TalkingNewMedia reaches the age of three (it still can't walk, but it sure can talk)

It is TNM's birthday today, did you know that? On this day in 2010 the first "official" post appeared on this website, and if your memory fails you and you do not recall what that first post was about don't worry about it, I believe only a handful of web readers ever saw that first story.

That first post on January 4, 2010 talked about the iSlate tablet. You remember the iSlate, don't you? The iSlate was yet another example of rumor-journalism, the art of repeating rumors on tech websites in order to attract clicks. I linked to the NYT report on the rumored Apple tablet, as well as Ken Doctor's post. Doctor read it and posted a commented here, he hasn't been back as far as I can tell.

Just like a new born baby, the real first day of life for TNM came earlier and was, for the most part, unseen by readers – there were test posts that appeared on the website as far back as December 3, 2009. The first test post, which can still be seen here, talked about the conceptual video created by Time Inc. on what a tablet edition of Sports Illustrated would possibly look like.  A week later I wrote about the shuttering of Editor & Publisher by its owner, Nielsen.

In three years TNM readership has grown, but has never broken through to consumer website levels. In 2010 this site had just under 15,000 readers, in 2011 it doubled to just over 30,000. Last year TNM was read by around 50,000 digital media professionals. (How do I know they were all digital media professionals? Because no one ever complained about all the typos on this site. Only a digital media pro would forgive my sloppiness so easily.)

In B2B terms, I'm pretty happy with the number of readers accessing TNM daily. As of today around 50 percent of all TNM readers come from outside the U.S. But if this were a consumer website the numbers would be considered insignificant. Last week, for instance, The Next Web linked back to TNM and drove quite a number of readers here. But few if any of those readers are TNM's target audience and probably none will ever return. That's not the way B2B works: one writes for a select audience and hopes you become a trusted source of news, information and opinion.

At least twice in the past two years I've shut down TNM. I never anticipated continuing to publish this site assuming that at some point I would return to being a publisher at yet another struggling publishing company – that is what I've been doing since 1981. I'd still listen to offers, by the way, but the industry is in no better shape today than it was when this site was launched.

So on to Year Four for TNM.

One change I look to make is to launch a page where industry companies can get information on advertising here. For now TNM only accepts ad network space, but they are often ads that make no sense for the readership. We see that on lots of sites including Jim Romenesko's site. I bet it is as frustrating for him as it is me.

So if your company is interested in advertising here just contact me and I will supply the necessary information, otherwise look for the new page to launch by the end of next week.

In the meantime, thank you for reading TNM these past three years!

Forbes Magazine uses MAZ to dress up their replica edition to appear as native as possible

One would not exactly use the term "progressive" when describing either Steve Forbes or the magazine that bears his name. So one shouldn't expect too much from the late-to-game tablet edition released for the conservative magazine.

Forbes Magazine, the new iPad edition, was built using MAZ, the NYC start-up that says it wants to help publishers create native apps but requires a PDF to do it. It is an odd and lazy digital publishing solution that is one step up from a digital flipbook.

To make it appear as native as possible the idea is to add links and multimedia material so that the bells and whistles will mask the replica edition below it. In other words, the production team needs to work hard to produce something that is a replica but doesn't appear that way to the reader. One would think that the alternative approach would be to put all that effort into creating a truly native tablet edition. To each his own, I guess.

The new app offers the latest issue free of charge to let the readers sample the magazine. Single issues are priced at $5.99, while a 1-month subscription is $2.99 and an annual subscription is $29.99.

The preview issue downloads quickly because what you get here is basically a PDF with links. There is plenty of video content to be found in this preview issue, but the links take you to a new window powered by YouTube. It isn't a bad solution, mind you – after all, this solution cuts down significantly the amount of time needed to download the issues. Of course an Internet connection would be needed to access the video content, but that is a common compromise.

No, the problem with the digital edition of Forbes is the problem with all replicas: readability. This digital magazine was designed to be read in print, at print magazine size, with print magazine sized fonts.

The trouble starts right on page two with the 2-page ad spread that can't be seen in portrait. Turning your iPad to landscape to see the ad properly works until you swipe to the next page and encounter part of the TOC on the left and another ad on the right. One must again turn their iPad in order to have a chance at reading any of it.

MAZ's digital magazine solution offers some cute features like the way links become visible – one taps and holds your finger to screen and the links materialize. But the app also has some annoying bugs, as well. For instance, I could not get past the instruction animation. I tapped and swiped and it would not disappear. Closing out the app completely solved the issue, but in the meantime I was frozen.

I guess I would call Forbes's approach austerity in action: don't spend much money, work hard, make money for the owners, and hope the readers don't revolt. A bit like the way the euro crisis in Greece is being handled, I suppose.
Left: the store page where the latest issue is available for free; Middle: the instructions page which I initially could not escape; Right: the problem with replica editions becomes all too obvious when confronted with a text heavy page. And what are those page folios doing in a digital edition?

Morning Brief: So far, so good for Andrew Sullivan's new indy venture; Next Issue releases update to its iPad app

Tucked away inside The Daily Beast Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish, was something to be commented on only occasionally. But now that Sullivan has announced his return to independence, the journalism community appears to be cheering him on.

Charging readers $19.99, Sullivan has been able to already raise an incredible amount of money, over $300,000 so far, Sullivan claims.

“We felt more and more that getting readers to pay a small amount for content was the only truly solid future for online journalism,” Sullivan wrote in his blog post.

But journalists, most of whom appear to have no business sense, seem to make a lot more out of the move than it deserves. The problem is not that the model won't work, it will and has been proven to work many times in the past, it is that the model is very much limited. If readers were forced to pay 20 bucks for all their content the whole system breaks down. Is every single writer worth the price of a newspaper or magazine subscription? Of course not.

In essence, what Sullivan has created for himself is no different than a magazine subscription. His blog is not a resource for endless news, so the value of content is very much limited to those who find Sullivan wildly entertaining (and as someone who has a long memory, I very much remember how much his name seemed like mud to me during the run up to the Iraq War).

But no one should think that I dismiss the idea that someone can charge for content - the practice has been going on since the beginning of time – the problem is that once the euphoria of the launch is over The Daily Dish simply is what all media outlets are, a business in search of revenue to sustain itself. It's ability to succeed will probably follow the pattern set by Josh Marshall at TRM, grow or die.

---

Among the small group of media app updates this morning was one for Next Issue, the digital newsstand created by Condé Nast, Hearst Magazines, Meredith, News Corp. and Time Inc.

The update increases the size of the magazine covers inside the app (I guess some complained they couldn't tell which titles were which) and fixed some bugs.

The selection stands at 80 titles and I think Next Issue is running into a wall of sorts. Expanding the selection would be a natural direction to go in, but that would mean that either the price for unlimited access would have to be raised, or it would have to be limited in some fashion.

One option would be for Next Issue to create its own competition by launching another newsstand where independent publishers could have their titles appear – but knowing the companies involved with Next Issue I would find the move unlikely.

Where does Next Issue go from here? That may be the big question of 2013. But for now, with Apple promoting only major publishers and dissing start-ups though its redesign of the App Store, the stars have aligned for the big guys. If they can't make a success of tablet publishing in this environment they never will. Eventually a platform will emerge more friendly to small, independent publishers, or Apple will once again become developer friendly. Either event would be bad news for the big name magazine publishers.

Google and FTC settle: agreement ends search bias charges while requiring little from Google

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Google today reached an agreement that the parties say will resolve certain concerns over competitiveness, but without forcing Google to change its search activities.

The agreement will likely be seen as a victory for Google as the search giant will not have to face charges of bias in its search results, results that some said were skewed to favor Google-owned properties at the expense of competitors.

Under the agreement, according to the FTC, Google will allow competitors access to certain patents "on critical standardized technologies needed to make popular devices such as smart phones, laptop and tablet computers, and gaming consoles."

"The changes Google has agreed to make will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of competition in the online marketplace and in the market for innovative wireless devices they enjoy,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said in the agency's statement.

We are especially glad to see that Google will live up to its commitments to license its standard-essential patents, which will ensure that companies willing to license these patents can compete in the market for wireless devices,” Leibowitz added. “This decision strengthens the standard-setting process that is at the heart of innovation in today’s technology markets.”

In a statement issued by Google the company claimed victory but also said it would make certain commitments to the FTC.

"Google is confident that our practices are entirely consistent with all applicable laws and regulations," Google's statement read. But the company will commit to two actions: making available a web-based notice form for website owners to opt out from display of their content on Google's Covered Webpages; and revising its AdWords API language.

"We’ve always accepted that with success comes regulatory scrutiny," David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer wrote in a Google blog post. "But we’re pleased that the FTC and the other authorities that have looked at Google's business practices—including the U.S. Department of Justice (in its ITA Software review), the U.S. courts (in the SearchKing and Kinderstart cases), and the Brazilian courts (in a case last year)—have concluded that we should be free to combine direct answers with web results."

The Berliner Philharmoniker's Digital Concert Hall: a late Christmas present for classical music lovers worldwide

The radio pioneer David Sarnoff had an ego the size of the moon – anyone who would pay to have Frank Sinatra serenade him with a song with lyrics changed to reflect his accomplishments has an ego, in my opinion. But there is no doubt that Sarnoff, the founder of RCA and later NBC, was a man who accomplished a lot in his life.

One of his accomplishments was the establishment of the NBC Symphony Orchestra under the baton of conductor Arturo Toscanini. Sarnoff created the orchestra as part of his own vision to bring quality music to listeners via radio. With the entry of television, the NBC Symphony Orchestra could be seen and heard by early television set owners.

These efforts not only promoted radio, one of the reasons Sarnoff established the orchestra, but promoted classical music to the American public. Radio and television broadcasts brought listeners to the concert hall and encouraged record sales.

Today, little classical music (or jazz, for that matter) is heard on U.S. television. The result is not only more hours of low cost to produce programming, but a decrease of interest in classical music in all its forms – concert hall and CD.

It is very much up to the orchestras themselves to market their wares to the public.

This new app from the Berliner Philharmoniker not only does that, but creates a revenue stream, as well.

The Berliner Philharmoniker's Digital Concert Hall is a free app that contains plenty of free content, but it also invites classical music lovers to make purchases to watch and listen to archived and live concerts via a 7-day and 3-day ticket, priced at $10.00 and $27.99 respectively. The app also allows for voucher codes that can be give to friends to they, too, can access the content inside the app.

In addition to the concerts, there are interviews and educational material that serve to not only inform but to promote the symphony orchestra.

The iOS app is universal and wisely chooses to keep its content out of the app itself, which therefore weighs in at only 17.5 MB.

Here is a walk-through parts of the new app, a definite late Christmas gift to classical music lovers worldwide (though I am forced to add that the app is hard to find inside the U.S. App Store thanks to Apple's redesign):

The dangers of outsourcing your media apps apparent in newly released app for Scottish newspaper The Courier

Let's face it, mistakes happen all the time in the newspaper business: the typo that appears on the front page headline, the picture with the wrong caption, it happens. But those mistakes are the responsibility of the newspaper itself and a quick correction is all that is necessary to make things right (hopefully).

But media companies are learning that as they enter into agreements with third party vendors to create their mobile and tablet apps, all sorts of problems arise that are not only preventable, but really inexcusable for a major media outlet.

One of the biggest problems revolves around branding as many vendors slap their own names on the new apps released into Apple's App Store. In exchange for low (or no) costs to the publisher, the vendor often gets the marketing advantages that come with new apps – they often also get a share of the revenue.

These screenshots actually look better here than in iTunes

Preventing this is sometimes as easy as owning your own Apple developer license. My own license, for instance, is coming up for renewal soon and the $99 cost seems like a trifle compared with maintaining the ability to launch products under my own name.

But when using a vendor, sometimes that is still not enough, as evidenced by this newly released app for the Scottish newspaper The Courier – Dundee. Published by DC Thomson & Co., The Courier's new app is one of several in the App Store for the company.

But the company, rather than build for the future by creating their own digital media capabilities, has been outsourcing its app development. Its app for The Scots Magazine, for instance, comes through YUDU.

The new app for The Courier is through PageSuite and it appears that not a lot attention was paid to the quality of either the app icon created or the screenshots submitted to the Apple developer site.

Is this the fault of the publisher or vendor? It is irrelevant. Any publisher not interested in how their publication will look inside the App Store should consider a divestment strategy. Maybe some of these vendors are making enough money to be a bidder for a media property?