Back in 2010, we suggested that the mad dash by various publications to build fee-based iPad apps was completely misguided, reminiscent of the belief in the 90s that publications could sell CD-ROM versions of their magazines. As we noted, there's nothing that special about the iPad format that takes away the natural abundance of the internet, and pretending that it was really any different than a portal to the wider internet with all its options was a fool's errand. In particular, we called out Rupert Murdoch's obsession with creating an iPad-only publication. In fact, we were confused why all the publishers investing so much in apps didn't put that same sort of effort into improving the features on their websites. A few months ago, the editor-in-chief and publisher of MIT's Tech Review more or less made the same point, saying that the future was on the web, betting on HTML 5 to make the site "look great on a laptop or desktop, tablet or smartphone" and then killing off the apps it had developed.

While others aren't going that far, there's more and more evidence that betting on apps was, in fact, the exact mistake that we predicted. Mathew Ingram summarizes how both The Huffington Post and Murdoch's The Daily have failed with their fee-based iPad app strategy. He makes the same basic point that a winner of our "most insightful comment" (by Robert Weller) made recently: that people get their news from lots of sources, so paying for a bunch of apps just doesn't make sense. In fact, it takes away from the value. As Ingram notes:

Whether media companies like it or not (and they mostly don’t), much of the news and other content we consume now comes via links shared through Twitter and Facebook and other networks, or through old-fashioned aggregators — such as Yahoo News or Google News — and newer ones like Flipboard and Zite and Prismatic that are tailored to mobile devices and a socially-driven news experience. Compared to that kind of model, a dedicated app from a magazine or a newspaper looks much less interesting, since by design it contains content from only a single outlet, and it usually doesn’t contain helpful things like links.

What he's basically saying is that the publishers focusing on apps are trying to create artificial scarcity by building digital silos. But that actually takes value away from those publications. People interact with the news in all sorts of ways that go way beyond "reading." But individual apps often make that more difficult. It involves extra effort (and cost) while providing less benefit. All because publishers are looking for something (anything!) that resembles some fencing so they can build a gate and go back to pretending they're in the gatekeeper business.

Hopefully publishers will finally stop looking to recreate the past by building artificial walls, and start looking at ways to make money that embrace the internet and what it enables.

Right before the iPad launched, we warned media companies that expected iPad apps to be their savior that they were making a mistake. Specifically, it seemed that this was all wishful thinking from publishers, who were hoping to go back to a gated system that they had used for many years. They were betting on restrictions, which is never a good bet. Of course, the early numbers actually sounded good, with many magazines trumpeting how many iPad subscribers they got in the first few months. But, it appears that many people tested out iPad magazines, and then decided they just weren't worth it. Again, this is not a huge surprise. Just a few weeks ago, we again discussed how iPad magazines generally suck, and it was unlikely they were going to have lasting success.

Even so, it's still surprising to see just how dramatic the dropoff has been -- especially in a platform that is apparently still selling like hotcakes. Wired Magazine, which initially appeared to drink the Kool-Aid big time on using iPad apps, now sees less than a quarter the number of buyers that it had when it put out its first iPad issue. Vanity Fair, Glamour, GQ and some others have all seen big declines.

Hopefully this will kill off the dream of just recreating magazines for the iPad, and content providers can focus on creating tools that are actually useful, rather than just on replicating the structure of a magazine in a digital format.

There's been lots of talk about how News Corp. is developing an iPad-only newspaper called "The Daily," but the more I read about it, the less sense it makes. The general thinking behind it seems to come from the same reasoning which explains why so many iPad publisher apps are so bad. They're approaching it as a way to bring back the old scarcities, which are now artificial scarcities. They're looking at the platform as a savior based on what it does not allow, rather than based on what it actually enables.

Creating a platform specific publication in a day and age when platforms have less and less meaning seems like a recipe for disaster. It's based on the idea that the Murdochs want to go back to an age of control, rather than embracing the age of enablement.

Earlier this year, we suggested that the media industy's infatuation with the iPad as some sort of savior was going to result in serious disappointment. Part of the reason was that the media industry was salivating over the false belief that it could bring back the old "gatekeeper" control that it used to have, and which its old business model was built from. And, indeed, the early results of iPad magazines aren't particularly promising. Now, it's still quite early, and two things are likely to happen: tablet computers (and better smartphones) will become more popular and publishers will become smarter about these things over time. So I wouldn't read too much into the success/failure numbers at this stage.

However, I tend to agree with this analysis by Khoi Vinh that suggests a major problem is that magazine publishers are focused on building apps that are too much like "magazines," which is not how people want to use their mobile devices:

My opinion about iPad-based magazines is that they run counter to how people use tablets today and, unless something changes, will remain at odds with the way people will use tablets as the medium matures. They're bloated, user-unfriendly and map to a tired pattern of mass media brands trying vainly to establish beachheads on new platforms without really understanding the platforms at all.

The fact of the matter is that the mode of reading that a magazine represents is a mode that people are decreasingly interested in, that is making less and less sense as we forge further into this century, and that makes almost no sense on a tablet. As usual, these publishers require users to dive into environments that only negligibly acknowledge the world outside of their brand, if at all -- a problem that's abetted and exacerbated by the full-screen, single-window posture of all iPad software. In a media world that looks increasingly like the busy downtown heart of a city -- with innumerable activities, events and alternative sources of distraction around you -- these apps demand that you confine yourself to a remote, suburban cul-de-sac.

To be honest, this isn't that surprising. The problem, as with almost all new media technologies is that those who came from the earlier media worlds try to define the new world in terms of the old. It's why original TV programs simply tried to replicate radio programs, until people realized that you could do something quite different in a visual medium. It's why many media companies still look at the internet as a broadcast medium designed for delivering its content to the masses -- rather than recognizing that the real power is in its use as a communications platform.

Eventually they'll adjust and figure it out (or, if they don't, go out of business). And then the solutions that work won't be "magazines as an app," but services that really make use of what these devices enable: communication and content on the go.

I'm not sure how well this will work, but it does seem like an interesting experiment for publications to expand their revenue streams. Magazine publishing giant Conde Nast is setting up an entirely new division to focus on licensing its magazine names for restaurants. There's the GQ Bar & Grill and the Vogue Cafe, for example. The focus right now is not on the US market, so these won't be appearing here, but in places like Hong Kong, Dubai and Moscow. Of course, the general idea isn't new. As the article notes, Playboy has famously licensed its brand all over the place. However, it is an interesting recognition that a publication's brand has additional value beyond the publication itself. So what do you think? Techdirt Cafe? Anyone want to license that?

In May, we covered the dispute between CBS and the magazine 48HR. It was one of the rare situations where it really did seem like CBS had a legitimate claim that there could be some level of confusion among some between 48HR's magazine and CBS's television news magazine program, 48 Hours. We had hoped, however, that things could be quickly worked out amicably. Instead, it looks like CBS is being ridiculously overbearing in trying to negotiate an agreement. The 48HR folks have tried to be accommodating, but CBS keeps demanding more:

• CBS wants to be able to vet the magazine's new name.
• CBS wants to own the magazine's existing URL, 48hrmag.com.
• It's unclear how long the network would be willing to allow that URL to redirect to the magazine's yet-to-be-created new website, which Honan said would be the only way to ensure continuity between the debut issue, created the weekend of May 7, and the second issue, which they're planning for the end of August.

This is too bad. It still seems like the initial reaction of too many folks these days is to lawyer up, when a straightforward discussion that doesn't involve "we control everything" could come to a reasonable and amicable solution.

Kevin Yank sends over an interview he recently did with Derek Powazek who, among other things, developed one of the first truly cool online publications in Fray, and also JPG Magazine, discussing the future of print. Powazek makes a point that we've tried to make here in the past, but weren't able to highlight as clearly as he does:

And the other crazy thing we found when we were doing JPG is that by far, the majority of our subscribers were people who did not subscribe to any other magazines. I thought that was weird. Like, you'd think, "Okay, maybe the people who like print would buy it." But what we learned was it was the people who felt involved in the creation of it who were buying it. The people who were submitting their photos, voting on other people's photos, who felt involved in the community were the ones buying it.

So I think there's a real opportunity here for media makers to learn from this to say, "Well maybe the reason why people aren't buying newspapers and magazines is because they feel completely disconnected from the product, right? Because the old style of journalism was sit down, shut up and consume what we say. And in a world of collaborative media where everybody can participate online, everybody can make content, maybe what these media organizations need to do is tear down the walls a little bit and let people feel involved in the making of it, and then they'll buy the product.

Exactly. We've discussed in the past how much the community now wants to be a part of the news process, whether it's helping out with some aspect of reporting or (more frequently) in spreading the news, sharing the news and offering commentary on the news. But that's not the way the old school publishers think. They still think of themselves as being part of an ivory tower of sorts, where they deliver "the word" from on high. But that doesn't create any connection with the community.

And that's a disaster for a publication -- since it's always really been about bringing together a community, and then trying to monetize the attention of that community. But by actually involving the community, inviting them in, and making them feel a part of the process creates amazing connections that create people who are loyal to publications. It's something that a lot of old school publications really need to understand. And, if they did, they'd quickly realize that a concept like a paywall pretty much destroys that relationship.

The Ark was among the last Swedish bands in the late 20th century to sign an old school major label contract. On April 26, they are releasing their first album after that contract expired. Instead of making it as a plastic disc in a plastic case, they've decided to do it in the form of a magazine (99 Swedish kronor, around 13 USD), with cardboard sleeve holding both the paper and the CD.

Here in Sweden, as record stores are closing, shops selling magazines are opening at about the same pace. Therefore, it's an interesting strategy for The Ark's upcoming release to be done as a magazine. In terms of physical distribution, it means that their music is available in 1,100 stores instead of just the 110 record stores that are left in Sweden. Also they'll be able to sell the product with 6% VAT instead of the usual 25% VAT, since magazines and books have that lower VAT in Sweden. That equals 19 Swedish kronors per sold copy in "discount" or markup.

To further understand the band's reasoning, I called The Ark's manager Jon Gray up:

Why did you release a magazine?

For many in the younger generation, music is something that's for free. The idea is to work with another form of packaging, to raise other values around the music. The genius is not the idea, but implementation. That we took this from start to finish.

We have not only created a product but also an extended network of resellers to sell it for us. For us it was about creating a new dealer network in addition to the traditional music trade. The 1,100 stores that sell this product are located everywhere including where people live.

What is the product you created?

When we released the Jesus Christ Superstar album (the singer Ola Salo had the title role in the Swedish production last year and did his own translation), we worked with Johannes Sjöberg at So Music, who previously have done some fantastically special editions release of, for example, Astrid Lindgren's life. When we planned the release of the new album, we asked Johannes if he could come up with an idea.

The result was a 100-page magazine with high-quality images, text and design. Sandberg & Timonen made the design and well known Swedish writers such as Andres Lokko, Jan Gradvall and Hanna Fahl have contributed with the text. Also, for Ola Salo as a lyricist, this format is a dream. Rather than get 4 separate texts stuffed together on a 12x12 cm cd booklet page, here each text has its own full page. It's almost a return to the LP format.

Do you think that others will copy your concept?

Yes. Generally speaking, all other revenues for recorded music negligible. Recorded music is free, there is no other business model that has taken after where the CD left us. Whether it's digital downloads or Spotify. There is no money yet. If we become the best selling album in 2010 and the best-selling monthly magazine ever, as I believe we well, it's obvious to me that others will follow our example.

---

This text was originally posted in Swedish the media cluster organization Media Evolution's site.

Last month, at a panel in Silicon Valley on the future of journalism, one of the topics of discussion was whether or not tablet computing would be the "savior" of news, with most of the focus being on a recent video put together by Sports Illustrated of what a specialized tablet version of the magazine might look like. More recently, Wired Magazine demonstrated a working prototype of a tabletized version of the magazine. Both of these demos are certainly impressive -- but I'll say the same thing that I said about the SI demo on that panel discussion: why is the focus on the hardware? Nothing in either demo really requires a tablet. If this format is so compelling, why aren't these publications already offering it for use on regular computers? Certainly, the ability to use touchscreen controls is nice, but you could easily replicate the basics with a mouse. If the overall format is so compelling, then what does it have to do with a tablet/iPad, specifically? Now, perhaps Wired does intend for this to be useful on other platforms, as its version is just an Adobe AIR app, and so it could function just fine on a desktop/laptop, but again, the video seems to keep focusing on the tablet as if that's necessary. Yes, perhaps the form factor of a tablet computer makes this experience more enjoyable, but I think it's important in judging whether or not these apps actually make sense to separate the hardware from the software, to see if either makes sense without the other, or if they really are joined at the hip.

Hearst Magazines, which is the division of the Hearst Corporation behind Popular Mechanics, has teamed up with Old Navy to print t-shirts with old Popular Mechanics illustrations aimed at kids. The classic artwork is supposed to revive interest in the new editions of Popular Mechanics as well as generate some enthusiasm for mechanical gadgets related to transportation (think 1950s rocket cars and electric motorcycle concepts). Along with the shirts, the magazine is also sponsoring a 'Kids Can Do Great Things Design Contest' for children (up to 12) to submit their own artwork. The winner of the contest will get a $500 shopping spree at Old Navy and have the design printed in the magazine -- and if it looks good on a shirt, they'll sell shirts, too.

Not too long ago, we mentioned Rolling Stone magazine trying out a similar merchandise program (though with a few more legal complications), so this isn't exactly a novel concept (and we never said it was). But it's interesting that more publications are experimenting with efforts to connect with fans -- and especially younger fans to keep the fan pipeline filled. And one of the key components for this Popular Mechanics example is that it fits with the magazine's audience and also highlights a common theme from the magazine. This is the beginning of creating a brand for the magazine that features why readers should be interested in paying attention to it. Namely, if you're looking for articles and concept artwork related to futuristic transportation solutions, Popular Mechanics is where to go.

If this t-shirt trend continues, though, we'll have to be on the lookout for newspapers printing t-shirts, too. I'm pretty sure there would be a market for WSJ-style hedcut artwork on t-shirts -- and some copyright issues for it as well.