'Kindle Shame' Spurs Publishers to Action

Matt Kinsman — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:29:13 -0400

I recently heard of a fellow in Boston, a friend of a colleague, who was an early adopter of Amazon's Kindle e-reader [pictured]. When he first bought his Kindle, he was eager to show it off, frequently bringing it to coffee houses to bask in the glow of adulation from curious onlookers.

Then came the iPad.

This gentleman now does his Kindle reading in the privacy of his home, embarrassed to bring his relic out in public. He has what I call "Kindle Shame."

The iPad, like many Apple product introductions, has made lunatics out of many of us. It has also created an extraordinary opportunity for publishers, because the iPad widens the definition of eReader exponentially. People who couldn't justify the cost of a traditional eReader will pay more for an iPad because it's multi-purpose - it's not just an eReader, but for many users it also functions as a wi-fi-enabled laptop.

It also sets a new bar for publishers. In some ways it's a higher bar, because of its touchscreen interface. And in some ways, many would say, it's a lower bar because of Apple's unwillingness to support Flash-based publications.

Either way, the iPad has created a quandary for publishers, many of whom are desperate to get their content onto the iPad, and fast. Unless they are satisfied to present their content in a simple, non-Flash web based publication (only accessible where wi-fi is available), the iPad requires publishers to create a new iPad-specific digital format. And it also requires them to create an App.

At a high level, there are two options: create your own App (or outsource creation of one), or pursue a newsstand model. Creating your own App may require a higher up-front cost, but enables you to maintain control of your brand and leverage the popularity of the App Store and reach billions of potential global readers. This model is the most intuitive for readers who are looking for your content (they just search for Folio, for instance, at the App Store). Pursuing a newsstand model, where your publication is posted at an online newsstand and readers use that newsstand's App to access it, may lower your up-front costs, but in the long term you sacrifice control of your brand and potentially revenue due to exclusion of your title from the App store

Of course there are other variables to consider - too many to cover here. But please, whichever strategy you choose, make sure the process is repeatable. Many of the very first magazines available on the iPad were introduced with great fanfare and bells and whistles - but they were custom, one-time Apps. Except for the most cash-rich publishers (is that an oxymoron?), this is not a sustainable model. You don't want to have to start from scratch developing iPad Apps for every new edition of your publication. You wouldn't re-design every print edition from scratch, would you?

One other consideration as you evaluate your options: Ideally, the approach you select would be extendible to other eReader platforms as well, so you don't have to deal with multiple vendors. You might even consider creating a version for the Kindle, although much of that reading might take place in private these days.

Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

New Study: Digital Magazines Outperform Other Electronic Media With Ads, Readers

Matt Kinsman — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:53:14 -0500

Digital magazines may seem old hat to some but they compare favorably to other electronic media when it comes to advertising and reader experiences, according to a new survey called "The Case of Advertising in Interactive Digital Magazines," by Josh Gordon, founder of Smarter Media Sales.

The survey is based on 5,612 questionnaires taken from subscribers to the following digital magazines: Grand, HipCompass Escapes, HorseLink, Outside Go!, PopSci Genius Guide, Premier Guitar, VIVmag and Winding Road. Nxtbook Media and VIVmag (published by Zinio) sponsored the survey.

Readers Less Likely to Ignore Ads in Digital Editions?
According to the survey, 70 percent of the readers of the digital editions that participated in the study were less likely to ignore display ads in digital editions than on Web sites (30 percent said they were more likely to pay attention to display ads on Web sites).

While Web sites generate more impressions, digital editions tend to promote a longer user experience. Julian Lloyd Evans, managing director of advertising at Dennis Publishing (publisher of online magazine Monkey) told Gordon that on average, interactive magazines are viewed for 20 to 30 minutes while the average Web site visit is eight to nine minutes.

Seventy-one percent of respondents said ads on digital editions were less intrusive than Web sites (where reader action is often very goal-oriented) while 79 percent said ads in digital editions were more credible.

How would you compare your reaction to display ads in digital magazines with banner ads?

	Digital magazines	Web sites
Less intrusive:	71%	29%
Easier to read:	80%	20%
More authoritative:	78%	22%
More credible:	79%	21%
Invites involvement:	80%	20%
More trustworthy:	79%	21%
More fun:	82%	18%
More useful info:	81%	19%

The study also found that respondents found ads in digital magazines more helpful than ads in other electronic media. Ads in digital magazines were named the most interesting, followed by TV ads (mobile phone ads were ranked the least interesting).

Which forms of electronic advertising do you find helpful or interesting?

Ads in digital magazines: 63.2%
Television ads: 53.8%
Radio ads: 34.8%
E-mails: 22.4%
Ads in e-mail newsletters: 20.6%
Website banner ads: 16.4%
Website pop-up ads: 2.3%
Ads on mobile phone: 1.9%

Reader Experience
According to the survey, 82 percent of respondents say digital magazines were "more engaging" than Web sites with similar content (compared to 18 percent who chose the web sites). In terms of overall reading experience, readers chose digital magazines over Web sites (Gordon notes that in some areas, digital editions are perceived to offer more content than Web sites even though they typically offer less, and that readers of digital editions are more accepting of digital extras, like video and flash animation).

	Digital magazines	Web sites
Has more content:	55%	45%
More authoritative:	65%	35%
More trustworthy:	71%	29%
Easier to read:	73%	27%
Better organized:	78%	22%
More focused experience:	80%	20%
Look forward to it more:	83%	17%
More visually appealing:	83%	17%
More fun to read:	85%	15%

The Role of Digital Extras
When it comes to reading the digital edition, digital "extras" can often spark interest in an article the reader may have otherwise ignored. About one in five respondents said they play the digital extra before moving on to another article, while 28.1 percent said they will read a bit of the article and then play the digital extra before moving on to the next article. Forty-four percent of respondents said digital extras give articles they had no interest in a second chance to be read.

Which of the following "digital extras" have enhanced your reading experience of digital magazines the most?

Videos: 75%
Extra Photos: 58%
Slide shows: 37.4%
Audio: 35.7%
Flash animation: 30.6%

Folio RSS: Feed sponsored exclusively by NXTbook Media - offering RSS feeds for Digital Editions Call 866-268-1219 for more information.

FOLIO: Section Blogs by Digital Editions

'Kindle Shame' Spurs Publishers to Action

New Study: Digital Magazines Outperform Other Electronic Media With Ads, Readers