Don't miss the latest posts, tools, freelance writing jobs, and more from the All Freelance Writing team. Subscribe today!
I’m sure everyone here is familiar with Amazon’s Kindle – an electronic reader primarily as a substitute for print books. With Hearst preparing their own larger e-reader specifically for magazine and newspaper content, I think it’s important to look at how these technologies may affect us on the writer side of the spectrum.
I see two primary ways to look at it. On the positive side, you could say it gives us a new distribution channel for our writing–a new way to be seen and read. On the other side, it could cause problems in negotiating rights.
How Big Will e-Readers Get?
Personally, I don’t see this kind of technology ever replacing print magazines and newspapers for several reasons:
- The devices are expensive, and even in its second generation, Amazon hasn’t been able to make the Kindle truly affordable to the masses.
- The functionality is limited–why spend $300+ on a simple e-reader when these days you can buy a netbook in the same range with far more functionality?
- Magazines and newspapers aren’t always sold to people searching for the content. It’s one thing to assume e-readers would be valuable to normal subscribers, but there’s something to be said for those impulse buys (there’s a reason we use catchy headlines on the cover / front page).
- Many buyers will simply prefer print versions. That goes beyond the end readers who just like the feel of paper in their hands, don’t want to stare at screens any more than they already do, or want the ability to cut out clips of recipes, articles, or anything else in their favorite magazines. It also applies to subscribers wanting the paper versions available to their customers (think about magazines in your doctor’s waiting room or at the hair salon).
The Biggest Impact on Writers
Because I highly doubt e-readers will every really replace print publications on the whole, I don’t think the impact on writers will be huge in the foreseeable future.
However, I do think it’s important that writers are conscious of the changing publishing environment as it does impact their ability to negotiate rights. The rights we should probably be keeping an eye on now are first electronic rights. If we were used to selling print rights to certain publications, future contracts might be changing as those publishers need to secure electronic publishing rights as well.
Authors and book agents went through this with the Kindle and how it affected a book’s “in print” status, as I’m sure some journalists and magazine columnists / feature writers did as well. What I’d like to know today is how electronic readers (or even print publications launching online versions with the same content) have already impacted your job as a writer, or how you expect that they might. Maybe you’ll have some other ideas for positives or negatives about the new readers Hearst will be releasing.
Related posts:
- You Can’t Help Everyone: When to Let Readers Fend for Themselves
- Do Readers Expect Too Much From Bloggers?
- Give Your Readers $10 Off the Web Writer’s Guide E-book
- Will Google Adsense Breed Distrust in Your Blog’s Readers?
- Your Rights as a Writer
About the Author: Jennifer Mattern
Browse all posts from this author.
TAGS: e-readers, hearst, journalists, magazines, newspapers, rights
One technology never completely and immediately supplants another; it only offers people a new option. The Internet, for instance, took decades to rise above newspapers, but its initial drawing card: e-commerce, is still just a fraction of brick-and-mortars. That said, I do think there is a future for the e-reader to save markets for writers, particularly newspapers.
Gannett and others are testing an e-reader that would be given to newspaper subscribers. Newspapers are on a death knell as the economy, lower advertising and even lower subscription numbers are threatening the business. If they can do away with the costly business of delivery and dealing with subscriber complaints, it would go a long way toward shoring up the future of newspapers and freelance journalists.
One indicator at how well e-readers will be accepted is Amazon’s Kindle, which allows users to download copies of their favorite newspaper. Another is the Detroit Free-Press’ decision to replace some home delivery with an online version – which includes the ability to print out pages in PDF format for readers who must have the tactile sensation.
We are in the early innings of a technology showing great promise – not of killing reading, but of supporting reading. As polls show people placing less and less importance on reading paper books and reading paper newspapers, the next stage must be prepared. The question is whether writers will cling to their illuminated manuscripts or embrace the future and escape irrelevancy.
Interesting thoughts Ed – thanks for sharing.
I do think there’s a better case for e-readers in the newspaper market than as a substitute for magazines – going to the importance of immediacy when it comes to news versus features and how they each tend to be used.
However, I don’t see any circumstances where e-readers go completely mainstream. Now that’s not to say I don’t think e-publishing could replace much of print. My problem is with the delivery.
There are far better options out there already, and they don’t involve yet another costly (and potentially fragile) piece of equipment to lug around on a regular basis. Could a magazine e-reader work for someone frequently traveling via plane? Sure. But the average user just doesn’t need it. You can access much of your subscription magazine and newspaper content these days through your smartphone / PDA. If you really want the bigger screens Hearst is talking about, and you’re really that interested in digital content, you can use a laptop (and cheap laptops these days aren’t much more than prices for things like the Kindle).
I look at the Kindle more skeptically than most. It’s easy to build hype around something being sold out when you plan a marketing gimmick of limited runs like they did. They’re also a perfect example of poor market research behind these devices. Now it’s certainly possible that the information is out there and I just haven’t come across it, but I haven’t seen a really comprehensive study out on whether or not the bulk of folks really want these devices! So my question is this: do we really need new toys just for the sake of having them, when other devices already exist which can get us to the same end? In Kindle’s case, I’d say they need to worry about those netbooks – same benefits of the small portable product, same basic price range, and far more features. I’ve especially been amused by the Kindle2 problems I’ve seen reported which could have been avoided by simply getting to know Amazon’s target buyers better (as in where they’re using their Kindles and how they’re using and storing that content).
I don’t think the Kindle is going to just go away either. But I think the initial hype is going to die down over the next few years rather than picking up more steam as more comprehensive devices keep coming down in price. There’s a reason it’s hard to buy a decent mobile phone that’s just a mobile phone – people want their technology to do more for them – not less. They’ve repeatedly shown they’re willing to shell out the money to consolidate. They don’t want separate devices that do this, that, and the other thing. And I see e-readers setting themselves up for long-term failure by pursuing limited products when the technology is far from affordable to the people who could most benefit from those limited use devices (those who can’t afford the more comprehensive options).
Hearst’s device, in my opinion, just takes a far from perfect idea and makes it worse. Not only would people have to carry around another device, but a large one at that. One of the perks of the Kindle is that it’s compact and easily portable – just stick it in a purse, backpack, etc. and be done with it. If they chose the larger size based on solid research of what people wanted, that would be one thing. But it seems it’s been openly admitted that the reasons aren’t about the readers as much as being about the publishers and advertisers – rather than adapting their business models to changing technology and learning to perfect digital publishing and new ad / revenue models, they’re trying to adapt the technology to fit what they’re already doing. It’s about as half-assed backwards as they can get, and if anything I see it slowing down real innovation in the publishing industry, as it’s an excuse not to start thinking about changing and improving overall business models to adapt yet–basically, a stall tactic.
Just my $.02 though. I suppose we’ll find out in the next few years.
As to a Kindle versus smart phone, it is interesting to note Apple’s iPhone recently announced a Kindle application. As a result, you could download a magazine to your Kindle and read it with your iPhone (and presumably other rival smartphones.)
I don’t think the current version of the Kindle will overtake print media, but technology is definitely speeding up things and if you couple that with the younger age groups beginning to grow up in an online culture, e-publishing will be come more and more relevant. I agree that print media will not go away, but it will be less and less relevant as time goes by. If you don’t believe me, check out these cool talks and make a decision for yourself.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/65
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/481
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/463
Just a musicians and recording labels were slow to recognize the importance of iTunes (now the No. 1 commercial recording distribution method), writers and publishers are not realizing the Internet is also reshaping how the printed word will be distributed. Whether or not the end device is Kindle-like or something not yet envisioned, Amazon is betting that distribution of printed material will also follow the iTunes path. Like newspapers being read online rather than printed and distributed in paper form, the process for creating all that content will not change. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer still requires trained reporters and editors . The same will be true for writers and editors of books and magazines. Indeed, it could be argued that with the expensive and wasteful distribution requirements gone, more budget will be available for writers.
John,
It really will depend on the distributor. It depends on their initial expenses and if they were barely making ends meet by paying their writers in the first place.
The bulk of my writing success comes from fiction. More and more short fiction publishers, and even many long fiction publishers, are dropping off their print publications and changing to an electronic only market. As such, they went from offering any sort of compensation to now offering a contributor’s copy. But given that it’s electronic, that was available to everyone anyway
On the other hand, new publishers have arisen, such as Damnation Books, who are going the other direction. Their business plan is to start the year as an e-publisher, build authors and revenue to a higher level and then take their publishing house into the print arena. They are one of the few publishers, outside of the majors, I’ve come across that offers generous rates and royalties.
But despite that, I don’t think print publications are going anywhere. Places like Borders and Barnes & Nobles aren’t just retail stores. They are destinations. People go to these places for coffee, to hang out, as well as to touch the book they’re interested in sampling.
I do see how the value of physical locations could change, however, as we move into the next generation. The internet has taken off not just from developed technology but from a new generation that’s grown up inundated to the electronic age, whereas for many of us the internet was a new technology we’ve adapted to in later years.