0

By David Rothman

NY Times Mobile siteE-books will fare better if the same gizmos that work with them can display newspapers, too—and vice versa. We’re also talking about popularizing the very idea of reading on screen. So, while the New York Times, is a newspaper, not Random House or HarperCollilns, the questions below are relevant even from an e-book viewpoint.

1. Why doesn’t the Times use full RSS feeds? I won’t buy the argument that the abbreviated feeds result in more page views and more exposure to ads. What they really mean is fewer reads, especially by people using small handheld devices like my Nokia N770. RSS use isn’t going away and in fact should grow rapidly. Get used to it, Mr. Sulzberger. See Why Full Text Feeds Actually Increase Page Views (The Freakonomics Explanation) in Techdirt.

Surely the Times can figure out a creative way to embed contextual ads in feeds items and maybe even have the links go directly to advertisers’ sites. Isn’t ad revenue the main business goal here?

2. For those with the right bandwidth and the inclination to use it, can’t the entire Times arrive in one RSS feed—encompassing all sections—with decent navigation links? Actually we’re probably talking about something far shorter than a long novel. If the Times decides to continue its Select Service, which by many accounts is on the way out, then maybe a one-shot feed could be an option for those who wanted it. Imagine the usefulness of full RSS for straphangers in the subways, away from WiFi.

3. Why doesn’t the well-presented mobile edition of the Times (old screenshot from past item) include links to the book section and daily reviews? I thought the Times was pro-literacy. Right now I cheat by keying in the word “book” as a search term to reach the reviews, but I’d rather just click on a link to the book review section.

4. How come the Times insists on using a Times-only reader for people who want to see a kind-of-newspaperish layout on their desktop PCs, via a downloadable file? And if the Advertising Gods reign supreme, why does the Times have the nerve to charge for the software? Better for newspapers like the Times to do standardized encapsulated digital editions based on the IDPF‘s standards. Then the newspapers wouldn’t have to mess with software development or be at the mercy of Microsoft.

To address one obvious question, I’m all in favor of readers being able to choose between an all-in-one-swoop RSS feed (all sections) and an IDPF-format-encapsulated edition. Let the readers choose the way the Times reaches them.

Reminder of the obvious: Yes, Washington Post, many of the above points would cover you, too, along with other newspapers. Also, I wonder how stable your RSS addresses are. I’ve had problems with them in the past.

Related: ‘Great e-Book Mysteries’: OSoft CEO’s take on the Tower of eBabel.

Disclosure: At one point I was trying to interest in the Post in using OSoft software, based on OpenReader, for encapsulated editions. I lost faith in OpenReader because of implementation issues and would now modify that advice to suggest use of the IDPF standard and whatever company’s reader worked out best.

 
0