According to people who understand the marketing market, the decline in print ad spending in the U.S. is expected to fall $33.8 billion this year while the amount of money funneled into online advertising is expected to seesaw upwards to $39.5 billion. Online adverting spending already grew 23% in 2011 and this year’s speculation would see an additional growth of 23.3%. Actually, barring any paper robot revolution, print ads are looking to remain static from here on out.

If bar graphs aren’t your thing, eMarketer explains:

“Advertisers’ comfort level with integrated marketing is greater than ever, and this is helping more advertisers—and more large brands—put a greater share of dollars online,” said David Hallerman, eMarketer principal analyst.

The growing amount of time consumers spend with digital platforms and advertisers’ view of the internet as a more measurable medium—especially as the soft economy forces businesses to be more accountable with their ad dollars—are both significant contributors to digital’s growing footprint, Hallerman added.

TV advertising spending, however, forecasts sunnier skies if you’re looking to sell some ads. eMarketer estimates that spending on TV advertising is expected to grow 6.8% this year and will continue to generate growth over the next few years.

One reason eMarketer states that TV advertising will continue to grow is “a result of the rapid rise of digital advertising and brands’ continued confidence in television advertising, despite increasingly fragmented viewership and the soft economy.” Duh. The television market will always be a fertile ground to plant ads because people will never stop watching television. Hasn’t anybody ever seen Wall-E?

Well, probably not. But it is a significant statistic.

Last July, Kindle sales overtook hardcovers on Amazon. When that was reported, Amazon sold 180 Kindle books for every 100 hardcovers on Amazon.com. That differential is undoubtedly much greater today.

In January of this year, Amazon reported that Kindle books had overtaken the sale of paperbacks. When that was reported, Amazon was selling 115 Kindle books for every paperback.

And today, Amazon is reporting a great milestone for digital content – Kindle books are now outselling hardcovers and paperbacks combined. The Kindle was launched in November of 2007, so that means this feat only took 3 1/2 years to achieve. For every 100 print books Amazon sells, they now sell 105 Kindle books.

Now, of course the “outselling” is based on number of units, not revenue. 790,000 of the 950,000 Kindle books available are $9.99 or less. Paperbacks and Hardcovers usually sell for more, anywhere from $10 to $17 in most circumstances. Amazon also notes that the 105 to 100 Kindle to Print ratio does not include free Kindle books – which would spike it up considerably.

“Customers are now choosing Kindle books more often than print books. We had high hopes that this would happen eventually, but we never imagined it would happen this quickly – we’ve been selling print books for 15 years and Kindle books for less than four years,” said Jeff Bezos, Founder and CEO, Amazon.com.”

Here are some more statistics concerning the Kindle:

• Only 5 weeks old, their ad-supported “Kindle with Special Offers” is already the bestselling member of the Kindle family.  It retails for $25 less than the regular Kindle
• Amazon has sold three times as many Kindle books in 2011 than it did in the same period in 2010
• Amazon.co.uk is selling Kindle books and hardcover books at a near 2 to 1 ratio
• In the last 5 months, over 175,000 books have been added to the Kindle store.

Should we look at this as any sort of signal concerning the state of print books and bricks and mortar bookstores? Possibly. It is non-debatable that e-books continue to increase in popularity. And very few would argue against the upside of e-readers. I mean, they basically are one pound libraries.

But print books aren’t exactly dying. Along with this release about the Kindle, Amazon also says that hardcover sales have grown as well. For many people, like this writer, the tactile nature of a print book is something with which I could never part. And the collection factor – having a physical personal library is also something that many people cherish.

And for the bookstore question, it is true that large bookstore chains have faltered as of late. A few months ago Borders announced it was filing for bankruptcy. Popular stores under the Joseph-Beth and Davis-Kidd names have also closed recently. The growth of online book retailers, with their ease of use and most of the time cheaper selections have definitely moved in on the territory of bigger booksellers.

But this has allowed for many small booksellers to flourish. They have been able to create a niche for book lovers with a combination of nostalgia and customer interaction. Small shops can specialize simply in books and can survive and even prosper due to low overheads. Big box stores have tried to do too much, both with size and variety of merchandise, according to some.

Hopefully, this announcement from Amazon signals a boost in reading in general, as opposed to some seismic shift in the book-buying landscape. Kindle and print can both survive and be vital to the growth of the book-reading population and both play a key part in the world staying smart and in turn not sucking.

In this case, the mechanical typewriter may have begun its walk down the green mile while the electronic autograph looks like it is set to become the norm for e-readers and tablets everywhere.

Goodbye, Typewriter?

The Business Standard reports that the world’s last typewriter manufacturer has ceased production of typewriters, and only has 500 left for sale.

Godrej & Boyce was a symbol for the new  India in the 1950s.  When they opened their factories, India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said that their typewriters were a “symbol of independent and industrialized India.”  Now it has phased out the production of these symbols of communication and progress:

“We stopped production in 2009 and were the last company in the world to manufacture office typewriters. Currently, the company has only 500 machines left. The machines are of Godrej Prima, the last typewriter brand from our company, and will be sold at a maximum retail price of Rs 12,000,” said Milind Dukle, general manager-operations, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company.

Is this truly the death of the typewriter, a device that has so much romanticism stuffed into it?  In America, we think Hemingway, sweaty and focused, cigarette dangling from his lips – pecking out genius, one keystroke at a time.  We think Edward Murrow just before air time, working up his final script on Joe McCarthy.  Chink Chink…pull…Ding!

Not so fast, say some.  They say the typewriter is alive and well, just slightly less visible.  From Minyanville:

However, as ubiquitous as iPads (and, to a lesser extent, Xooms and PlayBooks) may be, the typewriter is “far from dead,” Ed Michael, General Manager of Sales at Moonachie, NJ-based Swintec, tells us. And he adds Godrei and Boyce is far from the last company in the world making the machines.

“We have manufacturers making typewriters for us in China, Japan, Indonesia,” Michael says.

Swintec, in fact, mostly makes typewriters for prisons.  They have contracts with facilities in 43 states.  Many of the typewriters they make are clear to prevent the smuggling of contraband.

So are typewriters dead? Or are they alive and well?  It looks like the answer depends on what you think of when you think “typewriter.”

If you browse the line of Swintec typewriters on their website, you’ll find that all of their products are electronic typewriters.  As antique enthusiasts would tell you, there is a big difference between electronic typewriters and mechanical typewriters.  And in the case of Godrej & Boyce, any mechanical typewriter maker that ceases production is a step in the direction to losing this part of history.

So, I guess the answer to the question “Are typewriters dead?” is no, but possibly dying.  But don’t fret hipsters, you will still be able to find plenty of used typewriters to put in your empty, hardwood-floored room.  Silver threads of sunlight will still pierce smoke-stained curtains to illuminate your Kerouac-ian fantasy.

Out with the old, in with the new!

It appears as though the Nook Color will be integrating software that will allow authors to digitally sign ebooks.

The software is called Autography, and will replace the pen with the stylus.  The first demonstration of the new technology is set for May 2nd.  From Goodereader:

Barnes and Noble will be offering select signings at their various book store locations to get authors to sign digital copies, as well as print. The first author to usher in this new policy is Sandra Boynton. “The Going to Bed Book” is scheduled for Barnes & Noble’s Upper East Side store in New York City (7 p.m. on Monday, May 2).

Yesterday, Nook Color announced a new upgrade that made the e-reader more tablet-like.  The new updates added many new apps, an email client and the latest Android Froyo OS to the e-reader.

Check out a video demo of Autography:

I may be accused of being a sentimentalist, but sometimes the passing of a torch is simply beautiful. 

Lots of people (and publications) seem to be under the impression that the iPad is just what the print industry needs to offset declines in revenue. Sorry, I’m still not convinced. That’s not to say they won’t sell some tablet issues, but the fundamental problem is still there. People don’t want to pay for content, and as long as they can still access the web (from the same device no less), people are going to find plenty of free content to suffice. 

I’d go so far as to say,  a lot of people will find the tablet versions of publications less appealing, particularly if prices remain comparable to print versions (which so far, they pretty much have). Why not just buy the print version if you’re going to fork out $5 for the issue? 

Granted, app-based issues can do more. They can be more interactive and provide video and rich content (and ads). Still, users can get such experiences from the web one way or another. 

Another potential obstacle is how this will work across platforms. Apple’s rumored store would be one thing, but publications are going to have to create versions that are compatible with Android and other platforms for every issue – probably a great deal more time consuming and resource-using than a single app, at least if enough is going to be put into these issues to make them stand out from the print versions (i.e. that rich content). 

The biggest obstacle is that few people in the grand scheme of things own an iPad. Yes, they’ve sold well, but it’s not like the cell phone. Not everyone in the room has one. The apps will never sell like the print versions for this very reason. You don’t need any device to pick up a magazine or newspaper and read it. 

Tablet use will grow greatly. There’s no doubt about that, but as phones continue to get smarter, I don’t know that tablets will ever reach the cell phone or PC level of usage.

Now, I can see giving complimentary access to iPad content for subscribers of the print version. Or vice versa. Probably still not the answer, but it would be a nice touch (some already offer the app access to subscribers). 

Rosenberg says, "Links have become an essential part of how I write, and also part of how I read. Given a choice between reading something on paper and reading it online, I much prefer reading online: I can follow up on an article’s links to explore source material, gain a deeper understanding of a complex point, or just look up some term of art with which I’m unfamiliar."

With print, you can’t do these things. You can take the exact same article in a print publication and its online counterpart, add some links to the online version, and automatically increase the value of the piece exponentially (from the reader’s perspective). Believe it or not, readers like content that is useful to them.

Now, that’s not to say that automatically adding any links increases the value. They have to be useful links that do the things Rosenberg described. Linking to past happenings related to a story, giving background, increases value. Some will argue that the links are a distraction (this is more the point of Rosenberg’s article – he argues for links as opposed to no links in web content), just ask yourself how many times you’ve clicked on links within a web article to get more information.

The links provide a means for increasing the reader’s knowledge, and doing so in a way that doesn’t force the reader to read about a bunch of stuff they already know, if they’re familiar with the background of a story. Links save time in an era where time has never been more valuable.

Links are also one reason why app-based publications could replace print publications in many readers’ hands. While I still feel like the paywalls associated with such publications are a larger obstacle (considering so much free content is available just a click/tap away), the apps do have the capability of adding the interactive element for readers, which can make the reading experience more appealing, and the articles themselves more valuable.

I don’t think print will completely die, because there will always be people that simply like to "have" the publication physically. They want to hold a newspaper over breakfast or collect back issues of a magazine that they hold dear. Some like having their own personal libraries.

However, people like convenience and valuable content, and print just can’t deliver either in the way online content can, whether it be in app form or simply from the web.

Thoughts?

As Adobe notes, WIRED launched its digital edition earlier this year and sold more issues than the newsstand version without cannibalizing print sales). That was created with Adobe’s InDesign CS5, along with some other technologies, which the company said today will be available on Adobe Labs later this summer. This means more publishers will be able to use them and create their own digital magazines.

Adobe refers to the set of technologies as The Adobe Digital Magazine Workflow.

"Using this Digital Magazine Solution, these publishers can create immersive content without having to hire additional developers or invest in extensive retraining for staff," says Adobe’s Dave Dickson. "Publishers can add interactivity without writing code via InDesign and create monetizable digital magazines for the Apple iPad – with other platforms and devices expected in the future."

Adobe says it will be posting the publishing technologies involved in the magazine workflow, including the tools for adding advanced interactivity and bundling content, on Adobe Labs in late summer. This will come with the appropriate documentation.

However, despite the significant drop in new titles launched, there have also been a great deal less to die. Only 87 magazines went under during the first half of this year, compared to 279 in the first half of 2009. Additionally, 16 print magazines converted to online-only formats, compared to 43 in 2009.

"More magazine titles would have ceased publication but fortunately were acquired and continued publication," says Trish Hagood, President of MediaFinder publisher Oxbridge Communications. "Smaller companies took advantage of the opportunity to buy magazines from Reed Business Information and Nielsen Business Media, who were struggling to divest themselves quickly of many b-to-b titles."

The food category led new magazine launches with 10, while the home category led shutdowns, losing 10 titles. However, the home category also gained 5.

In the B2B space, 35 titles were lost, while 17 were launched. Hat tip to AdAge for pointing to MediaFinder’s release.

Companies will spend $119.6 billion on online and digital strategies, from search engine keywords to webinars, while committing $111.5 billion to print such as newspapers and magazine ads. Overall, U.S. spending on advertising and marketing will increase in 2010, but only by 1.2 percent to $368 billion.

Outsell forecasts spending, share, and growth for five media categories including online, events, print, TV/radio and PR/other.

"Advertisers are directing dollars toward the channels which generate the most qualified leads and most effective branding," said Chuck Richard, Vice President and Lead Analyst, Outsell.

"As they emerge from the recession, they need more accountability, and they’re spreading their spending over a widening set of options."

Print magazine advertising will be up 1.9 percent to $9.4 billion even with the popularity of online channels.

Other key findings include:

*51 percent if B2B marketers rate Facebook as extremely or somewhat effective, followed by LinkedIn (45%), Twitter (35%) and MySpace (25%).

*B2B advertisers see cross-media marketing as most effective; 78% combine three or more major marketing methods.

*Methods creating the highest B2B ROI are topped by advertisers’ own websites, followed by conferences, exhibitions and trade shows: direct mail; search engine keywords; and e-marketing/e-newsletters. 
 

Methods and systems for segmenting printed media pages into individual articles quickly and efficiently. A printed media based image that may include a variety of columns, headlines, images, and text is input into the system which comprises a block segmenter and a article segmenter system. The block segmenter identifies and produces blocks of textual content from a printed media image while the article segmenter system determines which blocks of textual content belong to one or more articles in the printed media image based on a classifier algorithm. A method for segmenting printed media pages into individual articles is also presented.

An archived newspaper page in Google News (content not separated)

A hat tip goes to Erik Sherman writing for Bnet, who says, "Although this could allow Google to convert stacks of periodicals into electronic archives, it potentially sends the company headlong into conflict with a famous Supreme Court ruling on media law."

"There’s just one legal problem: New York Times Co. , et. al. v. Jonathan Tasini et. al. Usually called the Tasini case, freelance writers sued the New York Times and other print publications for licensing individual articles to database companies without permission from the writers, who retained the copyright on the articles," he explains. "One of the main turning points was that the publishers had explicit permission only to include the articles in the print publication. However, copyright law did not allow the publishers to break their publications up and make the articles accessible to readers out of the original context."

He goes on to note that Google could go back far enough into old print archives before rights were such an issue, and would be dealing with freelance writers who mostly didn’t copyright their articles. The technology could certainly be used in any future partnerships the company could make with print publishers, should the publications ever wish to go that route.

What do you make of the patent? You can read the entire patent application here, in patent application-speak.

The model will allow users to access a certain number of articles free each month. After the set viewing threshold, users will be required to pay. Print subscribers will have free access online. Says the Times:

This will enable NYTimes.com to create a second revenue stream and preserve its robust advertising business. It will also provide the necessary flexibility to keep an appropriate ratio between free and paid content and stay connected to a search-driven Web.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., chairman and publisher of the New York Times, said, “Our audiences are very loyal and we believe that our readers will pay for our award-winning digital content and services.” According to Nielsen Online, the Times is the #1 newspaper site in the world, so they may just have enough support to do this.

Romenesko also has posted a memo to the Times staff on the upcoming change (via). In the memo, Sulzberger acknowledges that this move will be lauded by some and criticized by others, just as the management debated it. Ultimately, he says, this move will be judged by its implementation, which is why they’re giving themselves so long to run up to the process. In the meantime, they will also work on improving the site, its users’ experience and its stickiness.

Sulzberger explains their reasoning behind this pay model choice, echoing some of the press release wording:

We also selected the metered model because it offers a number of important virtues from a financial and growth perspective. It allows NYTimes.com to remain a vibrant part of the search-driven Web, which has proven to be an integral reason for why we have become an industry leader in display advertising. This flexibility enables us to create a proper ratio between free and paid content and to aggressively build on our very successful digital advertising business.

He also says the Times will not join a consortium.

I’m glad they’ll keep some of their content free—I’m hoping that such features as their blogs will remain free without counting toward the article limit. The Times is a valuable, venerated resource.

But personally, I won’t be paying for a subscription, or using the site enough to incur use fees the vast majority of the time. Will you?

Comments