The Amazon Kindle and paid content

Kindle?Halfway interesting. “Kindle” pronounced in American is the same as “Kindel” in German. “Kindel” means “child.”Whatever. I guess it will be interesting to see how well this new Amazon technology is accepted. Seven or eight years ago, some book store chains (which also had Internet sales web sites) were experimenting with technology that would allow them to print out hardcopies of individual books on-site (at their stores) and bind them for their customers; I hadn’t heard that that technology went anywhere.Of course, for those of us who are computer freaks, there is always Project Gutenberg. Texts, which are out of copyright somewhere are often available for free over the Internet, and in more than a few languages. Want to read Also Sprach Zarathustra in German? You don’t have to go to Schoenhoff’s in Cambridge to pick up a copy (although the store would be nice to give business to.–raj

The mostly overlooked point, by Newsweek’s Levy, WSJ yesterday and even Prof. Kennedy is that Kindle-like devices give publishers and consumers more choice. Marketers speak about market segments. SOME newspaper readers have given up on the printed paper for the free but less portable and scanable Web version. Other consumers want to stick with paper. The Kindle—and the price will come down dramatically over the next two years and beyond– is for another market segment: those who have stuck with paper but are annoyed at the cost and those who have switched to the Web but realize they miss much and can’t read when it’s most convenient (bus, plane, toilet). To the extent that an e-reader, freed from the PC but simulating much of the paper experience, can provide a new revenue stream for publishers, it can only help. The key to digital is that it adds choice beyond the analog model. It is not an either/or world anymore. Whether music, video, text, graphics, digital means mixing and matching distribution and formats modes. Unlike plastic or paper, the choice for consumers is greater and the opportunities for publishers keep getting better—though more complex.

My father is north of 80 now, and his eyesight isn’t what once it was. If the Kindle could provide him with really huge text so that he can carry around reading material without physical strain, then he’d probably go for it. I doubt he’s alone. But so far all we’ve seen documented are six pre-selected font sizes from which to pick, and no clear description of how big the maximum is.Heck, just being able to read in bed for people who normally are tied to a magnifier would be an interesting market to target, and I can’t see why, technologically, it should be hard to accomplish. 6×6″ may be a tad small for that, but surely that isn’t the upper bound of the e-ink technology. After all, we’re living in the future! 🙂

How will the paid version make it a better experience?Not only can you get the Times site for free, more importantly, you can get their RSS feed for free.Also, the Kindle misses a couple of the key distinctions of the digital world that I think will be hard for users to give: Namely, the ability of one device to do it all — text, video, e-mail, calendar, phone … I’d rather carry that around with me; and, the lack of interactivity .. how can I comment on a news story on the Kindle? Advantage Web.There is also a barrier to switching that doesn’t exist on the iPod (this is not the iPod for books). With music, we all had vast amounts of digital content … it was easy to bulk up our iPods with content at no additional cost … not so with the Kindle.Also, there is a difference how people consume books vs. music … making it some what advantageous to stick to analog.

Why do so many of us assume that people won’t pay money for a better experience? You can read the Times online for free every day, yet some people are paying $15 a month for TimesReader because they think it’s better. (Anyone know how many?)There are two reasons why a paid subscription via Kindle might be superior to accessing the same content for free via Kindle’s Web browser.1. The entire paper is downloaded and saved to the Kindle’s memory. (Sorry, I haven’t checked to see whether it’s hard drive or flash.) Theoretically, this could provide for a smoother experience, unless the cellular network the Kindle uses is so fast and perfect that it’s virtually invisible.2. Better formatting than is available for free. I leave that to the designers. But, clearly, Jack Shafer and others believe Times Reader is much easier to look at than the Web site. Why wouldn’t it be possible to do that with the Kindle, too?I must admit, I’m probably not a good prospective customer for the Kindle. I think the book aspect of it is kind of ludicrous. As for a newspaper subscription, I’m happy with a combination of print and Web.But to dismiss the idea out of hand is to ignore the advantages that some people might find in such a device. And I don’t think anyone has ever won a bet by believing that Jeff Bezos is stupid.And, sorry, I am not going to read content on my cell phone. I recently read John Updike’s “Hub Bids Kid Adieu” on an iPod touch at my local Apple store. The only thing I found satisfying about it was that I lived to tell the tale.

Figure out how to distribute with no apparent cost to the reader, while still maintaining profitability in the ads office.Sounds like the old Steve Martin routine about how to make a million dollars without paying any taxes. First, make a million dollars!

While I’m waiting for the next (and cheaper) generation, I hope to find out two things: 1. Will they expand the offerings to include older titles (last year’s best-sellers that are now in paperback, for instance) at a lower price point? 2. If I’ve already bought a hard-copy book from Amazon, do I get a break on buying it again electronically?

You are all missing one important aspect of dead tree newspaper subscription and buying.Some people WANT the ads. Some people buy the Sunday paper only because it HAS more ads. Will a Kindle give you a grocery store coupon or a 20% off on Linens and Things?Likewise – I read my local daily both on-line and dead tree. MANY stories which appear in the dead tree are not in the virtual version – sometimes, it was an AP story, or a columnist who can’t be reporoduced without an extra fee, or so on. Obituaries, engagements, wedding anniversaries and birth notices receive especially scant notice on the web – will they be on a Kindle?What Kindle is offering is already readily available in the truncated web version of papers – but not the score or color from the Barnstable-Falmouth Thanksgiving Day classic.It seems like a solution without a problem.

@Dan Kennedy:”Sounds like the old Steve Martin routine about how to make a million dollars without paying any taxes. First, make a million dollars!”Not so much. We’re talking about distributing a product that doesn’t have to cost the readers any money up front to obtain.As other readers have posted, there are a great many successful “free” papers out there in the US and abroad.I’ll reiterate that Internet connectivity has put people in a state of mind where they believe that information is free.Indeed, the market has agreed that newspaper information is free. Nearly every paper I can think of has a Web site allowing free reading.Since we’re quoting from the 70’s, I’ll come back with Roger Daltrey: “Music must change.”Create a paper with vastly superior photos and stories. Drop it off to every mailbox in a community. In the event you’re looking at a large city that would prevent such a plan, pick certain zips/neighborhoods/etc. (and allow others to opt-in) for direct, doorstop delivery and put bins in the places where door-to-door isn’t possible.Make it look good and put some good stories in it, and advertisers will buy in.Another thing to keep in mind here, is just as newspapers haven’t really figured out how the Internet fits in their model, advertisers haven’t yet figured out how to successfully advertise on the Internet.Sure, the ‘tubes reach more people, but there is little known demography about each of the viewers, and they might not even be in the advertiser’s area.For a long time to come, people will continue to advertise in print format. They can either do it by direct mail pieces, or by putting ads in papers and magazines.Give them a reason to go back to print magazines and newspapers.Many, many of the glossy lifestyle magazines have gone this route. No more managing subscriptions. No more subscription sales reps. Almost by default, their readership has gone up, distro costs have gone down and ad rates have gone up, as has insertions.Supplement all that with a great website, and bingo.So, no. As much as I like Steve Martin, I’m not at all suggesting a cop-out answer to this problem.

I think in many cases, the editors’ hands are tied. Diminishing returns with a corporate mandate to maximize shareholder value dictates that stories are bought in bulk from the wires and syndicates, and that fewer funds can be directed towards the in-depth reporting that used to be one of the hallmarks of good journalism and good newspapers.No head-slapping intended, or likely even needed.Again in line with maximizing shareholder value, the corporations jerk around from ‘solution’ to ‘solution’ in an effort to try and raise revenue. Whether it’s Web video or more Britney, it’s typically a case of ‘chasing the shiny object’ syndrome. I think the reason this hasn’t been tried en masse is that there is a great difficulty in changing a business model industry-wide.I would love to sit down with the Murdochs and Zells of the world to ask precisely the question you’ve asked: why isn’t anyone doing it? And do so not because I think I know more (I don’t), but because I’d be really, really interested to hear the answers.I lived and worked in DC for a while, and was quite impressed with the Metro, a free 32 page digest of the Post. It was what really got me thinking about the possibility of a free publication that had a sound and thorough journalistic mission.MinnPost is also doing some interesting things, although they are, in my understanding, operating as a 501c3 rather than a private for-profit or publicly owned business.The last point that I’ll address is your argument that freebies give too much power to the advertisers. I contend that the current atmosphere of corporate ownership, JOAs, buck-chasing and lowest-common-denominator journalism is also putting too much power into the hands of those least interested in finding truths and holding the powerful accountable.I don’t pretend that there is any one magic solution for the future of the industry. I think that at this time it is critically important that we come together and really start looking at ways to secure our future.Journalism is the cornerstone of a free society, and it’s also what feeds my family. Therefore, I’m doubly interested in working towards a solution that will keep things rolling in the future.I have enjoyed talking with you and your other posters, and do apologize if I have hijacked your thread or offended anyone. My intentions were certainly not to do either.Should you or anyone else here wish to continue a conversation, please feel free to email me at will@willseberger.com .