It won't be long before buying a copy of the Economist at your local newsagent could become as niche an activity as buying a vinyl LP. Instead of leisurely flicking through a magazine on the sofa with a cup of tea, you will read it on the Web, download it on to a piece of e-paper or simply publish it yourself.
According to David Renard, author of The Last Magazine, in the next 25 years, only 10 percent of the European and US paper-based magazine industry will remain, kept alive by "connoisseurs, aficionados and ageing Luddites."
The rest of us will embrace the publishing revolution. Instead of nipping to the newsagent, you will download the day's news, sport or business pages from a vending machine and read it on a piece of e-paper. And when you finish, you'll put the e-paper in your briefcase and update the content the next day.
E-paper is already available: Sony introduced its e-book device last year, but Japanese company Fujitsu will launch what it claims is the first color e-paper next year. According to Mike Nelson, Fujitsu's European general manager, e-paper is "exceptionally useful."
"It looks like color newsprint, it is tough, flexible, very thin and you could change the image on it every two seconds for a year using a triple-A battery," he said.
But will it replace traditional printed products?
"Well you can't fold it," Nelson admitted. "But we're not looking at tabloid or broadsheet size we're looking at something smaller. I think it will offer an alternative to newspapers."
"People already read newspapers and magazines online but it's not very convenient when you're on the move, so you can download what you want on to e-paper, take it with you and update it when you want," he said.
Fujitsu also believes that e-paper offers advertisers greater flexibility.
"Instead of sending a man up a ladder with a bucket of paste to stick up a poster, you can change an advertising message electronically," Nelson said.
The company, like other electronics firms, is also investing heavily in steganography. This involves embedding data in a photograph which can then be decoded using a camera phone.
"You can embed a barcode, phone number or URL [uniform resource locator] into a poster or an ad. You can't see it, but if you point a camera phone or PDA [personal digital assistant] at the image then it decodes it so you can download the information," Nelson explained.
The technology is already being used in Japan where members of a music club get flyers containing reviews.
"If you're interested in the review then you use your phone to click on the embedded data and a music clip is then played on your mobile," he said.
Nelson claimed it will also help advertisers identify if a campaign is working. If people aren't clicking on your ad with their mobiles then you can simply change the campaign.
New technology will not only have an impact on distribution, but also on content, according to Ian Eckert, director of digital development at CMPi, part of United Business Media.
"Publishers have to accept that the world has changed," he said. "Web 2.0 isn't about pushing out information to your audience -- it's participatory and inclusive like MySpace or YouTube. The audience and the content is blurred and that's a real challenge. In the past, participation meant a letters page or a feedback slot, but that's essentially one-way traffic. Now, it's two-way traffic where people can gather around a brand 365 days a year."
VNU is another publisher attempting to get closer to its audience. It now runs live online, interactive video seminars so that audiences can take part in industry events without leaving their desks.
But for some audiences, it's not just about taking part, it's about taking over.
"Traditional publishing is already coexisting with the revolutionary phenomenon of social publishing, where people cluster together to create their own content," said Tamar Kasriel, head of knowledge venturing at forecasting company, the Henley Center.
"The media giants are taking it very seriously, which is why Google announced that it will share advertising revenue with the users of YouTube," she said.
The role of publishers will change, Eckert added.
"I don't think we will get rid of journalists, but there will be less pontification from on high and more conversation," he said. "Our role is to shift what's important. I don't think everyone can become a publisher because individuals would find it very hard to do."
Dominic Williams, managing director of digital publishing technology firm, System 7, goes further. Social publishing, he said, will be huge.
"It addresses all niches out there: professional, hobby, social and political," he said.
"I think it's very likely that social publishing will replace trade publishing altogether. For example, if you are a tax consultant, you can create content and a guide to tax. If people like it they can vote for it and it will get noticed out there," Williams said.
He agreed social publishing will pose threats but believes it is also an opportunity for traditional publishers.
"It allows audience and content publishers to meet each other to share and talk. It's a big opportunity if you're building a brand and can get an audience to seed that publication," he said.
He cites Imagine FX, an online fantasy art magazine which System 7 helped to develop. By opening an online gallery and inviting people to post their own work, the site and the magazine gained 3 million page impressions in three weeks.
"If publishers have a deeper relationship with the community they are serving, they will get more traffic and more advertising revenue," Williams said.
Publishers engaging with social publishing can also look forward to a different model when it comes to remunerating the creators of their content.
"Journalists will [increasingly] become freelance, but they will get a share of the advertising revenue if their stuff is read and will make a lot of money if they are at the top of the rankings," he said.
"Social publishing might mean that there's a lot of rubbish written, but author ranking technology can judge which is the highest quality content, so the best rises to the top," he said.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS