Not many newsrooms have the wherewithal to produce their own “Snow Fall,” and that, some say, dooms the NYT’s experiment to becoming a mere blip in the history of periodical web design. But it’s not all about per-article cost-effectiveness. The ambition that drives these efforts is exactly what the publishing business needs.
As I write these words, my fiancée and I are just a few weeks away from our wedding day. We’ve been planning the big event for months now, dutifully pushing through a thicket of caterers, photographers, bands, and too many other vendors to mention. And while we’ve been making the rounds online to pore over reviews and double-check details, advertisers have been triangulating our movements.
Last month, a U.S. District Court handed down a decision that’s pretty awful if you care about consumer rights and digital content.
The word “real” gets tossed around a lot when people compare physical objects and digital ones. That’s fine for casual conversation, but when publishers use that kind of sloppy language it reveals serious flaws in how they think about their products and businesses.
Tools that give users ever more control over formatting, timeshifting, and sharing will continue to proliferate. This steady growth runs directly counter to the simple, one-to-many broadcast model enjoyed by many publishers in the past.