2004 Article on Digital Editions Reborn in 2008

A fair – though somewhat dated – article on digital editions bubbled up on E-Content today. Dated because while the author was relatively positive about the format, the questions asked were the types of questions more clever writers were asking a few years back. Let’s delve:

1. How many people actually read the digi-mags they get is another question. No, it really isn’t. The author goes on to look at e-mail open rates, but today’s digital magazines are accessed via many means, including e-mail, RSS, search engines, social media sites and – most importantly – publishing websites. Only Zinio’s delivery model has caused confusion with this issue, as they quote what their delivery rate is via the Zinio reader, while the rest of us discuss how many issues are actually being read.

2. I can only speculate that uneven performance like this reflects the different levels of support from the publishers in marketing the platform and the audiences’ uncertainty about the format. The first half of this sentence is entirely correct, but no more correct in digital magazines than in e-mail newsletters and RSS feeds. Marketing is critical. The statement about audiences uncertain about the format is so 2004, it’s not even funny today. Four years ago, audiences talked about the format of their media. But now – in a world where people are reading content on cellphones, smartphones and PS3’s, people have become platform agnostics. Give them the content they want – make it easy for them to find it – and they will consume it.

3. It filters information and presents it in a more scannable, digestible form than most websites. This filtering function may be one reason the digital magazine is enjoying a bump, if not a boom, in popularity. At Nxtbook, we’ve seen radical growth annually in readership and revenue for four years running. Every month, more than 1 million people read a Nxtbook and stay inside it longer than they do the average website. How does one define a "bump" or a "boom"?

4. In some cases, the take-up comes from surprising audiences. Nope. Take-up comes when you have great content and people can find it. Period.

5. Another new advantage of the format is that it can help get print material into the search ecosystem. This sentence is wrong from beginning to end. Those of us dedicated to the format have been doing this for years. At the same time, many many companies don’t. The "format" of a digital magazine doesn’t get your content indexed by Google – the technology you’re using decides that.

6. Publishers are starting to see ROI from digital magazines, but this is the kind of platform that will be leveraged in oblique ways that don’t always have a direct revenue stream. Go to the FOLIO website and view the archived webinar on digital edition revenue generation.

7. Ultimately, this platform will thrive when users are finally convinced that digitized print can solve problems of flexibility, portability, and personalization that they didn’t realize they had. Wrong. Those companies developing the right technology, when partnered with publishers that understand what the product is and what it does, will thrive. Users – on the other hand – will use products that behave like they want the Web to behave (search, permalinks, etc). Long-term they’ll except nothing less, but they also ask nothing more. In addition, the platform will also be enhanced by journalists realize it’s not 2004 anymore.