Hold the front page for ETERNITY: Murdoch kills The Daily Rupert Murdoch is closing The Daily, the world's first iPad-only newspaper, less than two years after its grand launch. The press baron's News Corp worked closely with Apple to develop the title, which went on sale in February 2011 some nine months after the iPad itself made its debut. The original circulation target was 500, …
I'm sure there is a large enough audience - what they mean is that they couldn't find a large enough audience who were prepared to pay for online news. Some business need a wake-up call, and need to realise that whilst the value of information about the public is on the increase (for ad-targetting for example), the value of information provided to the public (as far as what the public are prepared to pay) is dropping. Google and Facebook have already realised this, which is why their customers are the ad-agencies and not the public.
"From its launch, The Daily was a bold experiment in digital publishing and an amazing vehicle for innovation. Unfortunately, our experience was that we could not find a large enough audience quickly enough to convince us the business model was sustainable in the long-term."
Pronounced:-
"It was shite."
Like music hall, newspapers had an incredible heyday but their time is now passing. People will still want news but it will take new forms, just as the masses abandoning music hall didn't stop listening to live music and other stage shows. They just found more modern and focussed ways of getting it. And there will always be some kind of spiritual successor to newspapers, much like the X-Factor, Britain's Got Talent and sleek ballroom dancing shows currently fill a few of the gaps left over from music hall and vaudeville.
But physical newspapers are just a silly idea in this day and age, and it's only going to get worse. They take too much time to reach the consumer, have a large carbon footprint, higher running costs, require a massive full time staff rather than a convenient fluid roster of necessary people required at any given moment and leave finger marks on you, rather than you leaving finger marks on your device.
Plus the majority of what passes as news in printed newspapers is actually comment and opinion, and is therefore a strange form of entertainment. That's exactly what blogs and forums are, all of which can embed photos, not to mention audio and video clips, and are free. Real major news will always be free, either on the TV, radio or free major news websites like the BBC, so why will people continue paying for tabloid newspapers still based upon a 19th century model?
Northcliffe was a cool dude, like Henry Ford or Alexander Fleming. But I wouldn't expect Ford to get his head around the latest Toyota Corrola any more than Fleming could rustle up an MMR jab.
Physical newspapers are not silly at all. They require no batteries, no fancy expensive electronic gizmo to read, can be used as a crude umbrella when raining and the cat can shit on it when its been read. They are 'always on' and can be used to light fires to keep warm, beat children, clean windscreens effectively and mixed with water and some flour to produce a mouldable material, party hats, window blinds, padding for consignments and insulating fish and chips.
Try doing any of the above with your favourite tablet and see how silly *they* are.
The batteries and no fancy electronic parts is a valid argument, but it's no defence against the carbon footprint and the shear waste of all the newspapers printed but not sold, or given out for free in airports and hotels, most of which get pulped without being read properly. And you can read tablets in the dark adjust the font size and search for text strings.
However the other arguments are not benefits of physical newspapers, just convenient non-exclusive uses for them. I don't think using one as a makeshift umbrella, lighting fires or packaging are excuses to keep the newspaper industry going. There are other ways of protecting yourself from the rain or packing a box safely.
It's like the argument for keeping bloated Post Offices open so that old people have somewhere to go once a week for some social interaction as they queue with their pension book. Paying their pension electronically is better and Post Offices need better reasons to stay open. Instead, people should organise proper social events and centres for pensioners and encourage them to use debit cards rather than carrying £25,000 around in their handbags every day. This will cost less than running Post Offices, be a better environment at any time of day/year and stop the old fools getting themselves mugged by some 14-year-old yobbo who wasn't born yesterday and knows full well why so many pensioners' bags are so big and heavy as they walk alone down side streets.
Anyway, my point about physical tabloids being dead is that e-readers are clearly the way forward but it's not as simple as transferring your tried & tested tabloid formula to tablets. People want something new from the content, not just the delivery method. That's why tabloids will have the hardest job of any newspaper to move successfully to e-readers.
I think long term, it will actually improve the quality of many publications as all the filler and other crap gets cut out, leaving showbiz gossip and sensationalist fabricated stories to other websites or dedicated e-reader downloads. There's also the issue that you can reasonably expect an electronic publication to linger and be freely available somewhere on the Internet forever more, whereas physical newspapers typically get thrown away or only get kept by a few individuals who the general public don't have access to. This means it'll be a bigger problem when you libel or defame people.
I suppose Richard Desmond is already preparing his new Nookie Reader and, even if he does get sued for the name, will still get great publicity from it...
Hey don't knock it, since chances are you didn't ever read it...
I did, and was actually really pleased with the product. The price was very reasonable, a dollar a week, which is much more reasonable than most other digital subscriptions. (Yes, they can be had for free as well, but are usually filled to the brim with ads).
The size was just right... It wasn't unreasonably stuffed with content, like some of its competitors, it was a read that keep you nicely oriented and that you could finish on a half an hour train ride to work.
And the contents were great. A nice, fairly traditional mix of news, with a somewhat conservative slant, sports, business and yes, god forbid! Entertainment and gossip. (One of the most popular sections in any newspaper. Though I'm sure noooobody in here ever read that kind of trash. Sure....)
The journalistic standards were surprisingly high. Now, I'm not surprised that the Register failed to report this part, considering that the Register staff probably have never been near even half the stuff they love to knock and denigrate, but The Daily actually DID produce most of its own content, instead of relying on wire services, and they DID produce a number of scoops and exclusives that made it out into the rest of the press and national media.
If you never subscribed to the Daily, you missed out, and I for one am sad it's gone...
It boils down to options and content.
If the content is fantastic, then people will pay for it: ( see wall street journal ). If the content is more regurgitated associate press crap, then there is zero reason to pay as everyone and their dog republishes the same drivel.
What I want is simple: truly in-depth reporting. Unfortunately almost no one knows what that means. To me it means tear a subject apart, in detail and without a political agenda. And so, I don't subscribe to any newspaper, nor do I watch any local news programs and only rarely watch news at all. There are always so many open questions and half truths that its just a waste of time.
Of course, I'm not holding my breath. News stations seem to believe the vast majority of us are knuckleheads who want to be spoon fed kiddie portions on a first graders comprehension level. An attitude that I believe is currently leading to their demise.
Another item is simply trust: very few news agencies bother to vet their information before publication. Others simply regurgitate political "talking points" or run stories favorable to their top advertisers regardless of the underlying truth. Not going to pay for that crap and good riddance to them.
I reckon this was more an experiment in testing not only what could be done, but what could be gotten away with as regards to online news services.
Much of the team involved are likely heading to put their experiences and skills, the sort that can only be earned through experience, back into the other online services the Murdochs run.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
