An ongoing conversation about what digital editions are and how should we use them.
There’s a discussion ongoing over at the FOLIO: mediaPRO forum directly comparing print and digital editions. It always frustrates me when publishers compare the two side by side with such a narrow focus as to miss the entire point of what a digital edition is.
Below is an excerpt from the mediaPRO discussion (registration is required I believe) which highlights the salient points of this issue.
Reply by Joseph Grassadonia on June 9, 2009 at 3:47pm
I would like to say, I do not believe print will ever be replaced by digital. We offer readers cutting edge information on fitness, nutrition and science and deliver it via print and digital. Readers have a choice to subscribe to our print and digital versions for the same yearly price. Up to now digital subscribers trickle in. That may change over time but right now most of our readers prefer printed versions. Our editorial is very specialized and readers prefer saving our printed product for their bookshelves to use as a re-source. In addition, we do a big business in back issue sales. When sold out the digital edition is there for readers to purchase. As for myself, I also prefer a printed version of any magazine because it’s more gentle on my eyes. I do believe the digital edition is a must companion with a printed edition. It would be foolish to throw out print. I do believe in order for a publisher to survive with print, they will need to dramatically increase its single copy sales and yearly subscription costs and rely less on advertising. At the end of the day, print survival will be all about talented editorial.
Reply by Pierre Bisaillon
Joseph,
I would certainly agree with your statement about print never being replaced by digital. But I would also urge you to look deeper into how you look at digital. It seems, and I can only make assumptions from your reply above, that you view it as a print replica alternative which has proven again and again to be missing the opportunities digital presents. You state that readers have a “choice” between print and digital and even that they are the same price which again implies a comparison that is strictly based on format.
How easy would it be to have additional related information that expands on each article in a printed copy? How easy would it be to present a video that more clearly explains how far down you can squat without injury in your print edition? How simple is to offer prospective subscribers a short preview of the magazine in print to entice them to subscribe? How easy is it to try new markets and print/mail an extra 4000 copies to see how many new subscribers you can gain? Do you know in real-time what articles are read the most or which advertisers get direct traffic that you can report back to them about?
Digital editions can do all these things at very little cost. Can you say the same for print?
My point is we need to start looking towards tomorrow at what a digital edition can be rather than looking towards yesterday and what is replaces. One supports the other and once publishers begin to understand what is possible, they can grow revenues by leveraging their digital editions as the vehicle that helps achieve an overall success.
It’s not a zero sum game!
What are you thoughts on the issue? I see many publishers who “get it” but is there something I’m missing about why some do not seem to “get it”?
I’d love to hear your comments on this.
Loading ...
