If I read it correctly, the Hearst ereader is being designed for publications. 8 1/2 by 11, place for ads, foldable? and probably a lot less than $359.

“What Hearst and its partners plan to do is sell the e-readers to publishers and to take a cut of the revenue derived from selling magazines and newspapers on these devices. The company will, however, leave it to the publishers to develop their own branding and payment models.”

But why replace paper with epaper when the most profitable advertisements are those on paper?

More likely it will be both. The New Yorker, for example gives full access to their archives to their Print subscribers. They don’t “sell” access, they “give it” as a benefit.

And I can’t resist throwing out an idea:

Wonder if newspapers could begin to transition their home delivery audiences into e-reader audiences?

Could they afford to “buy out” the existing home delivery subscriber by giving her an e-reader bundled with a subscription for free?

And then going forward, instead of selling new home delivery subscriptions sell e-readers bundled with subscriptions?

Would that be better than what Detroit did by eliminating home delivery on certain days?

But, it’s going to take a while. And there are some inherent problems with the media. The first is the size and cost. While Hearst is introducing the 8 1/2 by 11 format. That is not even in the right scale of a double page spread in tabloid, much less a broadsheet.

My bet is that you, like me, are very focused in what goes into the “interesting” vs the “not interesting right now” bin. For “people like us,” Kindles, RSS readers, Google search is a revelation.

But, no doubt “people like us” are a very small niche market. We have well practiced reading and thinking skills. In addition we have a strong focused interest that we can satisfy by using those hard earned skills.

To be clear, the mass market is a collection of niches, or better tribes, with different focii and various levels of reading and thinking practice.

The opportunity of news-on-paper is to be the search platform for that “mass market”. Put nuggets of unexpected information on the table, and allow people to choose what they would like to taste.

Michael, I have to quibble with your assertion that paper is “the best way to notice new information or anomalies.” Perhaps that’s so if you are a big consumer of paper, but I find more content about more topics of interest to me today online than I ever did before in print, despite the limitations of online navigation’s ability to show me material on spec, as it were.

The challenge for both News-on-ePaper and news on other digital devices from computers to phones is to find a way to replicate on a digital screen the semi-directed serendipity that’s inherent in the act of scanning print.

That means finding a replacement for search as the principal navigational tool on the digital side. For example, imagine the ubiquitous search field on web sites being joined by a “show me more” field driven by an engine that uses semantic techniques to act on knowledge of the reader’s preferences and viewing history do offer promise in this area. Put that on an e-reader, and you’re a lot closer to duplicating the paper-scanning experience — in fact, it could be an improvement over paper.

Wow! Thanks for the point.

I just got my first Kindle. Short story is that in three days, it’s completely changed my intense reading habit.

If the next stage of the discussion is framed as how does Paper fit in with the Hearst device it should be a very productive conversation.

If it creates another buzz about the end of this or the replacement of that, it will just keep going round and round.

Here’s an opener for Print and News-on-epaper.

News-on-Paper is the best search platform for viewers and scanners. The stability and large field of vision is best for pattern recognition. It’s the best way to notice new information or anomalies.

News-on-ePaper may turn out to be the best way to read if you know what you want to read.

The opportunity for news-on-Paper is that readers are a niche market while viewers and scanners are a mass market.

Hearst is inventing the future, and one better than the one you describe.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/technology/copeland_hearst.fortune/index.htm

http://scoopingthenews.blogspot.com/2009/02/former-spj-president-cites-facebook.html

Exactly! The game changer is “They should drop all breaking news and focus on analysis and features.” From that everything else follows. What you propose all makes good sense, but I have a question.

Do you have any thoughts about the viability of a daily edition, that might look like:

12 to 24 page tabloid that sells for $.25

(Charging something is the only way to get news stand distribution and to get a clear signal to supply the feedback to the publisher on the content.)

Page 1: a summary of the latest buzz – “the breaking news” similar to the News In Brief the WSJ runs on the front page. Global, National, Regional, Local. One column for each.

Page 2 &3: Five part feature story. Pt 1 on Monday,Pt 2 on Tuesday, etc Full five part available to read online on Monday.
Also offered as to download to a Kindle for $2.00 and available as a reprint in paperback form using Print On Demand technology for $4.50.

Page 4: Heard around the local web.
Given that almost every community now has a good number of local conversations, the content is there. This would be “he said, she said” and “if you want to add your two cents, here’s the URL”

The rest of the 12 -24 pages would be local ads, at low enough prices that local business could afford. With a frictionless sales process.

The daily tab could be printed in versioned editions, different neighborhoods getting different news in briefs. Local would be neighborhood local. Or beat local as resources allow.

How about Clint Reilly?