Greed and stupidity

That's all I could think of while reading MediaPost's account of a pushback by iPad users who feel gouged by magazine publishers. The problem's that the wonderful magazine apps -- which are supposed to save magazines -- cost $4.99 an issue. As one user said, " I can get 56 issues of the paper version for $20. How am I supposed to feel about this?” If the iPad is the future of magazines, then poor management better be in the past.

By the way, cost of product is what's keeping me from buying a Kindle. With a public library right down the street and paperbacks going for $5-6 (cheaper used), why would I pay $14.99 a book? I'm going to be spending a month overseas and have been buying 30 used paperbacks to take at a total cost of not more than $60. The Kindle price would be nearly $450 for 30 books. Doesn't make sense to me.

The filterless presidency?

The daily Gawker suggests that Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are making the White House press corps obsolete, suggesting a future where "the filterless presidency" is a reality. Not that long ago, a television show called "Who Do You Trust?" was popular. Given the fact-free zones that cable television networks have become and the incredibly ignorant stuff that fills Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, I'm ready to bring it back.

British newspaper websites offer a laboratory

As paywalls rise and fall, Britain is becoming the new media laboratory.

The Times of London (a storied newspaper now owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) plans to erect a fairly expensive paywall in June. Online readers will be asked to pay about $2 a week. Meanwhile a Scots paper, the Southern Reporter, is abandoning its pay wall.

Given that newspaper readership is healthy in Britain and that the BBC website and the Guardian, which intends to continue free access, offers solid journalistic alternatives, it will be interesting to watch. And journalism itself has a stake in the outcome.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times

It's Monday, time for some depressing news. Actually, it's both buoyant and depressing. The Los Angeles Times reports, at a time when magazines are optimistic since the new iPad seems perfect for magazines and the industry appears to be tailoring its product to the new platform, that journalistic standards are lower than ever in the magazine business.

Reporting on a survey of magazine publishers, the Times says that "about half of the respondents said that copy-editing standards for their websites were looser than for their print editions. An additional 11% said that online content wasn't copy-edited at all. The numbers for fact checking were even more troubling: 40% said that web standards were looser than print, and 17% said that they did no fact checking whatsoever online."

The report, by Victor Navasky of Columbia University and Evan Lerner of ScienceBlogs.com, then gets into a "speed versus accuracy" discussion, which I think is the crux. If a magazine expects me to pay (and they do), they'd better give me accuracy. I don't pay $60 a year for the New Yorker (as I do) for speed; I pay it for accuracy. I'm not going to pay a lesser amount for inaccurate stories online -- I can find enough of them for free.

Digital magazines redefined

Wonder about what makes up a digital magazine these days? The Audit Bureau of Circulations has changed its definition with the iPad, Kindle, etc. in mind, according to MediaWeek. The auditing group has dropped its demand that digital magazine be identical to the print version, merely that it include the same content and advertising.

Ready for some good media news?

Certain segments of the magazine industry -- yes, old media -- are doing very well. Think "nature, sustainability, throw pillows and Miley Cyrus." According to the Standard Periodical Directory, the past few years have seen a big jump in titles from home decorating, energy, conservation and celebrities. Leading the way was the home decorating area with a jump from 123 titles in 2005 to 337 titles in 2010. Leading the slump in titles was "sex-related titles."

Milwaukee Magazine offers an aggrated local news site

Very interesting move by Milwaukee Magazine to launch an updated daily local news site that editor Bruce Murphy says will be "in the magazine's long tradition of smart, fun, fearless journalism." And, he says, "we expect to have fun." The site, milwaukeenewsbuzz.com, "will conveniently combine the top stories of the day, aggregating articles from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee Business Journal, Wisconsin State Journal, Daily Reporter and many other publications. Plus, a daily column sums up coverage of the day's biggest story, what it means and why it's important." It will be fun to see if it can keep up its energy. I hope so. Competition at a professional level may drive out some of the phoniness that keeps being repeated on the Internet. But it takes a lot of staff to keep up, and, frankly, I don't see much change tonight when I checked the site again.

New survey kicks up a lot of dust

Pew's annual "state of the media" report has prompted hand wringing of all sorts. Gawker (as part of a nice summary of the report complete with a couple of the better charts) says the future is: " Facebook wall rants, celebrity tweets, Glenn Beck and the blogs that talk about these things. But it's all freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" Fishbowl focuses on the disparity between revenues lost old media and the pittance (less than a tenth as much) being spent on new media to imply that news is dying or dead. And the Associated Press highlights a finding that people don't want to pay for news.

My only quibble is that surveys such as this are a slice of what's happening now, not what will happen in the future if the variables change. For example, AP always has the same stuff as People magazine, and it's reported all over the country (also on at least three television shows). But, somehow, the magazine manages to get readers to pay for it. Completeness, convenience and coverage will control the future, delivery systems be damned.

Staying relevant

Blogger and long-time journalist Renay San Miguel offers a rambling but interesting look at what he calls "old new media dogs," older journalists retraining themselves. It offers some gems of insight into how journalism is changing over the years, and how we can keep ourselves relevant. There's a lesson here for students as well. Keep yourselves relevant, and don't lock yourselves into any media idea -- except to always remember that it's about telling stories.

Has social media turned life into a worldwide living room?

Time magazine has an interesting take on new media by . Calling the Internet our "new living room," he maintains that social media can offer sort of a multiplier effect for viewership of big network TV events. After pointing out the high ratings for the Oscar telecast and the Super Bowl, he calls on television -- and print -- to recognize that we are using social media in a different way. He doesn't offer specific suggestions as to how to do that (and several come to mind just sitting here), but suggests that old media needs to recognize the potential. As he suggests, they need to "pull up a chair" in this worldwide living room.

Atlantic executives talk about new design and the future

The Atlantic redesigned its web site for the second time in two years, and a couple of its executives talked about pay walls, redesigns and platforms. It's informative, especially to those interested in magazines.

Digital ads pass those in print

According to Forbes, the day has arrived when American advertisers are spending more on digital media than on print.

The study by Outsell finds nearly a 10% increase in ad spending on digital media pushed it past print. However, print magazines continued to increase advertising (roughly 2%), and mobile advertising seems almost dead, off 16%. A reality check by Outsell's Chuck Richard: "The Sports Illustrated swimsuit iPhone app was touted by many as a huge success. The issue is the most hyped magazine event of the year. The app was the 33rd-highest-grossing mobile app in the iPhone store. But if you do the simple math, 32,000 people paid $2 apiece to download it. That's $64,000." A single page of advertising in the print version of the swimsuit edition, says Richard, brings in about $135,000 a page. "It's time for a reality check."