nIf340]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BoSacks Sponsor Daylife [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8ikkF501lh5JQ7h_X46qTDKWSuAp62B186FYOeQeJ7UzzVs97XyJMVCKx2LwB8nTx5n0h9iL3XKaTbFR9ocrdHB3QNHgWussE4ImWTIT-khwkR9mQFcOEE]Daylife
Is a Valued BoSacks Sponsor [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8ikkF501lh5JQ7h_X46qTDKWSuAp62B186FYOeQeJ7UzzVs97XyJMVCKx2LwB8nTx5n0h9iL3XKaTbFR9ocrdHB3QNHgWussE4ImWTIT-khwkR9mQFcOEE]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Blue Toad [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne9IYWmzzMZSkxe_nMq8rTjyWoONQ0wTIFKUEJHyaSyQ7yhZ0l2YHghF_L5quO5jaGdz0WCNHl3YsHPivuvcFoxOIzTDz5AZqUFifBFNpvd5vQ==]Bluetoad
is a valued BoSacks [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_uIV_3finBsHUNLTA9f1kMsihbzoJ8Ceew7k6C10hCEg2u4x9R-42dZnvM4WeBUHKEAyq2FnTdQBhI2mMP6-38GrJRR7py8j57-WpqYA6A5zTrmi1Aon2L]
Sponsor [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_uIV_3finBsHUNLTA9f1kMsihbzoJ8Ceew7k6C10hCEg2u4x9R-42dZnvM4WeBUHKEAyq2FnTdQBhI2mMP6-38GrJRR7py8j57-WpqYA6A5zTrmi1Aon2L]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BoSacks Sponsor tippingpoint [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne-Nzth7I44eJYtJEDq8Qa8jldLpQCcge28Tz-_1WgLA_N-1uetmMCJx4tnpJdVv4L_r2ivahEm7oo8FJlhozhAkWy0me_61gBOBixHLJ6O3S5TTmZDbaSb8t2_dPxABxqCUd_ZVpG5RoA==]
tippingpoint is a Valued BoSacks Sponsor [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne-Nzth7I44eJYtJEDq8Qa8jldLpQCcge28Tz-_1WgLA_N-1uetmMCJx4tnpJdVv4L_r2ivahEm7oo8FJlhozhAkWy0me_61gBOBixHLJ6O3S5TTmZDbaSb8t2_dPxABxqCUd_ZVpG5RoA==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

b2b [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne_gF5QoY9LOf310GdQjfqa8gacCx8gEwU_CTGC_FSyjjxVUilRxXyRL3mYFc2zdaECKF9m1ZCn3-qab59hYp2zFyXKriYqgrsGCKVYfwstSHg==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jim [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001ntoOiYn-ne8YJ7ksUeExMB1btpTcf-1xcM5wBVKflRnS_JYOmDze_Z4W6Za9SCWXqjZiuLeYyrVa_Ym-n4U-qS9ocmEhydOV7jjb7HmDDiAG4ycl7ILgyg==]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forward this email to a Friend [http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1101283694210&a=1109900789036&ea=blogpost%40mediaideas.net]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Join Our Mailing List [http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101283694210]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forward email

http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=cuf4zubab&m=1101283694210&ea=blogpost@mediaideas.net&a=1109900789036

This email was sent to blogpost@mediaideas.net by bosacks@aol.com.

Update Profile/Email Address

http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&mse=001dRCypZS7HoVCkOsTkDVAQq5XaD_6HG5_&t=0019x8OHvzG5XJoaSNSt9OQyA%3D%3D&lang=001FCSs65SMrsI%3D&reason=001y5KaVlBn7_Y%3D&llr=cuf4zubab

Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)

http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001dRCypZS7HoVCkOsTkDVAQq5XaD_6HG5_&t=0019x8OHvzG5XJoaSNSt9OQyA%3D%3D&lang=001FCSs65SMrsI%3D&reason=001y5KaVlBn7_Y%3D&llr=cuf4zubab

Privacy Policy:

http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp

Online Marketing by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com

Precision Media Group | PO Box 53 | Copake | NY | 12516

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Creative Monopoly

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["Creativity can solve almost any problem. The creative act, the defeat
of habit by originality, overcomes everything." -George Lois]

The
Creative Monopoly

By DAVID BROOKS

As a young man, Peter Thiel competed to get into Stanford. Then he
competed to get into Stanford Law School. Then he competed to become a
clerk for a federal judge. Thiel won all those competitions. But then he
competed to get a Supreme Court clerkship.

Thiel lost that one. So instead of being a clerk, he went out and
founded PayPal. Then he became an early investor in Facebook and many
other celebrated technology firms. Somebody later asked him. “So, aren’t
you glad you didn’t get that Supreme Court clerkship?”

The question got Thiel thinking. His thoughts are now incorporated into
a course he is teaching in the Stanford Computer Science Department. (A
student named Blake Masters posted outstanding notes online, and Thiel
has confirmed their accuracy.)

One of his core points is that we tend to confuse capitalism with
competition. We tend to think that whoever competes best comes out
ahead. In the race to be more competitive, we sometimes confuse what is
hard with what is valuable. The intensity of competition becomes a proxy
for value.

In fact, Thiel argues, we often shouldn’t seek to be really good
competitors. We should seek to be really good monopolists. Instead of
being slightly better than everybody else in a crowded and established
field, it’s often more valuable to create a new market and totally
dominate it. The profit margins are much bigger, and the value to
society is often bigger, too.

Now to be clear: When Thiel is talking about a “monopoly,” he isn’t
talking about the illegal eliminate-your-rivals kind. He’s talking about
doing something so creative that you establish a distinct market, niche
and identity. You’ve established a creative monopoly and everybody has
to come to you if they want that service, at least for a time.

His lecture points to a provocative possibility: that the competitive
spirit capitalism engenders can sometimes inhibit the creativity it
requires.

Think about the traits that creative people possess. Creative people
don’t follow the crowds; they seek out the blank spots on the map.
Creative people wander through faraway and forgotten traditions and then
integrate marginal perspectives back to the mainstream. Instead of being
fastest around the tracks everybody knows, creative people move
adaptively through wildernesses nobody knows.

Now think about the competitive environment that confronts the most
fortunate people today and how it undermines those mind-sets.

First, students have to jump through ever-more demanding, preassigned
academic hoops. Instead of developing a passion for one subject, they’re
rewarded for becoming professional students, getting great grades across
all subjects, regardless of their intrinsic interests. Instead of
wandering across strange domains, they have to prudentially apportion
their time, making productive use of each hour.

Then they move into a ranking system in which the most competitive
college, program and employment opportunity is deemed to be the best.
There is a status funnel pointing to the most competitive colleges and
banks and companies, regardless of their appropriateness.

Then they move into businesses in which the main point is to beat the
competition, in which the competitive juices take control and gradually
obliterate other goals. I see this in politics all the time. Candidates
enter politics wanting to be authentic and change things. But once the
candidates enter the campaign, they stop focusing on how to be
change-agents. They and their staff spend all their time focusing on
beating the other guy. They hone the skills of one-upsmanship. They get
engulfed in a tit-for-tat competition to win the news cycle. Instead of
being new and authentic, they become artificial mirror opposites of
their opponents. Instead of providing the value voters want – change –
they become canned tacticians, hoping to eke out a slight win over the
other side.

Competition has trumped value-creation. In this and other ways, the
competitive arena undermines innovation.

You know somebody has been sucked into the competitive myopia when they
start using sports or war metaphors. Sports and war are competitive
enterprises. If somebody hits three home runs against you in the top of
the inning, your job is to go hit four home runs in the bottom of the
inning.

But business, politics, intellectual life and most other realms are not
like that. In most realms, if somebody hits three home runs against you
in one inning, you have the option of picking up your equipment and
inventing a different game. You don’t have to compete; you can invent.

We live in a culture that nurtures competitive skills. And they are
necessary: discipline, rigor and reliability. But it’s probably a good
idea to try to supplement them with the skills of the creative
monopolist: alertness, independence and the ability to reclaim forgotten
traditions.

Everybody worries about American competitiveness. That may be the wrong
problem. The future of the country will probably be determined by how
well Americans can succeed at being monopolists.

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment

The e-War is On – Microsoft Makes $300M Investment In New Barnes

Posted on May 16, 2012 by

["Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that
anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and
hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must
realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of
policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. -Sir
Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)]

Microsoft
Makes $300M Investment In New Barnes & Noble Subsidiary To Battle With
Amazon And Apple In E-books

BY INGRID LUNDEN

Barnes & Noble has found a new, major partner in its fight to get an
edge over Amazon and Apple in the market for e-books and the devices
being used to consume them: it is teaming up with Microsoft in what the
two are calling a strategic partnership, name yet to be determined.

It will come in the form of a new subsidiary of B&N that will include
all of its Nook business as well as its educational College business.
Microsoft is making a $300 million investment in the subsidiary, valuing
the company at $1.7 billion in exchange for around 17.6 percent equity
in the subsidiary.

The news leaves the door open for B&N to eventually spin these off into
a separate business altogether – or even sell them to Microsoft. And it
leaves a load of questions about what B&N will do next with the Nook,
which is currently built on a forked version of Google’s Android platform.

The new company, referred to for the moment as Newco, will contain B&N’s
digital business, as well as its College division. While Microsoft will
take 17.6 percent, B&N will own 82.4 percent of the venture.

This is a key way of getting more content on to the Microsoft platform –
specifically e-books content to ensure that its Windows 8 tablets will
be able to compete not only against the best-selling iPad but also the
Kindle Fire from Amazon, along with the rest of the company’s e-readers.
The Kindle Fire has stolen a march among Android tablet makers and part
of the compelling offer is not only the low price
($199) but also the fact that it contains so much content, including
seamless access to all of Amazon’s e-book offerings.

This is also a progression – a very big one – of the funding etudes that
Microsoft has been making to developers to make sure they are making
apps for the Windows Phone platform, a way of getting more content on
its platforms, which, it can be argued, may have come too late to the
market. The first product to come out of the door? A Nook application
for Windows 8, the companies say.

And given that education has been one of Apple’s bigger pushes this
year, and the obvious and close links between education and e-reading,
it’s not too surprising to see that B&N has also put its College
division into this subsidiary. Microsoft, too, has been courting the
education market – making its biggest-ever cloud-services deal in the
education sector. Nevertheless they have a long road ahead of them. In
January, Apple noted that there were already 20,000 educational apps for
iOS and that there were already 1.5 million devices deployed in schools,
numbers that will inevitably have grown in the last 4-5 months with the
launch of the new iPad and numerous initiatives to spread the tablet in
the educational sector.

And there is a legal twist to the deal, too: the two companies say they
have definitely sorted out their patent litigation now: “Moving forward,
Barnes & Noble and Newco will have a royalty-bearing license under
Microsoft’s patents for its NOOK eReader and Tablet products,” the two
write in the release below. If Microsoft doesn’t use this as an
opportunity of possibly persuading B&N to swap over to Windows 8 for a
version of the Nook, it will also give it a very interesting inroad into
developing more for Android.

As for B&N and the future of these products… this deal looks like it
could potentially pave the way for B&N to spin off this business into
its own standalone operation, if not into the waiting arms of Microsoft
itself – long speculated to be looking at ways of gaining a stronger
foothold in the area of mobile devices to better implement its bigger
strategy. The idea of a subsidiary was something that B&N had first
floated back in January, when it noted that it was weighing up how best
to separate its digital business to “maximize shareholder value.”

There are many more questions – such as what this could mean for the
company’s broader strategy for growing the market for the Nook
(international being a key push that the company has yet to make, apart
from some baby steps); and how well, exactly, those products are doing
for the company: IDC puts the Nook’s share of the tablet market at just
3.5 percent.

The company is holding a conference call on the deal later today and
we’ll update as we learn more.

Full press release below.

New York, NY and Redmond, WA (April 30, 2012) – Barnes & Noble Inc.
(NYSE: BKS) and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) today announced the formation
of a strategic partnership in a new Barnes & Noble subsidiary, which
will build upon the history of strong innovation in digital reading
technologies from both companies. The partnership will accelerate the
transition to e-reading, which is revolutionizing the way people
consume, create, share and enjoy digital content.

The new subsidiary, referred to in this release as Newco, will bring
together the digital and College businesses of Barnes & Noble. Microsoft
will make a $300 million investment in Newco at a post-money valuation
of $1.7 billion in exchange for an approximately 17.6% equity stake.
Barnes & Noble will own approximately 82.4% of the new subsidiary, which
will have an ongoing relationship with the company’s retail stores.
Barnes & Noble has not yet decided on the name of Newco.

One of the first benefits for customers will be a NOOK application for
Windows 8, which will extend the reach of Barnes & Noble’s digital
bookstore by providing one of the world’s largest digital catalogues of
e-Books, magazines and newspapers to hundreds of millions of Windows
customers in the U.S. and internationally.

The inclusion of Barnes & Noble’s College business is an important
component of Newco’s strategic vision. Through the newly formed Newco,
Barnes & Noble’s industry leading NOOK Study software will provide
students and educators the preeminent technology platform for the
distribution and management of digital education materials in the market.

“The formation of Newco and our relationship with Microsoft are
important parts of our strategy to capitalize on the rapid growth of the
NOOK business, and to solidify our position as a leader in the exploding
market for digital content in the consumer and education segments,” said
William Lynch, CEO of Barnes & Noble. “Microsoft’s investment in Newco,
and our exciting collaboration to bring world-class digital reading
technologies and content to the Windows platform and its hundreds of
millions of users, will allow us to significantly expand the business.”

“The shift to digital is putting the world’s libraries and newsstands in
the palm of every person’s hand, and is the beginning of a journey that
will impact how people read, interact with, and enjoy new forms of
content,” said Andy Lees, President at Microsoft. “Our complementary
assets will accelerate e-reading innovation across a broad range of
Windows devices, enabling people to not just read stories, but to be
part of them. We’re at the cusp of a revolution in reading.”

Barnes & Noble and Microsoft have settled their patent litigation, and
moving forward, Barnes & Noble and Newco will have a royalty-bearing
license under Microsoft’s patents for its NOOK eReader and Tablet
products. This paves the way for both companies to collaborate and reach
a broader set of customers.

Newco,

On January 5, Barnes & Noble announced that it was exploring the
strategic separation of its digital business in order to maximize
shareholder value. Barnes & Noble is actively engaged in the formation
of Newco, which will include Barnes & Noble’s digital and College
businesses. The company intends to explore all alternatives for how a
strategic separation of Newco may occur. There can be no assurance that
the review will result in a strategic separation or the creation of a
stand-alone public company, and there is no set timetable for this
review. Barnes & Noble does not intend to comment further regarding the
review unless and until a decision is made.

Additional information will be contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K
to be filed by Barnes & Noble.

Barnes & Noble and Microsoft will host an investor call and webcast
beginning at
8:30 A.M. ET on Monday, April 30, 2012. To join the webcast, please
visit:

Posted in News | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Magazines Get Serious About Ecommerce / Economist Reveals Digital

Posted on May 15, 2012 by

["Almost everybody today believes that nothing in economic history has
ever moved as fast as, or had a greater impact than, the Information
Revolution. But the Industrial Revolution moved at least as fast in the
same time span, and had probably an equal impact if not a greater one."
-Peter Drucker (1909 - 2005)]

Magazines
Get Serious About Ecommerce

by Lauren Indvik

Magazine publishers are rapidly getting serious about ecommerce.

Earlier this month, Time Out New York, a weekly print and digital
magazine covering entertainment in New York City, began selling event
tickets through its website and iOS apps. And last week, Time Inc.-owned
Real Simple magazine released a mobile gift guide that allows users to
shop directly from the app. The next day, Elle magazine launched a
shoppable trend guide on Facebook that encouraged users to make
purchases on advertisers’ websites.

These initiatives are enabling lifestyle magazines to explore new
revenue streams as their mainstay moneymaker, print advertising,
continues to decline.

It’s about time. Online retailers, as we’ve explored, have been
encroaching on magazines’ territory for years now. They’ve hired top
magazine talent – for instance, former Gourmet editor-in-chief Ruth
Reichl now directs editorial at Gilt Taste, and Esquire UK
editor-in-chief Jeremy Langmead is the editor of Mr Porter – and paired
them with retail veterans to develop a new kind of online shopping
experience, one that uses magazine-like editorials and photo spreads to
drive visitors to purchase.

At Gilt Taste, for example, a story and recipe for “perfectly tender
chicken” is sidelined with links to purchase Poussin Chickens, $55.95
for a set of eight. A “how to” fashion spread features items that are
two clicks from a shopping cart on Park & Bond.

These sites don’t come close to competing with lifestyle magazines in
terms of depth and breadth of content, but they are getting there. Men
could just as easily turn to Park & Bond or Mr Porter now for style
advice and inspiration as Esquire or Details – and finish their shopping
in one go.

Bridging the Editorial Divide

It’s been relatively easy for retailers to move into the content space,
particularly because they haven’t had to entertain illusions of
editorial objectivity. Editorial has from the beginning been posited as
a bonus on these sites, a complement to the shopping experience designed
to inspire and entertain shoppers.

Magazine publishers, on the other hand, have struggled to bridge this
divide. How do you maintain readers’ trust once you begin recommending
products for which you receive a cut of every sale? Or, in the case of
Time Out New York, if you become a retailer yourself?

The trick, it appears, is to position it as a service. Vogue partnered
with retailer Moda Operandi during New York Fashion Week last September
to “enable” readers to pre-order fashions directly from the runway – a
partnership that came about through the magazine’s close relationship
with Moda’s executive team. (Cofounder Lauren Santo Domingo is also a
contributing editor at Vogue.)

Real Simple’s gift guide is positioned similarly. The app features about
50 products from a range of retailers. Instead of sending users to
third-party websites to make multiple purchases – which is what the vast
majority of magazines do with the products mentioned on their websites
or on their apps – users shop and check out directly from the app in one
seamless, time-efficient experience.

“We’re cutting the effort of having to hunt down the products [we
recommend],” Real Simple editor-in-chief Kathleen Harris said in an
interview with Mashable. “We’re offering that service on top of our
great editorial.”

Disclosures were also essential for Vogue and Real Simple, since both
receive(d) cuts of every sale.

Time Out New York’s approach is slightly different. The weekly
print-based publication has set up a ticket-selling shop as a separate
entity, which users can access from a sidebar on timeout.com/newyork.

All of these seem to me like promising approaches: They’ve been smartly
positioned, offering a range of merchandise without seeming to in any
way compromise editorial integrity. Now we’ll have to see whether
they’re profitable and how they evolve – and if they can move quickly
enough into the space to outperform their retail-and-content competitors
__________

‘Economist’
Reveals Digital Circ Magazines slow to adopt new reporting format

By Lucia Moses

As the number of digital reading devices has grown, publishers have
evolved to keep up. So, too, have the firms that audit them. Last year,
with ad buyers clamoring for more information about print audiences, the
Audit Bureau of Circulations launched a voluntary product called the
Consolidated Media Report that presents publications’ total brand
footprint across print and digital platforms.

So far, 30 or so newspapers have released Consolidated Media Reports.
Magazines have been slow to follow suit, but they’re starting to. On
April 30, The Economist will release a CMR, the second major title to do
so. (Popular Science released the first one last fall and parent Bonnier
Corp. is getting ready to release reports for three more titles, Field &
Stream, Outdoor Life and Popular Photography.)

The Economist has had a good print and digital story to tell, so it’s
not totally surprising that it’s one of the first to adopt this new
reporting format. It’s bucked the downward circulation trend, despite
its high price. (An annual print subscription averages $105.) And unlike
most magazines, it doesn’t give away its print content online.

In addition to the print circulation stats that are in every magazine’s
ABC Publisher’s Statement, The Economist’s CMR reveals that its digital
edition averaged about 48,000 in sales for March-about 6 percent of
total circulation, putting it at the high end of magazines. There were
255,000 readers. At $105 for an annual subscription, the digital edition
commands a premium as the print does.

Figures are for North America only. They refer to editions sold on the
iPad, iPhone, Android and Kindle. They exclude The Economist’s replica
editions that are sold on the Kindle Fire and Nook Color and Zinio
subscriptions.

“What we wanted to do in putting it out is have some transparency,” said
Paul Rossi, managing director and evp, Americas, for The Economist. “No
one is requiring them, but there is a lot of grumbling that [magazines]
aren’t transparent and we aren’t giving them the information the
agencies want.”

Rossi shared other digital details not included in the report. He said
that 70 percent of The Economist’s digital subscribers are not former
print subscribers and that
20 percent of The Economist’s single copy sales are of back
issues-evidence that digital platforms are expanding rather than
cannibalizing the reader base.

“Digital is an opportunity for us, bringing more people in,” he said.
“We see absolutely that digital is additive.”

Posted in News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment