Not since a guy named Moses received a tablet have we seen such enthusiasm for the form.
The tablet dream -- with its inevitable Apple intrigue and drumbeat of Amazon/Apple war -- has rekindled interest in digital publishing, providing hope for magazine and news industries pummeled mercilessly over the last decade. Already Forrester's Sarah Epps is estimating 10 million tablets to be sold within a year, which may be an ambitious number given inevitable customer BluRay/HD-DVD, VHS/Betamax confusion.
Next Issue Media, the new magazine consortium of Hearst, Meredith, Time Inc., News Corp and Conde Nast, could be a serious player to come. It could become a leader in the business and product development for tablets, or it could be just another industry gabfest, advocating for open standards and common ad formats. Lots of questions here as we approach the year and decade, as news and features suss out whether out the tablet really enables a a fresh start (Content Bridges "Digital Do-Over Time," Dec. 8, 2009) . Here are my first Nine Questions. What's yours?
1. How does the tablet blur our notion of what's a book, what's a magazine and what's a newspaper? The web atomized everything, and the tablet is one form of reordering. Each device though -- a Sony Reader, a Kindle, a Nook, a JooJoo, an Adam, an Ultra, whatever -- will have a singular interface, regardless of the source of the content. That eliminates the historic difference in page size among newspapers, magazines and books, which is in fact one of the key ways we've long differentiated them. Another differentiator -- paper stock -- of course, becomes a dead (tree) issue.
2. If Apple is willing to pay video/TV production companies like Disney and CBS per channel/program to break into the TV business, is it willing to pay news content providers of any size or scale in a similar way? TV is starting to experience the same break-down that newspapers have endured, being consumed piecemeal (segment by segment, program by program) just as whole newspaper products have been sliced and diced by the web search engines and aggregators. Now, sensing an opportunity to take chunks of Comcast's and other cable providers' business, Apple is moving on to the next generation of Apple TV. And it paying providers for programming.
Is news content, in text or video or tabletized form, of sufficient value to Apple that it might pay for it, on a per subscriber per month basis, opening up a potential new revenue stream for content creators?
3) Of course, each of the early tablet notions -- Sports Illustrated, Conde Nast's Wired, Hearst's Skiff -- apparently focuses only on a single title, but what about the ability of the tablet to become a new aggregated wonder? While the tablet offers lots of new audience-pleasing abilities, we needn't think of them only in that old Twentieth Century way of cozying up in an armchair, timelessly enjoyed the just-delivered issue of our favorite periodical. In fact, everything that the tablet can do for a single title, it can do for an aggregated product -- allowing advertisers and readers to tap into multi-title wonders. Are publishers planning for this multi-title tablet world, or just focusing anachronistically on title-by-title publishing? If they're not planning a twin (single title + aggregator) strategy, just think of the list of companies who may be: Google, Amazon, Apple, Yahoo, AOL, Facebook, for starters.
4) Doesn't the tablet given whole new meaning to the Illustrated in SI? An old term, digitally remastered.
5) How much of a disadvantage are newspaper publishers at as the visual-forward tablet goes mainstream? It's no accident that it's the magazine arms -- Advance's Conde Nast, Hearst's magazine division -- of the print companies that have dived into the tablet pond. It's cultural for magazine editors (and ad sellers) to think visually, and they've seen what the tablet dream might mean for what they do well and best. Newspaper people -- from editors and reporters to ad salespeople selling price-and-item space -- think text. Certainly, they have long used photos, but not as well as magazine people. Here's a skills gap that newspaper publishers would have to solve quickly to take full advantage of what the tablet does best.