Digital Magazine Forum Review
November 29, 2006 by Marcus
Yesterday, we had the pleasure of sponsoring and attending the Digital Magazine Forum in New York.
This is always an interesting event – a smaller, shorter show than most we attend, but also heavily focused. There’s plenty of talk on digital editions – what they are and what they should be.
It’s also interesting because unlike most trade shows which are produced by trade show companies, this one is produced, directed and hosted by one of our competitors. It’s not completely unlike paying your competitor to put on a day-long sales call which you get to attend. Nevertheless, the content is always interesting and the attendees are always interested, so we were glad to participate.
There were seven presentations throughout the day, ranging from the big picture – “What is ‘the magazine’?” to technology “Microsoft’s Vista – the New Frontier?” to one on VC firms talking about where they’re currently chasing the money in the digital media space.
I’m not a reporter and this blog doesn’t pretend to be wholly objective. That being said, I’ve decided to present a long list of quotes and observations throughout the day. Through reading this, I hope you’ll learn much of what we learned yesterday and – where appropriate – what the “NXTbook response” is to certain observations from within the industry.
The first panel included Peter Meirs from Time, Inc. & David Klein from the Ad Age Group. We’ve blogged about Meirs before and love the fact that he’s always pushing the fringiest stuff out there, including Idiomag, which we blogged about several weeks ago.
Meirs – like some – continues to show a lot of disdain for “digital facsimiles” of magazines, because they attempt to recreate a portrait reading experience in a landscape environment. While Meirs is 100% correct in that this is something that all digital publishers must strive to improve upon, the reality is that until this type of technology is both cost and time-efficient, this format will be out of the reach for many small publishers.
Your move if you’re a publisher: Creating a dynamic user experience is paramount to digital publishing success. Choose a digital publishing company that knows where the technology must get to tomorrow, even if it’s not wholly practical today.
Meirs next said something that we consider to be gospel at NXTbook: “The goal of a digital magazine is indifference.” His implied message was that if people are too hung up on the technology, they’re not focused on the content. In that statement, he’s entirely correct. What could’ve been highlighted, though, is that even though Meirs has been saying the same thing for some time, in many cases, digital publishers have already succeeded.
Here are two examples where bloggers are talking about the content of a NXTbook and have absolutely nothing to say about the format at all. We’d call that glorious indifference.
David Klein spoke next about Ad Age’s experience with Zinio. Klein said that Ad Age has only converted 7.8% of its international readership to digital. He would’ve liked to explain why his numbers were so poor, but admitted that Zinio provides him with no tracking data.
The problem with this admission – in the first program of the day – is that it sets up would-be digital publishers with the idea that it’s difficult to get tracking data. The reality is that any reputable digital publisher can provide you with more data than you get on your website. A lack of data isn’t a digital publishing problem. It’s a Zinio problem.
The next panel discussion asked what digital magazines of tomorrow will look like, and was led by Bob Sacks (Bo to those who know and/or read him.) Though I’ve read Bo, this was the first I had a chance to hear him speak, and all I can say is, “Wow.” Entertaining. Dynamic. Enlightening. What perhaps came across most of all in Bo’s speech was that the technology will continue to get better. But waiting until it does is not a strategy. All of that being said, I wish Bo put more of his content into his RSS feed…
On the same panel was Paul Gerbino from the Thomas Publishing Company. Gerbino is one of those guys who puts out content in many different formats so that the reader can choose how they wish to receive it. He feels that access to his content is a key differentiator today and also spoke about the increasing need to get users to interact with the content. Great presentation.
The same panel also included Dana Fisher from Questex. Dana has been a NXTbook customer for several years now. As Dana shared, Cadalyst Magazine has 15,000 BPA certified digital subscribers, many of them overseas. Readers love the content. Dana loves the numbers. We love Dana.
Next up, two quick insights from the session entitled “How Print and Electronic Content Work Together.”
At one point, moderator Jon Fine asked the panelists about the smartest and dumbest thing they’ve done online. Forbes.com VP-Chief Advertising Officer Bill Flately had no trouble naming their dumbest: their short experiment with in-text advertising from IntelliTXT. If you missed that story, here’s a good rant from Paul Conley about IntelliTXT.
And here’s a cute banter between moderator Fine and Jason Pontin of Technology Review:
Fine: “Can you convince me Zinio is a good solution?”
Pontin: “No.”
The next couple hours included technology talk by Bill McCoy from Adobe, Ron Hawkins from Sony, Bob Larson from the NY Times (who worked on the Times Reader project), Mike Cooper, Microsoft (Ditto) and Arturo Duran from CanWest.
As techies, we loved these couple of hours. That being said, for publishers the Adobe and Microsoft tools are totally beta-ware and will be for some time. One wonders why publishers were being shown things they can’t use yet and won’t be using anytime in the near future. (Not that this kept McCoy from encouraging publishers to use them… )
Microsoft did a very cool job showing how WPF works and why it’s neat. However, there was a nary a mention of the fact that using it to design ads will require new software, new skill sets and existing PDF ads will be worthless in the WPF environment.
Your move if you’re a publisher: If you’re considering a digital-only publication, WPF will be mighty cool. But Adobe’s Bill McCoy thinks that in five years, digital edition revenue will be 25% for the average print publication and we tend to think that Bill’s a pretty smart guy. For 25%, does it make sense to learn an entirely new advertising package? (from Microsoft?)
I have little to report about the last two forums, simply because I enjoyed them without critiquing them. Dorian Benkoil did a great job moderating a panel that included Om Malik (Business 2.0 hasn’t been the same since he left) and Peter Rojas (who was kind of meek as a moderator but rocked the house as a panelist!), which was followed by three venture capitalists talking about money (although the highlight for me was that one of them was Tony Schneider, CEO of the firm that wrote the software this blog is written on as well as the firm that prevents spammers from trying to sell Viagra via the comments on this blog).
And finally, a slightly out of left field comment:
Dan Schwartz, CEO of Qiosk was the moderator for many of the panels and as I mentioned at the beginning of this report, Qiosk is one of our competitors. While Dan did a decent job of making the day relatively objective, many in the audience – including us – were taken a bit by surprise to hear him say, “Rich media has no place in a digital magazine.” As we’ve seen from many of our favorite projects, the inclusion of rich media in a digital edition is an exciting, vibrant way to make the user experience powerful and we side with the dozens of people in the crowd who were scratching their collective heads at that moment.
So, all in all an interesting day with lots of interesting people.
Marcus,
I wasn’t at the Forum. But you can add me to the list of people scratching their heads at Dan Schwartz’s remark that “Rich media has no place in a digital magazine.”
What in the world does he mean? Perhaps he’d be willing to elaborate in a comment here.
[...] Digital Magazine Forum roundup | Marcus Grimm Despite my historic snide remarks about ‘digital magazines,’ they’re beginning to incorporate features that made the no-starters for me (like the ability to link to specific content). So, I’m mellowing. (tags: magazines digital+magazines) Time posted: 12:18 am on Thursday, November 30th, 2006 [...]
Marcus, Many thanks for the review of BoSacks.
As to Dan Schwartz’s comments, he is just wrong. Many people, even those in a position to know better just don’t. Dan at best had a momentary breakdown in thinking that technology had/has ceased to grow, which is of course wrong. Functional technology and information distribution is growing faster than anyone can keep up with. And so are the generations that are using the newest forms of information apparatus. E-paper is right around the corner and that changes everything. And anyone who thinks that it stops there is wrong as well.
First, my apologies for not blogging sooner. I’ve been abroad for several weeks. As most who travel know, connectivity is anything but ubiquitous (despite the hype). You’re just thankful to log on, let alone have a chance to write.
Nxt, a thanks to Marcus for reporting on this year’s DMF: (1) It’s a credit to our industry that competitors can considerately talk about the issues with each other. (2) There wouldn’t have been 180 people attending (most paying in one form or another) nor would DMF have attracted the speaker’s we did, were the Forum “a day-long sales pitch.” I moderated the first panel to keep it focused on key issues. And, the last panel at the request of Digital Magazine News’ Managing Editor, Rebecca Fannin, as our initial moderator had to cancel (and I also publish the Asian Venture Capital Journal).
On the program itself, I second Marcus’ praise for Peter Meirs. Peter is among the industry’s pioneers and continues to offer an important POV on digital delivery. David Klein and Hachette’s Marta Worle also added to the first session—and to the overall discussion on delivering digital replicas. Bo is always a treat—I respond to his “rich media” comments below. The colloquy between Hearst’s John Loughlin and Bill Flatley also highlighted Bo’s session; Dow Jones’ Gordon Mcleod offered several good insights on effective revenue models; and, ALL the tech speakers from MSFT’s Mike Cooper to Adobe to the bloggers (Dorian’s session) and VCs contributed to the media fusion discussion. The 300 people who should have attended but didn’t missed a highly informative and worthwhile day!
Now, to the subject I’ve been hammered on, my “rich media” remarks. I could claim I was misquoted—and was: I said “little place” not “no place in digital delivery.” Inserting an occasional 10-20 KB clip into a digital file is fine.
But, yes, Marcus and Bob, the general thrust of your complaint is spot on. Exact replica delivery has for the most (read, “most”) part not worked. Injecting another 10-20 MB of rich media into the mix won’t make—and hasn’t made any difference in readership.
And, folks, we’re talking 10 (!) years now since Qiosk distributed the first digital magazine in 1998. And, not for want of trying: BizWeek’s/Fortune’s 75 MB+ offerings with everything but a sound-and light show were total floppolas. And, yes, the Zinio contraption is part of the problem, but it goes far beyond that. Simply, put: few if any magazine readers will sit still long enough to read a 100-150 page magazine on a laptop screen. The accelerating growth in PDAs makes the challenge for the industry that much worse. If readers want movies, they click on Youtube; if they want music, they download to their iPod; if they want a DVD, Netflix, ETC.
Not one publisher who spoke at the Forum said anything to the contrary. If Bob were such a true believer, he would include some chunky rich media in his column. He’s smart—he doesn’t.
Moreover, a static replica does not offer what most users are looking for on the net: dynamic content, delivered in digestible bytes, with lots of hyperlinks, that they can increasingly read on their mobile devices—everything that replica delivery for magazines is not.
There are certainly exceptions, but those of you who attended last year’s (2005) DMF recall Michael Loeb’s keynote, “the word.” That is why people read magazines.
Guys, get a grip: even assuming ubiquitous and infinite broadband—and we’re a long way from that—a superior technology, ye olde paper and ink remains cheaper, easier, and most importantly, effectively delivers what magazine readers want: great content, well-written, and accompanied by compelling graphics.
That is not to say that any of us should roll over and go home. We simply need to face facts and respond accordingly—notwithstanding, the $150 million and change the industry has thus far spent on devices and platforms that ignore this reality. Not to mention the all-too-many publishers bamboozled by the likes of page-turning and zoom-in/zoom-out “technology.”
Your witness, Mr. Burger.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your comment and welcome to the blogosphere.
Agreed that the earliest attempts at injecting rich media into digital editions failed royally, but – like many things – it wasn’t the idea that was wrong, but rather the execution.
First, these attempts were all made on downloaded digital editions – not web-based models where rich media can be streamed.
Second, these attempts took place when broadband adoption was much less than it is today. In the US, we passed the 70% mark in April of this year. At NXTbook Media – we see this reflected in our own traffic data. A year ago, we had less than a few gigabytes of video streamed each month from NXTbook. Now, we measure this same figure in hundreds of gigabytes.
Rich media wasn’t the problem – integrating rich media with download-required technology before the US was ready for it was the problem. The “facts” you’re suggesting we face are not facts at all – but merely history.
Hi Marcus,
Your points are well taken — especially the surge in broadband availability since paleolithic times in 1998. But, I still disagree on 2 major points (facts, even): (1) there has been no indication (whatsoever) that readers want rich media in their magazines. At while that is “history,” there’s no evidence to date this will change for all the reasons cited in my earlier e-mail; and (2), whether the format is PDF, web-based delivery, HTML, Flash or some combination thereof, the studies we’ve seen–and we’ve seen a lot–suggest little or no difference in aggregate reader preference. (Obviously, individuals all have their favorites.) Reading a 50+ page magazine, in zoom-in/zoom-out format on a laptop, PC or PDA screen has simply not caught on with the vast majority of users. Rich media or not.
Dan-
For “evidence” regarding the desire of readers to view rich media, I would cite either the 2005 Zinio market research, or either the 2006 Texterity or NXTbook Media market research – all of which spoke to the acceptance seen in the marketplace.
I would also reference Comscore reports that speak of the overwhelming demand for video on the Internet and make the conclusion that if a digital edition isn’t in tune with what’s going on with the Internet, it’s already out-dated. (Notes, here: http://www.clickz.com/showPage.html?page=3608446)
Finally, I would also reference my aforementioned statement that in Dec. of 2005, we were streaming less than a gig of video per month to readers and now – one year later – measure this figure in hundreds of gigabytes. Since the vast majority of video streamed is done via players with controls, these are cases of readers clicking the “play” button.
The simple fact is that the average Internet user cares about rich media in all forms, and this is evidenced by both the market research from industry experts, our own competition and our own traffic. Perhaps you have some evidence that we’re all mistaken, aside from your own traffic?
Your last statement appears to be more of a statement of the industry – regardless of the prevalence of rich media. Of course digital editions aren’t appropriate for the “vast majority,” but in today’s long-tail economics, what is? Digital editions exist for print publishers for the same reasons e-newsletters, websites, webinars and podcasts do – to provide brand extensions.
Digital magazines, however, have the added benefit of being spawned from a print publication – making it affordable for publishers to do the conversion while giving them the opportunity to leverage the latest technology (assuming they choose a vendor interested in the latest technology).
[...] Our post regarding the use of rich media inside a digital edition generated a healthy amount of debate on our blog last month. We believe it’s important. Others, not so much. [...]
Does anyone have figures on the total circulation for all digital magazines (digital only subscriptions)? (Or close to the total).
How about figures on the total number of digital magazine copies?
Changes over time would be nice to have, too.
Thanks!
Hi Eleanor-
ABC has published figures for 03/04 and 05, but these only include those magazines which use them for auditing (most of our publications, for instance, do not). You can view those figures here: http://www.magazine.org/digital/14327.cfm
Last year, we published a report that detailed our own customers’ growth from April 05- April 06. You can view that here:
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/NXTbook/marketresearch/
Whether or not our own numbers reflect the industry is a fair question. Through rigorous product improvements, we speculate that our own growth is well ahead of the industry, but honestly couldn’t say.
Tks,
M
Well, Marcus, I wish I had visited the forum! Really intersting topics and I’m sure interesting people. Anyway, you gave a detailed piece of information and enlightened me!