I'm increasingly concerned that print editors are either not evolving the print product, or evolving it in the wrong direction -- aping the Internet, which is ultimately a losing game. In trying to pull my thoughts together I assembled this little chart. Additions and comments would be appreciated.
| Online | |
| Static | Updatable |
| One-to-many | Many-to-many |
| Authoritative/authoritarian | Egalitarian/anarchic |
| Finite | Infinite |
| Solitary | Social |
| Optimized for discovery | Optimized for referral |
| Expensive | Cheap |
| Permanent | Volatile |
| Linear | Nonlinear |
| Strong mosaic | Weak mosaic |
| Portable | Becoming portable |
| Browse | Search |
| Pushed | Pulled |
| Standard/shared | Personal/individualizable |
| Bundled | Unbundled |
| Tangible | Intangible (nebulous?) |
This may at first look lopsided, but I would suggest we should focus on several points in which print has an advantage. Discovery is one. Linearity can be one. The finite nature of print can be an advantage in a world where time and attention is scarce. What McLuhan described as the natural mosaic nature of the newspaper positions it well in terms of providing an overview that often is lost in the online experience.
What does this imply for the evolution of print? Perhaps one path would be to provide more long-form, deep, thoughtful, reflective packages that are designed to provide fodder for meaningful conversations that unfold online. Another might be to beef up the synoptic/holographic overview approach. These aren't mutually exclusive.
Comments
They put news in print?
As I talk with editors and publishers about how they can make their online product different from their print product, it occurs to me that I've never picked up a newspaper for the "news."
From the time I first picked up a newspaper as a toddler through now, the print edition was for comics, school lunch calendar, crime blotter, baseball box scores, the crossword, and movie times.
Not for news.
Even now, as I age closer to the target market for local advertisers, I still don't pick up a local paper to read the news. I'll read stories online, but if I'm out getting a burrito and want a quick read, I'll grab a free alt-weekly off the rack. (And my iPhone has killed that, now, too -- at least when I dine alone.)
So although I enjoy reading a long-form narrative now and again, the print edition certainly isn't the place I do it.
In fact, I'd argue that print, for me, is a more social (the wife and I working on the crossword or reading the letters to the editor together) medium as far as the way I *consume* it goes.
Added
OK, I added "Bundled/Unbundled" to reflect Ryan's observation, and "Tangible/Intangible (Nebulous?)" based on feedback on the Readership Institute's list. I also got some feedback that some of these items need detail, which I'll address in future updates.
Print: solitary or social?
While I agree with the direction of this line of thought, I am not sure the characterization of print as solitary is on target. My sense is that a story or photo that appears in print is a community experience. Perhaps that is because print is static, the same for everyone who picks up the newspaper. Therefore, when I see something in print, I know that others are having much the same experience. Because Web pages change continually, I am not sure people have the same sense of a shared experience.
Along the same lines, the permanent:volatile comparison is more complex. Today's newspaper is tomorrow's recycling. Things posted on the Internet are forever.
Print and relevance
Today, online is more likely to give you more relevant information than a printed newspaper simply because of the size of the paper. We have to pack thousands of papers with thousands of infobits every day in the hope that each bit will reach its intended recipient. That approach can no longer compete.
Online, the bits and recipients can more easily find each other. Still, it's amazing that nobody has tried to improve that experience in print. We assume that the only solution is to move completely away from print and all toward online. That's a simplistic perspective. I think we can bring these worlds together.
The problem with print for readers and advertisers is not that it's print and therefore unworthy in the digital age. It's that the content is not relevant enough for each individual reader and not affordable and targeted enough for each advertiser. These are solveable problems.
define
Steve,
What do you mean or can you define "aping the Internet." I could not get a definition.
Print and relevance
The real issue with Print and relevance is cost. As society disperses away from the cities the ability for print to be relevant is diminished by the added costs to provide news to a wide geographic area.
Two words I might add to the list: Print: Tradition/OnLine: rebellious.
By melding the knowledge expertise and editing skills of journalists to the egalitarian nature of the internet a relevant product can be created to carry both print and the OnLine world to a bright future