The Guardian have recently released an iPhone App [iTunes Link] priced at £2.39 and for this small free they are promising to make news available to you on your iPhone for free. What’s more, the App offers off-line viewing, something that really is worth paying for.
So how does this compare to The Guardian’s mobile site?
I have to admit that I was dubious about how good this App could be, given that the mobile site worked very well and The Guardian provide most (if not all) of their stories via RSS, therefore, do we need to spend £2.39. The short answer is YES!
The UI is pretty and uncomplicated, the product does what it’s supposed i.e. serve up news and with off-line reading I can load the paper before I board a flight and read on board.
Pictured below is the home screen which is customisable:
By scrolling to the bottom of the home screen users are presented with photo galleries and the option to read selected columnists:
The App also provides trends and offers a screen dedicated to the most viewed news stories on The Guardian:
One interesting aspect of the App is that it offers the user the opportunity to listen to the latest Guardian podcasts, right within the App:
Sometimes you might just want to browse more sections and you can do that very easily:
Granted there is nothing really new here, everything that is provided I could have read / listened elsewhere, but isn’t that the point? With this App I get it all in one place and The Guardian have made a significant statement: users are prepared to pay to access news. The challenge for the industry is to replicate this and whether charging for the App and offfering free content there after is sustainable. At the time of writing The Guardian App was the highest grossing application in the iTunes Store which would suggest a sizeable proportion of iPhone / iPod Touch owners have purchased the App.
I would recommend this App to anyone.
Here is the official Guardian video to promote the App:
The media industry seems to be in turmoil (like a lot of industries) due to its sheer size. Let’s face it, the average newspaper is massive, in terms of staff, in terms of sections/categories and in terms of archive material. To save money and maximise revenue it would seem logical to me that any company would look at ways to cut costs. How should newspapers do this? Should they reduce the amount of staff they employ? Some would argue they already have, and to the detriment of quality journalism, but could the paper focus its energies on specialised content? Murdoch is quick to point to the success of the Wall Street Journal, is this the key? Charge for specialised content? I’m not convinced, I believe that any paper whether in print or especially online should be getting enough eyeballs to generate advertising revenue. If this revenue is not enough to cover costs and generate a profit then there is something wrong. Who are your advertisers? How much are you charging? Is this representative of the coverage you offer your advertisers? Are you choosing advertisers that meet your user base?
So many questions but I feel those inside the media industry are simply not asking them and instead are pointing their fingers at rivals.
Is it greed? Could it be that the bottom line is corrupting their judgement and forcing media companies to pursue a holy grail which doesn’t exist and by the time they realise this the industry will have consolidated? Meaning less media organisations and less titles.
Where is the innovation in the sector? Any innovation seems to be coming from new entrants i.e. sophisticated blogs and those who focus on niche markets, but the traditional media outlets seem stuck in their old ways. Some regional papers do not even publish online or only offer a very basic service.
Where will the industry go, will it downsize and specialise or will it stagnate?
I have long been interested in the publishing industry and it is no surprise to me that media groups and distributors are falling into the same trap that the music and film business fell into some time ago, mainly their lack of business accumen and their inability to turn pageviews into revenue.
So what’s the problem? Many newspaper websites already deliver more unique and niche content than their paper counterparts, so why aren’t media groups turning a profit from their websites?
From asking friends and colleagues I get the impression that people are loyal to a particular paper – given the choice of which paper to buy, they regularly purchase the same title. When asked what news they read online a slew of answers are returned. What does this tell me? That online users are less loyal and more likely to visit a range of news sources, as well as their favoured paper.
Is there an opportunity here?
Perhaps you’re news site is now going to get a broader range of readers and ultimately more page views. This then opens the door to a range of advertisers who will want to target readers based on your content. This is actually a unique position for advertisers as they can get more accurate feedback compared to traditional media campaigns.
Newspapers should understand and accept that new technology is not the enemy but is rather the latest opportunity to grow their businesses.
How do they do this? By listening to their audience.
The editor might have ultimate control on content but it has always been the reader who has the most influence over a paper. For example, if that editor does not pander to the interests of their readship, sales of that paper would decline as no one would want to read content they’re not interested in. The successful news sites are those that cater for all interests, but there is still room for niche sites.
I’ll leave you with this thought: Do you like the newspaper or do you like reading the paper? If your answer is the latter then online news is perfect for you.
Michael Connelly has written an article detailing the publishing business’ lack of respect for books. Well book reviews to be exact, but this highlights another failure in the newspaper business, that is their failure to embrace online content and to view digital media as a threat. Little odd they don’t realise that the Internet can be their friend.
Publishing giants the world over are quaking due to falling paper sales and their failure to grasp the concept of doing business online. Their failure to monetise their online content early on matched with their failure to drive visitors to their sites has left them in unfamiliar territory.
There is a sense of impending doom within the industry. For every times or guardian newspaper website (both of which are excellent) there is a an independent or a newsletter site.
The bbc were quick to spot the potential of the web and backed by licence fee money they deliver what is probably the best media web site in the world. They are constantly at the fore with respect to news, sport and entertainment.
This I suppose is the problem faced by traditional print companies – how do they combat the rise of new media?
The internet is an easy way for new companies to get off the ground. It’s relatively cheap, you can garner a global audience and your readers are always up to date with your latest content. This has enabled many new media companies to gain a foothold in this new market.
What traditional publishers failed to realise was that the internet would be easily accessible for most people whether at work, home or mobile. This means they have access to breaking news and all sorts of different content, a diversity that newspapers can’t compete with.
All is not lost though. The newspaper industry forget that they have a loyal readership and can use their papers to promote their online business, something they are only just starting to realise. They need to go one step further and fully embrace online news and make it their priority.
Some publishers have seen the potential of ebooks and devices such as the kindle look set to see this trend continue, but newspaper don’t need to be left out. Their content can be sent to mobile devices just as easily and many customers will identify those newspapers as being a legitimate source. This in itself gives them an advantage.
These traditional outlets for news have followed the same path that the music business followed, that is they have huffed and puffed, complained about digital content and in the end they have had to embrace it.
The question now is how far can the newspaper and publishing business embrace digital technology and finally move into the digital age?
