Faith Magazines

By Dave Hendricks

We live in an era of competing, unprecedented—and uncontrollable—claims on our attention. The proliferation of devices, content, social networks, events and random stimuli seems to be at an all-time high and nothing—short of a yoga retreat—offers any rest for the innovation-weary media consumer. We show no sign of slowing down or defending ourselves from this chosen onslaught. In fact, we seem to be on some form of universal, cultural speed trip madly racing around heads down, nearly bumping into each other before looking up just in time to see the new thing.

Death Race 2009 has two contestants. One—the device maker—is represented at the Sprizon Wireless phone store, Best Buys and Apple/AT&T nexus of evil. The other is available on newsstands, on TV, in airports and on all the gadgets sold in aforementioned retail addiction outlets. According to numerous blogs and prognosticating prevaricators, they are in a herculean struggle from which only one will profitably emerge.

So who’s gonna win? The device designers or content providers?

I have no idea, but just when I think that I know who’s going to win, something shiny distracts me. That’s part of being male, so I’ve heard. Device marketers are smart, mightily capitalized and their sexy gadgets never fail to arouse my interest, and my closets are littered with the detritus of successful device marketing efforts. Occasional garage sales have scarcely made a dent in the archaeological record of previous marketing attacks on my wallet. It’s gotten so bad that my office closet was repurposed as a rarely visited “History of late 20th and early 21st century gadgets” exhibit. That’s where previously can’t-live-without devices have gone when I can live without them.

So what are we talking about here? What is a device now? What’s a content provider?

It’s important, for the purposes of this discussion, to define “device maker” and “content provider” before going any further. Some devices: an Amazon Kindle, an iPod, a Sony eBook, a traditional book, a stone tablet, a DVD player or “netbook.” A TV fits this model, and so does satellite and AM/FM radio or anyone who manufactures a proprietary format that delivers content to end-user. Newspapers and magazines qualify as devices, but their universality—and nonproprietary technology—eliminate them from true device-hood.

The definition of a content provider seems slightly more simple, but that’s dangerous deception. Content provider could mean a blogger, a journalist, a subscriber who comments on a Web site, a television network, a Web site editorial staff, an author or editor or an RSS feed. Advertising is among our most enduring content, and the artists employed in ad agencies produce some of our most compelling content, much of which subsidizes the editorial we spend more time on. But how about the designer of an app? Or video game? Or an e-book or podcast? I would qualify anyone who produces something worthy of a copyright to be a content provider—anyone who would earn a commission or a royalty. Add Microsoft to the list of content providers—indeed, they are perhaps the preeminent content provider of our time, the failure of Encarta notwithstanding.

So who’s missing? Until recently, Google. Google has sidestepped the majority of this debate, but to review its actions you will see that the company first assailed content owners by seeking to scan all the books in creation. Then they decided to get into the device game with Android.

With these thoughts in mind, I went to meet with some people at the intersection of devices and content, Zinio.

Advantage Goes to the Content Providers

After a meeting this past week with Zinio, I’m leaning toward content providers winning the battle, but not after a scuffle—like the Hatfields and McCoys—between devices and content providers.

Zinio, in case you aren’t familiar with the company, is an electronic publishing company that works with 350 publishers and approximately 1,500 individual publications. Its device-independent service delivers a magazine-like experience primarily on PCs and other similar devices.

I spoke to Zinio about what they thought about the Kindle, the status of the newspaper and magazine industry and the relationship between publishers and advertisers. It wasn’t a surprise that they weren’t gaga over the black-and-white Kindle. For Zinio, it comes down to “art.” And while art comes in many forms, it’s still rendered most faithfully by the formats of the legacy content providers. And that content doesn’t fit neatly on a small 320-by-240 pixel screen, and it doesn’t work as well in black and white.

Doug Carlson, Managing Director of Zinio, is no Luddite—he fully believes and sees the coming gadget convergence. Not surprisingly, considering that he leads an e-content technology company, Carlson is sure that “in five years consumers are only going to carry two devices—an e-reader and a phone.” But he feels that device needs to be more content-friendly than today’s third-screen experience. “The high-fidelity experience is enhanced or maintained by our technology. Any device that doesn’t support high fidelity isn’t something that we can work with”.

I’m going out on a limb here: I think that in the end, content will win and we will return to an environment where the producers of original content will be again as valued as the manufacturers of the shiny objects that play that content.

As surely as I keep my books in bookshelves within easy reach, and my old electronic detritus inaccessibly tangled up in a dark closet, quality content will outlive the ephemera that we have temporarily used to enjoy it. And Google will probably outlive us all and will continue to straddle the divide between devices and content.

Minsiders columnist Dave Hendricks is EVP, strategy and planning, Datran Media.

Read the original article