Byte Back
By John Parsons
About John
John Parsons is a publishing technology analyst, author and editor. He is the principal of Byte Media Strategies, a publishing business and technology consultancy, and the former Editorial Director of The Seybold Report.
Media Vent
Jargon alert! How finely tuned is your business development B.S. detector?
May 24, 2013The term "Business Development" in our companies has always been an odd area painted with broad strokes that cover many...
Profit from Publishing!
How will media convergence affect the production and distribution of news?
May 22, 2013I thought you all might be interested in this brief interview, conducted online by Jenna Batchelor, a student at Nottingham...
Pub Talk
Is Yahoo asking itself the right questions?
May 21, 2013After the news broke about Yahoo's acquisition of Tumblr, I paid a visit to Yahoo.Com (it has been quite a...
Publishers' Dojo
Like practically everything else in publishing, licensing content is changing
May 20, 2013I'm blogging from the Worldwide Media Marketplace (WMM), an annual event hosted by the FIPP, the worldwide magazine media association....
B2B Beat
ABM Annual Conference Greatest Hits
May 17, 2013Much has been written about ABM merging under the umbrella of SIIA. But much more was going on during the...
The Digital Domain
To Pay or Not to Pay ... That is the Changing Question
Apr 30, 2013In an era, where citizen "journalists," aggregators and content farms threaten to turn the information media companies produce into a...
The Digital Market
What do you think of the new mobile Google Play?
Apr 18, 2013A blog came out recently on the redesigned Google Play for mobile. It appears Michael Siliski, group product manager for...
The Postal Pundit
Climbing Out Of The Rubble Of Sandy
Dec 11, 2012The entire Eastern seaboard, but now mostly New York and New Jersey, has been struggling through the aftermath of Sandy,...
Everything Publishing
A New Way To Be a Player
Sep 19, 2011If you want to increase affinity with your brand, grow traffic (up to 20x for some sites) and retention, create...
What Is “Interactive” Anyway? (Part 2)
|
In Part 1 of this blog, I lamented the lack of consensus on what constitutes effective interactivity for digital magazines. Since then, I had the opportunity to ask more questions during my Gilbane Boston panel session on Mobile App development "from the trenches." The panelists represented both business and consumer titles.
The real question, it turns out, is less about embedded multimedia than it is about personalization, relevance and immediacy of content. For magazines, interactivity has always been about connection with the story; digital media has merely made that connection more complex, raising new technical and economic challenges for publishers.
The Gilbane panelists each discussed the pros and cons of developing interactive content. They praised the new, tablet-friendly design tools from Adobe (Digital Publishing Suite), Zinio, WoodWing and others—recently augmented by the QuarkXPress 9 announcement. They also expressed concern over rising costs (designing for multiple screen layouts, video production, etc.) vs. the unknown circulation and advertising benefits on a new, untried platform. Beyond that, however, they each expressed the notion that embedded media alone was not the answer.
Geoff Shaw of The Sporting News discussed their recent tablet app, The Sporting News Daily. Video and photo gallery embedding are standard fare, although user-generated content is limited by NFL and other content policies. Social media tie-ins are also prevalent. (Commenting has had to be curtailed to avoid endless "Yankees suck! No, Red Sox suck!" exchanges.) Beyond that, however, what has proven more successful is the delivery of time-sensitive, magazine-quality content to readers. Readers want the depth of storytelling that magazines offer, but they also want immediate gratification. While RSS and Web feeds can provide the latest scores, Shaw feels that a digital magazine edition can provide such data in a more satisfying, engaging manner—quality as well as quantity.
The next stage, according to Shaw, is to customize content still further—according to individual user preferences for particular sports, teams or players. Interactivity at that level would mirror the Daily Me concept theorized years ago by the MIT Media Lab. Difficulties still abound, not the least of which are privacy concerns and the reluctance of readers to even create such profiles. Nevertheless, Shaw feels that the model holds promise for truly interactive magazines.
Automation and XML were cited as cornerstones of cost-effective interactivity. Shaw envisioned a data-to-template workflow that would be essential as more tablets with differing screen sizes are introduced. Another panelist described the use of a centralized XML repository of content, from which users could customize their own content, whether viewed on a device or even printed on demand. Needless to say, publishers will need to get creative with content licensing before this model can extend beyond a single title.
Paul Michelman of the Harvard Business Review summarized the interactivity dilemma nicely. While rich media and customization can certainly boost reader engagement, through "nonlinear storytelling," the idea of an enhanced magazine is too often constrained by arcane circulation rules and publishing norms—not to mention unproven revenue models. While social media tie-ins are intriguing, there are no guarantees that their use will create the same lasting engagement that good writing and design has done in the past. To make things worse, technology is outpacing consumers' ability to use it well—or predictably.
In short, true interactivity in a digital magazine is hard. However, as Michelman noted, we need to do it anyway.
The real question, it turns out, is less about embedded multimedia than it is about personalization, relevance and immediacy of content. For magazines, interactivity has always been about connection with the story; digital media has merely made that connection more complex, raising new technical and economic challenges for publishers.
The Gilbane panelists each discussed the pros and cons of developing interactive content. They praised the new, tablet-friendly design tools from Adobe (Digital Publishing Suite), Zinio, WoodWing and others—recently augmented by the QuarkXPress 9 announcement. They also expressed concern over rising costs (designing for multiple screen layouts, video production, etc.) vs. the unknown circulation and advertising benefits on a new, untried platform. Beyond that, however, they each expressed the notion that embedded media alone was not the answer.
Geoff Shaw of The Sporting News discussed their recent tablet app, The Sporting News Daily. Video and photo gallery embedding are standard fare, although user-generated content is limited by NFL and other content policies. Social media tie-ins are also prevalent. (Commenting has had to be curtailed to avoid endless "Yankees suck! No, Red Sox suck!" exchanges.) Beyond that, however, what has proven more successful is the delivery of time-sensitive, magazine-quality content to readers. Readers want the depth of storytelling that magazines offer, but they also want immediate gratification. While RSS and Web feeds can provide the latest scores, Shaw feels that a digital magazine edition can provide such data in a more satisfying, engaging manner—quality as well as quantity.
The next stage, according to Shaw, is to customize content still further—according to individual user preferences for particular sports, teams or players. Interactivity at that level would mirror the Daily Me concept theorized years ago by the MIT Media Lab. Difficulties still abound, not the least of which are privacy concerns and the reluctance of readers to even create such profiles. Nevertheless, Shaw feels that the model holds promise for truly interactive magazines.
Automation and XML were cited as cornerstones of cost-effective interactivity. Shaw envisioned a data-to-template workflow that would be essential as more tablets with differing screen sizes are introduced. Another panelist described the use of a centralized XML repository of content, from which users could customize their own content, whether viewed on a device or even printed on demand. Needless to say, publishers will need to get creative with content licensing before this model can extend beyond a single title.
Paul Michelman of the Harvard Business Review summarized the interactivity dilemma nicely. While rich media and customization can certainly boost reader engagement, through "nonlinear storytelling," the idea of an enhanced magazine is too often constrained by arcane circulation rules and publishing norms—not to mention unproven revenue models. While social media tie-ins are intriguing, there are no guarantees that their use will create the same lasting engagement that good writing and design has done in the past. To make things worse, technology is outpacing consumers' ability to use it well—or predictably.
In short, true interactivity in a digital magazine is hard. However, as Michelman noted, we need to do it anyway.
Companies Mentioned:
 |
|
Sections:
|
|
COMMENTS
Click here to leave a comment...
Most Recent Comments:
Greg Miller - Posted on April 11, 2011
I was inadvertantly associating the idea of "interactive" with value-added content. I would never consider advertsing value-added or the ability to easily insert it as something a reader would even desire.
I was inadvertantly associating the idea of "interactive" with value-added content. I would never consider advertsing value-added or the ability to easily insert it as something a reader would even desire.
Mihai Paunescu - Posted on March 07, 2011
"They also expressed concern over rising costs (designing for multiple screen layouts, video production, etc.) vs. the unknown circulation and advertising benefits on a new, untried platform."
I'm not an expert either but considering multimedia and interactivity just as some more work to be done by the editors it is not the best idea. The main area where it make sense to use multimedia and interactivity is advertising. This is not something that will complicate the publisher's life too much. He just receives a clip from the client and insert it. That clip was already produced for TV distribution and it is just complemented with a form where the reader can ask for additional info or some specific features for exploring the product/service features. That's not at all "unproven revenue model".
If you consider user comments as interactivity possible issues can be solved by filtering them. It is a proven method to deal with bad language and other unwanted interventions.
"They also expressed concern over rising costs (designing for multiple screen layouts, video production, etc.) vs. the unknown circulation and advertising benefits on a new, untried platform."
I'm not an expert either but considering multimedia and interactivity just as some more work to be done by the editors it is not the best idea. The main area where it make sense to use multimedia and interactivity is advertising. This is not something that will complicate the publisher's life too much. He just receives a clip from the client and insert it. That clip was already produced for TV distribution and it is just complemented with a form where the reader can ask for additional info or some specific features for exploring the product/service features. That's not at all "unproven revenue model".
If you consider user comments as interactivity possible issues can be solved by filtering them. It is a proven method to deal with bad language and other unwanted interventions.
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Greg Miller - Posted on April 11, 2011
I was inadvertantly associating the idea of "interactive" with value-added content. I would never consider advertsing value-added or the ability to easily insert it as something a reader would even desire.
I was inadvertantly associating the idea of "interactive" with value-added content. I would never consider advertsing value-added or the ability to easily insert it as something a reader would even desire.
Mihai Paunescu - Posted on March 07, 2011
"They also expressed concern over rising costs (designing for multiple screen layouts, video production, etc.) vs. the unknown circulation and advertising benefits on a new, untried platform."
I'm not an expert either but considering multimedia and interactivity just as some more work to be done by the editors it is not the best idea. The main area where it make sense to use multimedia and interactivity is advertising. This is not something that will complicate the publisher's life too much. He just receives a clip from the client and insert it. That clip was already produced for TV distribution and it is just complemented with a form where the reader can ask for additional info or some specific features for exploring the product/service features. That's not at all "unproven revenue model".
If you consider user comments as interactivity possible issues can be solved by filtering them. It is a proven method to deal with bad language and other unwanted interventions.
"They also expressed concern over rising costs (designing for multiple screen layouts, video production, etc.) vs. the unknown circulation and advertising benefits on a new, untried platform."
I'm not an expert either but considering multimedia and interactivity just as some more work to be done by the editors it is not the best idea. The main area where it make sense to use multimedia and interactivity is advertising. This is not something that will complicate the publisher's life too much. He just receives a clip from the client and insert it. That clip was already produced for TV distribution and it is just complemented with a form where the reader can ask for additional info or some specific features for exploring the product/service features. That's not at all "unproven revenue model".
If you consider user comments as interactivity possible issues can be solved by filtering them. It is a proven method to deal with bad language and other unwanted interventions.
