Mr. Kiley wraps his post by asking the question “could it be that with such change afoot amidst a national financial crisis, readership of the dead-trees product will swing up again?”  Perhaps, but I don’t think that is the reason there were no newspapers left at 8:30 am this morning in Ann Arbor, MI. Instead I’ll suggest that when people want to hold a piece of something, especially when that something is connected to an event like the historical moment we all witnessed last night, they want something tangible.  Something real.

Why not just archive a digital copy of the New York Times, or take a screen capture of your web browser open to you local paper’s website?  Because those are not the same are they?  Do people keep the paper because 50 years from now, they want to pull it out of a box in the attic and share it with their grandchildren or even great grandchildren?  Seems a more authentic experience than booting a PC, or an e book reader doesn’t it? Gone is the feeling of the paper in your hand.  The smell.  The texture. The sound it makes as it moves in your hands.  Electronic formats are a long way from being able to replicate that.

Paper is still future-proof in many respects. Today we still have physical access to books that date back centuries. Imagine the scenario above and in 50 years hoping that digital copy of the New York Times on your Kindle is still accessible.  Assuming of course, your Kindle still works.

At this point you might be thinking that my examples serve to further the point that paper is not dead – and you would be right.  In fact, I believe there is a very good chance that we will always want some permanently imprinted or inscribed format for our words wither it be paper or not.  And that is really my point – publishers need to start thinking not only about the convenience of formats like e books and start considering how we can make those formats as future-proof as paper.

E books and related media suffer from too many formats, too many devices, and too much DRM and very little is being done to make sure that readers will always be able to access that content in the future.

Centuries ago publishers defined a format for the book – ink on paper, bound together.  As we define the formats for the future book, we must not forget about the generations to follow and their access to the words within.

What do you think?

(Photo credit: Wilsonious)

Even if you don’t care much about the disappearance of newspaper book reviews, take a few moments to read Pat’s thoughts as she gets right to the heart of the changes the entire content market is facing. After all, book reviews are content and Pat’s point is that these providers are not keeping pace with consumers who are devouring bite-sized content at an ever increasing pace.

Our audience zips around the Internet with tremendous agility and speed, and what do we give them?

• Stodgy, dull, laborious and indulgent reviews.
• The same old 16-300 column inches that digress and meander and oh, so slowly get to the point.
• “Objectivity” mired down as we strive to get the words “nuanced,” “finely” and “wrought” into a sentence.

Not only have we gotten stuffy, dreary and plodding, but our panic is showing – we know traditional print media is in trouble and try too hard to get readers back. We’ve substituted opinion for criticism. We’ve pronounced books good or bad rather than shown readers why. We’ve fallen into the Hollywood media game of guessing what titles will hit a best seller list instead of what titles deserve audience attention.

Ms. Holt goes on to offer some great suggestions for a new approach to win back readers and suggests critics only need look to what consumers are creating for themselves.

You can grumble that customers writing on the web don’t know the difference between personal biases and literary standards, but the fact is that a scroll through a dozen customer reviews tells you all you need to know, quickly and often refreshingly, about whether the book is for you and, even (yes, you have to keep scrolling) if it might be any good.

Isn’t it time for a parallel revolution in book reviewing? Surely we can retain our high standards of erudition and criticism and have fun at the same time. I would love it if a Sunday section wiped out all but a few standard book reviews and set up, say, a dozen departments in which critics are charged with writing succinctly and excitedly about books in a well-designed, easy-to-grasp format.

Steve Rubel and Michael Arrington have nice things to say, but Josh Burnoff points out that readers hate it! From my quick glance at the comments, it appears most readers are not happy with the design, not necessarily the new features. I think the design is going to grow on readers as they get used to the new layout, and eventually they will appreciate the new social aspect of the site.

My Publisher, Joe Wikert has strong opinions about the newspaper business, but I wonder if this isn’t what he was asking for?