« Scaling editors | Main | Sketchr »
February 22, 2007
Why 'NYT Experience'?
Why 'NYT Experience'? Matthew Ingram and Kevin Tofel ask "Why bother?" after reading how the New York Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other newspapers will offer customized Microsoft applications for offline reading. I think such apps make sense -- for certain audiences. Many of us online like to hunt down our news. That's expensive, though. More people just want to "get the news", and they find a brand they trust to supply it. You and I may be thinking "What does the New York Times have to say on this issue?", but other people are thinking "Okay, I got dressed, got breakfast ready, let me have my New York Times experience now -- ahhh!" Some cultures hunt, some have ritualized feasts. Both exist. For their part, newspapers and other media brands want audiences, even more than they want casual customers... the more involved someone is with their newspaper, the more valuable a customer that is. The incentives work both ways. People who hunt down their news would want to efficiently compare multiple sources. People who want to feel part of something larger than themselves would find a reliable brand to provide news services, and the richer this experience is, the better for both parties. This will become even more important as the one-foot screen and the ten-foot screen unite with the three-foot screen. A little bit more in the extended entry here...
I know that was a long paragraph. ;-) My key idea: Many people find it advantageous to have an experience rather than just a commodity service. Some restaurants are more expensive than others... the ecology diversifies as it matures.
I'm not sure how it will play out or evolve, but I do think that media brands (like the New York Times) will provide cross-device service experiences for their audiences. "I trust Channel 8, and I rely on them for my news." Branding a network-aware desktop app is a step beyond building a website, but it's still an early step towards building a stronger relationship with their audience. It's not for everyone, but there are advantages to both parties.
Here are quotes from Matthew and James that kicked me to think about the above:
Matthew Ingram: "I am left scratching my head and wondering what the hell any of these publications are thinking. Why on earth would anyone download multiple pieces of software -- all of which are based on the same rendering engine from Microsoft -- to read different newspapers? It makes no sense."
Kevin Tofel: "My own experience with the Times Reader is very positive, but I'm slightly confused here. I understand that the Times Reader was the first application of this type and I figured (incorrectly) that the same reader application would eventually be expanded. Based on my interpretation of the product press release, each publication that uses this technology will have its own unique application. Why would I want different reader apps for different publications?"
Lots of other people are reacting to the Vista reader genre too... Robert Scoble is one who wonders why any audience-seeker would limit their audience to those who use a particular new operating system. It may depend on how much it actually costs them. ;-)
Someone who says to themselves "I am a reader of The New York Times" may not need to read six other newspaper brands. They read the Times. The Times is good to them... gives them a good total experience.
Is there a business reason to create such customized group exerpiences? I think so, for the same reason that some restaurants can charge more than $10 for a meal. There will be mistakes along the way, but I think that such offline branded experiences will be common five years from now.
Posted by JohnDowdell at February 22, 2007 08:10 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/mtadmin/mt-tb.cgi/8407
Comments
I agree, digital experiences will be brand related not application bound. Magazines and Newspapers will drive the user experience to the point where the content is the experience in a seamless way.
Do they worry whether these are technically speaking different applications? Not really as far as the masses are concerned, as long as the brand experiences give them what they expect. Yes we are moving from the technology to the experience and even fashion business whether technology centered experts like it or not.
Posted by: German Bauer at February 22, 2007 11:33 PM
For sure, most people should consider the editorial credibility of their news. Call it the NYT "brand" if you want. The point is there's value in editing.
As far as the tool they want you to use... did they say "it's Vista or the highway"? I mean, you can even watch MSNBC video using their Flash player where before it was IE only. The point is that I'd imagine if there was a potential audience they could repurpose that same content in another form. Those using the xyz desktop player (lets hope it's one killer app produced in Flash, but okay maybe it'll be WPF) will get one experience but the same raw content (not a commodity, but a "brand") can also be output in another form.
I hear this question all the time: "why would you want to limit your audience?"... no one would, but you also have to look at the cost/benefit. If I ask a client "do you want to reduce your audience by using the Flash 9 player?" they might say, "Oh, use Flash 6 for the best distribution" and I said it'll cost more... or there's a killer feature they won't get, then they simply have to decide. It's always like this with ANY distribution solution. The technology and who it naturally includes/excludes is only one (arguably, somewhat low) consideration.
The thing that I have a hard time seeing through are "real world" examples of new technology that turn out to be either payola cases or simply some developer's exercise in using the technology for that technology's sake. For example: that North Face (WPF) kiosk that got more than 15 minutes of air time at Mix06 or the Tour of California (Flex). I'm not faulting companies from helping these apps along... it's just sort of hard to walk in and propose a solution to a client and have (primarily) these sorts of apps to show. Definitely a chicken/egg sort of issue though.
By the way, I always thought NYT and WSJ were sort of idiots/jerks the way they have content (some, in the case of NYT) only available for a price. Interestingly, though, Cooks Illustrated is an awesome magazine with zero advertising... their web content is pay-only too and it doesn't bug me as much.
Posted by: Phillip Kerman at February 23, 2007 08:37 AM