Advertisement
 
Principal, Byte Media Strategies

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.

 

Publishers' Dojo

Linda Ruth
Women Weave the Web
Apr 8, 2014

World Pulse sees Women Weave the Web as an opportunity to help women transform the world by giving them access...



Publisher's Paradox

Andrew Davis
Publisher's Paradox: Leveraging Email to Inspire Action
Apr 7, 2014

Instead of sending your audience passive content, send your audience something they can take action on. If you read last...



Media Vent

Bob Sacks
It's Not All Good News for Magazine Publishers
Apr 1, 2014

Sometimes I just have to put the tequila aside and deliver a sobering report to the industry to offset some...



Industry Insiders

The Insiders
Publishers: Take a Lesson from the Louvre
Mar 21, 2014

Today, few premium publishers can compete with the rest of the Internet. But being the most trusted source of news and...



Pub Talk

Denis Wilson
February Issue of Publishing Executive Out Now
Feb 17, 2014

Last week another action-packed issue of Publishing Executive hit subscribers' inboxes. In case you missed it, check out the digital...



B2B Beat

Andy Kowl
What Bloggers Can Teach B2B
Jan 23, 2014

Blogs were pronounced dead in Fast Company in December of 2012 and in New Republic in April of 2013. And just before the New...



The Digital Market

Thea Selby
A Critique Of Yahoo's Digital Magazine Strategy
Jan 14, 2014

Small Business Trends writer Shawn Hessinger and I have a completely different view of the news that Yahoo was starting...



Profit from Publishing!

Thaddeus B. Kubis
Media Conference Exhibitors Should Go Deeper to Engage
Oct 9, 2013

It has been a few weeks since I attended (as the guest of the event organizer) the Publishing Business Conference...



What Is “Interactive” Anyway? (Part 2)

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.


Companies Mentioned:

Sections:

2

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
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.
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.

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.
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.