Google if you're reading this it's too late

Google whether we like it or not has a lurking presence in our every day lives. Admittedly, I use a Google service every day considering its e-mail service has an amazing amount of storage capacity and has efficient work school/work functions such as Google docs or Google drive.

But just how big is Google?

According to a 2014 report by ZenithOptimedia, not only is Google the world’s largest media owner but also its share has increased by 136% of the second largest media owner, Disney.  ZenithOptimedia based its rankings on media revenue– revenue that comes from businesses to support advertising.

Now, this comes at no surprise considering an important component of Google’s business is its ability to display targeted ads based on search inquiries.

In fact in 2015, Google’s ad revenue amounted to a whopping 67.39 billion dollars.

But despite all the convenience and innovation Google offers it’s consequently tracking and storing all that data. Now this isn’t exactly jaw-dropping information and Google of course offers you a tool called Dashboard to allow for some transparency. However, in some respect Google’s new ventures such as self-driving cars may prove to be entirely too invasive.

In an interview with the Atlantic, Google chairman, Eric Schmidt said, “We don’t need you to type at all because we know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less guess what you’re thinking about … Is that over the line?”

Yes. That is over the line.

Schmidt went on to say, “Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it. I would argue that implanting things in your brain is beyond the creepy line … at least for the moment until the technology gets better.”

Google’s subjective view of privacy is entirely disturbing and I would argue that it’s over achievement “moon shot” culture is somewhat evil.

In an interview with Wired magazine Google’s, Larry page embodies and explains this moon shot culture; the idea that Google should be “doing more” or shooting for the moon. Google’s new division, Google X does just that.

Google X is considered to be semi-secret, but a couple of projects include self-driving cars, rapid delivery services through flying vehicles or balloon-flying routers to bring the internet to everyone.

In hindsight these ideas are fairly utopian and “world-changing,” but any firm with that much reach and power is bound to create fear. Is Google’s incessant need to save the world, evil?

At the cost of my own privacy, I would say sure.  Technology and innovation is useful has indeed saved lives in respect to health and medicine sectors, but I believe Google’s idea of a privacy “line” vastly differs from my own.

Google’s hyper-heroic culture has villain-esque qualities. It’s not enough to provide a quick, efficient search engine in the name of knowledge or education, but also to store that data to make it profitable for the engineers of said engine. Google is a marketer’s/advertiser’s dream. It takes something as complex as the human brain: its dislikes, like, loves etc. and quantifies it based on clicks, impressions and various user behavior tools.

Google not only wants to save the world but save it better than anyone else.

Below are some attached videos of some interesting Google projects.

Printed books are here to stay

Every night before going to bed, my mom or dad would lay in bed with me and read me a bedtime story or two. It was a ritual we both looked forward to and something I hope to do with my own children one day. As a Millennial and growing up in the digital age, I fear that this routine will become a digitalized commodity. Although I argued in my post last week that newspapers are dying and digital media will reign - I don't believe this to be true when it comes to books. Fifteen years ago, Jack Romanos, the Simon & Schuster president, stated "the e-book revolution will have an impact on the book industry as great as the paperback revolution in the 60's." I do not disagree fully with Romanos - yes, the e-book revolution did change the book industry, however its effects have not overcome the power of the printed book just yet.

According to this Huffington Post article, research has shown how print book is preferred among readers over digital. One study that caught my eye in particular was that "students don't connect emotionally with on-screen texts." The stories are not as immersive and intimate when read off a screen. This hit a cord with me because I agree that reading something physical, particularly a novel that can create such an emotional experience, has greater value than when reading it off a screen. It reminded me of the days when I would read stories with my parents before bed - there were connections, non-verbal communications, interpersonal moments that go along with picking out the book from the shelf, holding it up, flipping the page, and so on.  

Furthermore, this made me think of Prof. Chyi's theory on digital media being an inferior good in relation to print media. Although I stand by my argument from last week, in regards to story books and novels I think an actual print/hard copy is more of a luxury good and experience than reading it digitally. Reading something off your ipad/kindle does have its perks but in the long run, I hope books continue to be printed and are here to stay. 

Long live the physical book

E-books are hotly contested by people in and above my generation. We read off of screens all day, yet some of us are vehemently opposed to reading novels and textbooks in a digital format. I'm definitely one of those people—not because I see any fundamental flaw in an e-book but because the physicality of a book feels good in my hands. I suspect it's the same feeling older generations have about reading newspapers instead of using Twitter to get their news.

I enjoyed this article because it made me think about digital versus analog technologies through a different lens. I'm definitely more digitally plugged into my community rather than newspaper-oriented when it comes to informing myself, but, regarding novels, I have a soft spot for books with actual pages in them and libraries supported by brick and mortar. This analogy really sits with me because I feel like I can finally relate to the sense a person of a different generation may feel about their favorite newspaper or preferred magazine.

The chapter's thesis reads as follows: "I argue that e-books are an emergent technological form by which problems pertaining to the ownership and circulation of printed books are simultaneously posed and resolved."

I think this is a true statement as I turn to examine my own habits. While I continue to buy physical novels, I typically buy e-book versions of my textbooks to save money and pretend I'm making a positive impact on the environment. I also get all of my news aggregated to me through Twitter and Facebook in some form or fashion and feel that these platforms sufficiently inform me on current events—these habits are an example of the political, economical, social, and technical determinations that the author attributes to our shifts.

In a continuation of drawing parallels between digital and analog forms, people predicted that e-books would revolutionize the book industry back when Stephen King released the first e-book ever in the year 2000, according to the chapter. People continue to feel the same way about digital content—it will revolutionize the way we consume and sell information to each other. I'm inclined to believe this is true considering the pedestal that digital content is placed. But people who like books will continue to buy books and people who buy newspapers will continue to buy newspapers—it's hard to say whether that alone will salvage their place in the economy.

It's All About Value

Listening to professor Chyi's troubles with book pricing, printing, and transportation really made me value books even more than I already did. I think there is something special about holding a tangible work in one's hands that conveys the effort that the author put into it. All the time that was spent formatting it and editing it just right so that the reader could properly explore the story within. 

I think this is something that is missing from ebooks. In the text "E-Books and the Digital Future" they note that "despite all this think-big entrepreneurial optimism, many continue to doubt the worth of e-book technologies." To me, this makes total sense, because as professor Chyi pointed out, e-books seem to have the Ramen Noodle effect; they're cheap, easily accessible and get the job done. Personally, the only reason I ever opt for an e-book instead of a physical copy is if the physical copy is much too expensive for me. Besides that I see no additional value or benefit to reading an e-book. 

In class we spoke about accessibility and convenience, but we never talked about the effects that e-books may be having on the learning process. This article explores this topic and claims that “(The students with ebooks) were much more motivated to read, but they were also able to re-tell less. Their ability to answer questions wasn’t quite as strong when they were reading interactive ebooks". I have personally experienced this myself, and in my case I feel like when I have a physical copy I am immersed in the text, but when I am reading on a device I feel disconnected from the content. 

Additionally, the article makes an interesting comparison between Powerpoint and e-books when stating "“It’s like PowerPoint. At first, everyone wanted their slides to fly in and dissolve and have all of those effects. And all of that became very distracting from the message.” All of the flashy functions of e-books may take away from what the consumer was initially interested in: the content. There are also other distractions that can be accessed with a click of a button, and what started as Chapter 3 of the Great Gatsby may turn into us mindlessly watching videos of cats online. This accessibility to distractions coupled with our ever-shrinking attention span may also detract from the value an e-book can offer, which has now decreased to 8 seconds. That is less than the attention span of a gold fish people! 

There is something special about getting lost in a book, and I think many of us can see the value in that. For e-books on the other hand, we must consider what the true value actually is. Is it adding any educational value? Monetary value? Artistic value? Historical Value?

Goldfish: 1 Humans: 0

On a scale of one to goldfish, how short is a human's attention span?

Oh look, a flower!!!

According to TIME Magazine, goldfish surpass humans in their ability to maintain focus. A research study in Canada conducted 2000 studies of the human brain using electroencephalograms (EEGs). It found that the human's average attention span dropped from 12 to 8 seconds while the goldfish stands triumphantly at 9, and it attributes this attenuation to one primary cause: a digitalized lifestyle. 

According to THE Huffington Post, one reason for our reduced attention spans relate to habits and practices associated with electronics. In shedding light on the role of critical thinking, the article states: "the ways we use technologies lead us to develop particular habits of mind. With print, even though we might skim and scan, the default mindset is continuous reading. It's also focusing on what we're reading, even though sometimes our thoughts wander. Digital technologies engender a different set of habits and practices." In other words, when I open the e-book version of my Aural Rehabilitation textbook on my browser, I have an imaginary list of tabs lining up in my brain to be next: Gmail, Facebook, Gmail again (I really love checking email), the list goes on. This default multi-tasking mode makes e-book reading a challenge as my brain hungrily searches for more stimulation rather than absorbing the content. When it comes to reading books from a hard copy, I think that the "less is more" philosophy rings true. There is only so much you can do with a book, and the primary activity is -- you guessed it -- reading! From a subjective perspective, I find myself more focused on reading material that is presented in hard copy and now I understand why: there is no where else to turn (except to the next page, of course). 

In Daniel Kahneman's book entitled Thinking Fast and Slow, he describes two systems of mental activity: System 1 is quick to make decisions and snap judgments, whereas System 2 is slower-paced and analytical. He describes that deep reading requires effort, concentration, and focus, and utilizes System 2. System 1 is activated during digital use, including e-books. This distinction highlights the scientific backing for why hard copy books are more beneficial for the sake of learning.

However, learning is only one piece of this puzzle. When it comes to convenience and price, e-books most certainly win, leading to my first-ever e-book purchase this spring. And so, to loop it back to last week's discussion: are e-books an inferior good? Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? We'll see, but in the meantime...I'm gonna go buy a goldfish. 

EBOOK vs. REALBOOK

"The problem with e-books are that they are e-books" was probably my favorite quote from the article. Just thinking of the pros and cons of E-books I found this buzzfeed article that shares a lot of opinions about the pros and cons of e-books. 

Ebooks vs Realbooks
Here are a couple of quotes from random people who are sharing their opinion about books and my responses to them.

Alanna Okun: I’m pretty platform agnostic, as it were, but I do feel like that kind of thinking is pretty reductive and head-in-the-sand — it’s almost like saying the internet is a fad. Like, “I don’t understand this so it probably doesn’t matter.”

I don't think Ebooks can be compared to the internet. Firstly, because Ebooks would be replacing something we already have, books; while the internet was a new invention. Could Ebooks be a fad? Maybe? but maybe not. I think that its really up to personally preference than fad. Although, if I were to guess, I think majority of the people right now would choose to read a real book over an Ebook. But maybe not in a couple of years, when the kindle/ebook continue to advance and imitate a paper book feel. I have no idea how a kindle would imitate a book feel, but then again I wouldn't of guess the functions of an iphone 10 years back. 

But if I had to imagine something, it probably would be somewhat like this product?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHSdObeUdxI

Krystie: When I turned 21, my aunt and godmother gave me an old, tattered copy of a green hardcover book from 1921. The content of the book wasn’t all that interesting to me — it was about how to grow wildflowers or something like that, and I don’t even garden — but there was a handwritten note on the front page. It was a note from an aunt to her niece on her birthday, and it was just by chance that my aunt found the old used book on a cart at her local library. It was really special to me and has such a huge sentimental value that no e-reader could * ever * give me or recycle for someone else. #BooksForPresents

Krystie makes a great point. Do you think that passing down an old kindle will ever become sentimental? My guess probably not, because imagining myself passing down my first itouch from 2007 probably doesn't hold any meaning now or in 10 years. Its just an old piece of metal shaped together. 

Isaac: I feel like words on paper is one of our most simple and basic technologies. Nothing beats the written word for getting your point across. And while e-readers are convenient, books are each their own thing, with their own specific story and soul. So while there is definitely room on your bookshelf for an e-reader, there will always be books too. Think of them as portals. Is it cool to have device that can hold 1,000 portals? Of course. But when you hold one specific portal, it feels more important. More special. More a part of you.

Isaac pretty much sums up my feelings for ebooks and real books in this quote. Both are pretty cool, but paper books will always be more special. 

Maybe E-Books are More E-Nooying Than We Thought?

I have yet to fancy into the whole Kindle or Google Books epidemic. Why? My main issue is the potential for distraction when using an electronic to read. Reading is a pastime that requires more cognitive thinking and concentration than most. It is not like a movie where the graphics or sounds jump out at you. There are no sound or scenery effects to set a certain scene. You, as the reader, are forced to insert yourself into the book by imagining a tale described by words. In order to do this, many people need to be in a silent, non-distracting environment where they can divulge as much meaning and context from each page of words. For this reason, I find E-books to be more difficult than convenient. While E-books allow me to open up a novel without bringing the physical, one or two-pound novel with me, I find it seemingly impossible to concentrate on the E-book screen. With the newest Apple software updates, I am constantly getting updates and notifications that pop up on my computer screen. While books do grab my interest, I am very tempted to click a notification that entails a text from a friend or an email from a potential employer. It is as if I have not escaped into the world of the novel, which is what the physical novel allows. Shockingly enough, there are credible sources that agree with me and see a similar future in the literature industry: Why Ebooks Will Never Be as Good as Real Books.

"Several years and a healthy does of cynicism later, it seems clear that these heady claims about e-books were suffused with the same millennial hopes and dreams that had helped fuel the late 1990s dot-com boom and its accompanying faith in a resplendent technofuture" (E-books and the Digital Future). Looking past the shiny screen of a seemingly-attractive piece of technology, one can begin to spot the benefits of sticking with a paperback book. In my opinion, there is something to holding a book in your hand. And the article I posted above agrees with me. When holding a novel in your hand, it acts as a centerpiece for discussion and allows those around you to know what exactly you are spending your time doing. If you are on your computer, that is sheerly impossible with the vast capabilities of the Web. It also tells a bit about you, or your interests. A novel adds character to your everyday individual. It is my fear, with the Web, we are taking away unique characteristics of ourselves by allowing technology to take over parts of our every day lives.

Do We Have to Use ebooks?

I mean do they even have to exist? The idea of an ebook is indeed fascinating. The ability to have all 300 pages of a book suddenly downloaded into a compact file onto a digital device of a user's choice seems thrilling, but is it really worth it? Growing up the allure with books was that it symbolized a sense of tangible accomplishment. Read this amount pages per night, get a gold star. Read five books or more on the summer reading list, get your name added to an achievement list. For me, receiving awards for my impressive elementary feats was great, however, what I felt most proud of was finishing a thick book and basking in my own glory at how many pages I read. You couldn't tell me anything after I finished reading Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It might have taken me a few months, but it was still a tangible accomplishment measured by tangible pages in a tangible thick book. 

ebooks may be real but they do not exist. They don't take up room on my desk. I can't feel the weight of one when I toss it into my backpack. Heck, I find pulling up eBooks on my computer to be more of a pain than just opening up a book, but technology dictates how society functions. We live in a society where if new useful technology is introduce there is an automatic push to adopt the technology without knowing the complete effects. In this sense, like the article states, "ebooks both express and embody a practical critique of consumer capitalism." 

If this is the case, I think it's clear that consumer's are not ready to fully embrace the change to ebooks. Consumers like the idea of adopting technology, but the masses are slow to do so. It can be seen in how Simon & Schuster and Arthur Anderson predictions about the ebook market failed. Although this article from the Pew Research Center does acknowledge that slightly fewer Americans are reading print books, Americans are still reading more print books than ebooks. The gap will surely grow smaller as time progresses, however, I don't think ebooks will ever be the dominate form people believe it will be, and if it does, it will not be until much later. 

Hopefully I won't be reading much when that time comes. 

That's All, Folks

There was a lot to digest in this chapter on the rise of ebooks. Personally, I found the detailed historical account a little overwhelming, but it brought up several things that I found very interesting. The section on bookshelves and the middle class’ desire to fill them with some form or fashion of book was absolutely fascinating. The US book industry recognized that they were in quite a slump, so they found a way to turn things around without people knowing that they had been tricked into buying more books. Pure genius. 

Though it was incredibly clever, the book industry’s bookshelf campaign is not, I feel, the most notable portion of the chapter. My favorite quote comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education comic -- “the problem with ebooks is that they are ebooks.” Well said, indeed. I don’t dislike reading an ebook because it’s an ebook, I dislike it because it’s not a printed book. Just like I don’t like reading on my phone or computer. I don’t have a problem with technology, but if I’m going to read a book, I’m going to read a book. 

The chapter continued this distinction between books and other reading material when it noted that “ebooks fail to duplicate the serendipitous flaws and minor variations” that “imbue industrially manufactured printed books with warmth, difference, and depth” (pg. 24). I could not have said it better myself. There is something to be said for an actual, physical copy of a book -- it’s like holding a piece of humanity in your hands. It’s a physical manifestation of someone’s hopes and dreams (and likely their blood, sweat, and tears, too). 

The chapter talks about the ‘weightlessness’ of the digital world -- in a blink of an eye, online books can vanish without a trace. They are not permanent. Digital books do not exist in quite the same way that printed books do. Books occupy a physical place -- and when you read them, you are grounded in that place for as long as you like. When you finish an ebook, it’s gone. However, the earmarked pages of a printed book are always there to take you back to where you were the first time you read it. 

Take a look at this. Jesse England photocopied his Kindle to create a hardbound back up copy of George Orwell’s 1984. So when his ebook disappears because the internet saw fit to destroy it, Mr. England will not be left empty handed.

The chapter goes on to suggest that “technology is a license to forget” (pg. 25). I don’t want to forget what I’ve read. I want to remember the story and how it made me feel and what it made me think. I don’t want all memory of it to vanish as soon as I read the last page. I want to share it with my family or my friends, and one day with my children. For me, books are something that have the ability to cross time and space, gender and generations. Technology breaks your physical and emotional ties to what you have read, and for me, that’s what it is all about. Reading is more than just words -- it’s about the entire experience, something that ebooks just can’t offer.

But what about photocopies? What about them, you might ask. Well, photocopies are just as printed and tangible as regular books. What makes them any less of a product. Perhaps they are an even better product because you are getting the printed book experience at a fraction of the cost. My personal opinion is that yes, while reading a photocopied version is better than reading it online or on a Kindle, there is no replacement for the smell and feel of a printed book. That’s all, folks. 

Why Do I Have To Choose?

As a kid, I remember that lots of my friends got rewarded for good grades on their report card - most of them with money. A dollar or so for every A, etc. My mom, however, rewarded me with something different - books. When I did well on my report card, my mom and I would make a trip to Barnes and Nobel and I would get to pick out three or four new books. It was one of my favorite things growing up. My dad and I went to the Harry Potter book premieres and waited in line to get our pre-ordered copy of the newest book. My freshman year of college I drove for hours to just find a Barnes and Nobel - for me you just can't beat being surrounded by physical books. And given the choice I'll always choose a paper book over an e-book. In this sense I completely agree with a lot of what the article is saying about how e-books just can't quite measure up to print books.

However...

I've realized that there are exceptions to this and they have to do with the uses of the book. For a lot of my business foundations classes an online version of the book has been included with the print copy  and 9 times out of 10 I don't even open the printed copy. I think this is mostly because I'm not sitting down and actually reading the text book. I'm just using it to look up information in reference to a question - which is much easier in a digital copy than a printed copy.
Another reason is if there is a significant difference in the price. Say the printed copy is $20 and the online version is $0.99, I'll go for the digital version.

But why do I harbor such a love for print books? Is it just because I've grown up on it? What about kids who grow up with e-readers as their main source of books? Should digital just be used when a physical book just doesn't work? This article by Scholastic talks about the benefits of print and digital books for young readers. Their "bottom line is kids have a lot to gain from both reading tools." And that whether it's a digital book, or physical one it's important for parents to discuss whats happening in the story and engage with their child in the book. This article talks about the actual "problem now is that both print and e-books are popular." And that each product has "their relative drawbacks." Their bottom line? "The reality is that there is absolutely no reason print and e-books can't coexist in the market."

The New Normal

"The problem with e-books is that they are e-books." This quote, produced alongside a cartoon, caught my attention in this week's reading. I would like to think of myself as an open-minded student. Yet, I was struck by the explanation following this quote. "If this tautological statement makes us laugh," the article says, "we do so most likely because we share a highly specific, normative vision of books and book reading."

Normative is not a word I would often use to describe myself. However, when it comes to reading books, I am the norm. Previously on this blog I mentioned my affinity for the public library. I value the ability to pick up physical books off of the shelves and flip through actual pages before deciding which genre I want to dive into next. In my opinion, one of the biggest perks to utilizing the public library is that it is free.

As the article suggests, e-books add an interesting voice into the U.S.'s capitalist conversation. Currently, I do not have the financial means to invest in a Kindle, tablet or any other e-reader. Even though I don't spend my money on e-books, other people certainly are which is causing bookstores across the nation to close their doors.

Although the article explains the road to e-books is still being shaped, I believe soon e-readers will be the new normal. I see the advantages to both classic books and e-books. E-books are useful because they provide instant gratification and are easy to transport. We are living in the digital age and most millennials gravitate towards anything technology-related. Years ago, e-books were trendy and intriguing for consumers, as highlighted in the video below.

A world in which e-books are the norm is inevitable, even if it takes 10, 20 or 50 years to get to that point.

What Digital Means for Writers

I read e-books regularly. The benefits they hold for me are that they tend to be cheaper and physically easier to take care of. Though they don’t quite hold the emotional appeal of a well-worn and well-loved paperback, and e-books don’t as successfully store memories of where you were the last time you read the story, I am increasingly buying books in a digital form. I have unlimited space to store them, and I am running out of room on my physical bookshelves.

The digitization of books offers a benefit to writers as well. Just as we’ve discussed how there is almost no cost in digitally publishing music or a movie, there is no cost in digitally publishing a book. “E-books and the Digital Future” pointed out the negative impact of this in terms of piracy. However, there is also a positive in that there’s basically no reason why someone who writes a book can’t get it published. Services like Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing, which make it easy for a self-published author to make their books available, reflect this. According to Amazon, 25 of the top 100 most popular in 2012 were self-published through this service.

The long tail means that the digital makes it easier for a new author to make an impact. We hear of more stories of self-published books becoming bestsellers. The most of these is probably 50 Shades of Grey, which started as a piece of Twilight fanfiction and became one of the best selling books of all times, and its movie adaptation is one of the highest grossing R-rated films of all time. I doubt 50 Shades of Grey would have become so successful if it hadn’t become popular online first. Would bookstores have even given it the bookshelf space to get there?

Self-publishing is not new by any means. One example is The Joy of Cooking, a cookbook self-published in 1931. Today, The Joy of Cooking has sold over 18 million copies. However, author Irma Rombauer paid to have the first 3,000 copies printed. With digital technology, it is possible for books to only be printed after an order has been made. This means that a writer does not have to pay significant amounts of money to have their work published and then have to find a place to store those books until they are sold.

So what IS the future of print books?

This week’s article discusses e-books in comparison to actual novels. The beginning of the piece discusses the rise, the fall, and rise again of digital books and the fear many print publishers have that e-books will “kill off their paper-based counterparts.” As someone who grew up without e-books, I can see why some may be concerned about print’s disappearance; in fact, I see myself as one of those people as well because nothing can beat filtering through the pages of a book. Personally, I don’t get the same thrill reading a novel if it’s electronic based, and I know a lot of my classmates feel the same. The article mentioned how even though e-books are essentially the same printed text as a paper novel there’s still a sense of loss associated with reading something online or through a device. Silberman got it right when he said “e-books fail because, although they repeat, they don’t repeat well enough.”

In the argument for or against e-books, I saw a YouTube video that asked Twitter users which they preferred. On the one hand, many people (such as myself) loved the feeling of holding a book in their hands. Others, however, favored e-books because they loved being able to hold an entire library at the tip of their fingers.

What’s interesting about this article, however, it doesn’t say who the proponents and top-audiences of e-books are. While at first I thought it may be a generational thing, I’m learning that may not be the case. I first thought it would be more commonplace of the generation after us to use iPad’s and kindle’s, rather than read an actual paper book, the people who are advocating for a move to the Internet it the older generation who wants something more “innovative.”

When there seems to be a decrease in the amount of books being bought and published, it seemed odd that the article mentioned how the appearance of books and bookshelves as something “prestigious.” If anything, owning a device that allows you to readily read e-books would do that more than a bookshelf would. According to the article, the solution to getting more books in circulation was the new fad of built-in bookshelves in homes, but the downside to this plan is that these amenities aren’t available to everyone. While I get that built-in bookshelves are pricey, if anything a paper book is cheaper than an e-book, kindle, IPad, computer, etc. (pretty much anything needed to read an e-book.) Yes, books can get pricey, but you’re more likely to find a paper back book on sale for a few cents or dollars than you are to find an e-book, in my opinion.

I think it’ll be interesting to see what’s in store for the future of electronic vs. print books. As mentioned in the article, even textbook publishers such as McGraw-Hill began using e-texts. At this rate, it seems very feasible that the future (as far as school goes) may not even use printed books in school anymore. While I think there any many downfalls to resorting to just online books (and I am certainly bias in that thinking) I want to hope that future generations are going to see the beauty of having a hand-held book, rather than reading something online. 

A typewriting traditionalist comes to terms with change

The article this week delves into the debate about e-books...are they the same as the original? Is it the same sensation as holding and reading from a printed book?  We have had endless class discussions about the nostalgia and inherent power of reading "real," paper books. I think most people in our class, even the most tech-forward and digital-savvy, would agree that there is something special about holding a book in your hand and feeling the turn of the page.  There is no argument there.

But the part of this article that stood out to me was the section where the author commented on the ever-changing nature of preferred mediums of media.  The passage references a writer who still uses a typewriter- and feels it is an act of defiance to the new, speedy preferred technology of the computer.  However, the author points out that even though the man feels he is being "traditional" and "really" writing in a true sense of the word, he is still unknowingly just a cog in the digital machine. His typewriter is electric, which was a byproduct of the mechanical typewriter which was a byproduct of...guess what? Writing by hand! "Mechanical writing deprives the hand of its rank in the realm of writing and degrades the word to a means of communication." It goes on to say that it deprives the reader of the unique personality of handwriting style, making everything look bland and uniform- much of the criticism sounding shockingly similar to that of e-books.  "Bland, lifeless, without personality." But how many of us prefer to write everything by hand? How many of us still prefer to type on a typewriter? Does our writing mean any less? Do our words hold less clout because they are digitized onto a screen.

I can attest, as I have a typewriter which I love and use, it is definitely not practical and took some getting used to.  I use it when I am in the mood to leisurely write and stretch my fingers, but honestly...I prefer typing on a computer.  And I even prefer typing on a computer to writing by hand, as I feel my ideas can flow from my head to the keys even more quickly.  I never had a laptop growing up to learn to type on...but now I prefer it.

Will everyone always prefer reading words on a page rather than a screen?  Some will (ie: trust me, I still use my typewriter).  But most will not.  Our preferences change and evolve. But technology is changing even quicker. So, we often think that because our current preferences haven't caught up, that they never will.  We say, "we ALL with ALWAYS want paper in our hands as we read."  We always think that the old way is the better way...And maybe it is? But I am starting to think it might all just be a matter of preference.

Print newspapers need more than just a facelift

When I told my parents that I was going to study journalism, the first thing out of my father’s mouth was, “Saliste de Guatemala para Guatepeor. If you don’t die of hunger someone is going to kill you.” Here’s a little context: my parents come from a country with an infamous reputation of killing journalists: Mexico.

According to a Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) 35 journalists have been murdered between 1992 and 2015, and those are just the ones with a confirmed motive. The motives behind the killings of another 42 journalists have not been confirmed.   

So those were the words of a worried father. Despite all of this, I continued in my pursuit of journalism. I will admit that at first I wanted to write only for print. This way of thinking soon changed after I was exposed to video, then quickly editing on Adobe Premiere Pro, and moving on to handling audio. Some stories need to be told in different platforms. The medium you choose to tell a story will depend on the story itself. Still, I also don’t want to abandon newspapers… I just don’t want to limit my storytelling platforms.

So the big question is: When are newspapers going to die out? Personally I don’t think they will… if the people handling them are smart and innovative enough.

In a 2009 TED Talk, Polish newspaper designer Jacek Utko spoke about how redesigning newspapers and focusing on the content started to take Eastern European newspapers towards a different direction.

 

In Russia newspaper circulation went up 29 percent on the third year. Poland also saw similar raise in circulation up to 35 percent on the third year. Meanwhile in Bulgaria circulation went up 100 percent.

“Design was just apart of the process,” Utko said. “The process we made was not about changing the look, it was about improving the product completely.”

This echoes what I’ve been learning in my Journalism and Press Freedom class. The newspapers in Latin America that have gained readership and change the way newspapers go about reporting are those that have a focus on investigative journalism. It’s those who keep true to the watchdog role. A few examples are Reforma, El Norte, (both from Mexico) and La Prensa (from Panama). Granted these papers were established before the turn of the century, and they have often been targeted due to the corruptness.
 
Newspapers will stay alive only if they are able to find the target audience that wants to keep them alive. This can happen through redesign and investigative journalism.

Future generations will be different, all bets on digital media.

I agree with the Ramen Noodle Theory in some aspects. Currently, online news is the inferior good when compared to print newspapers. However, aside from the current statistics, I truly believe we all know that eventually the print newspaper will die. Young children today do not read physical text as my generation did and as Iris's generation did. We were conditioned to believe that there is value in reading and collecting physical text. In fact, most families in my neighborhood had small libraries in for their children. That is no longer the case in homes for new families. Every type of text, including online media, is easily accessible for children on their iPads and Kindles.

As we discussed last week in class, children are being pushed to use e-readers through out their education. I have participated in focus groups that have tested future textbooks. Future generation will create a dependence on technology that will eventually cause an end to the Ramen Noodle Theory. I may be one of the few that find the theory to be hard to swallow. I am biased because I believe that as technology progresses our habits as a society will change.

I believe that print is not the steak of news media. Many print news publishers are no longer around. Print media is a bubble that has lived a very long life and will continue too for the next two decades, but change will come and this bubble will pop. No one has effectively disrupted the power of print media, but I'm sure silicon valley will create something soon. The pros within Business week's article are growing and the con's will be less relevant to future generations. It is not necessary for publishers to change their ways and adapt now because many in my generation will still be inclined to pick print over digital.

Ramen Noodles are Relative

The Newspaper Association of America's article discussing Professor Chyi's theory that online news is considered an "inferior good" in comparison to print newspaper is extremely interesting. As explained, an inferior good is something that people consume less when their income increases - thus using the analogy of ramen noodles. However, I believe this analogy is relative to the generation Professor Chyi belongs in. The generation of our professors and parents grew up with print newspaper. It is what they are used to, it is what many prefer. They like the feel of the paper, they like the layout, their brains even respond to it better (in comparison to digital, according to a study using fMRI scans). As a Millennial, however, and growing up with millennial siblings and friends, I can't help but think that this argument will shift come the next 5-10 years.

I have four younger siblings - all of them consume their news (if any) online. Furthermore, I was the president of my sorority - a chapter of 255 women (ages 18-22). We got the Daily Texan delivered to our house every morning, along with a few other local papers. The stack of papers would sit, untouched, and pile up on the front hall table of our house until someone recycled them. At first, I thought our generation didn't care about the world around them...but this isn't true at all. We just have different ways of consuming the news - in our eyes, a more convenient/accessible way of consuming it, which is online. Now this raises the question: do we consume the news online because we're college students and we don't have the income for paper subscriptions? Once we graduate and are in the "real world" will we change our ways to print newspapers? (One might raise the same question on why college students eat ramen noodles and easy mac). I honestly think that we won't convert to paper and we will continue to consume our media online - because it is what we're used to, it's what we grew up with, it's what we prefer...and in our eyes it won't be considered the same caliber as ramen noodles. We'll be reading our online news while eating our stake too.

Furthermore, I believe this topic is slightly skewed when discussed by a bunch of communication majors. I feel that our sample size is bias towards media - because we wish to devote our lives and careers to this particular field. It would be interesting to survey students who don't have a connection to the communication school and see how they consume their media and what they prefer. My hypothesis is that students would consume media online vs. offline.

Good journalism is not enough anymore

In the remote year of 2007, Philip Meyer, a respected American journalist and researcher, predicted in his book “The Vanishing Newspaper” that printed newspapers would disappear in 2043. Despite his apocalyptic prediction, the professor of University of North Carolina, an enthusiastic advocate of journalism and its role in the society, also concluded that high-quality journalism was the key for newspapers to survive.

Almost ten years later, with the arising of social media and the escalating presence of Google in our lives, I would have to say: good journalism is not enough – we need to rethink the business model of newspapers in a disruptive way.

One of the best articles I’ve read about the issue was written by Caio Tulio Costa, a Brazilian journalist and professor, during his fellowship in Columbia University in 2013. In “A Business Model for Digital Journalism: How Newspapers Should Embrace Technology, Social and Value Added Services”, he proposes a new value chain for the information business.

In his opinion, we are facing a disruption when it comes to information, shifting from an analog to a digital era (as professor Clayton Christensen had already pointed out in 2011). Therefore, newspapers need a new value chain for its business.

Forget about making money with advertisement, in an era where newspapers don’t have the monopoly in connecting companies and consumers anymore. Forget about selling thousands of printed editions, in times when information is everywhere, even under your fingertips. Journalistic companies need to change their value chain, because they won’t survive out of those old revenue streams.

The author states, in what I consider the great “eureka” moment of his research, that newspapers should become service companies, embracing the production of value-added services.

Trips from The New York Times: a value-added service

These companies not only should rethink their advertising strategies, building advertising networks to gain scale and cope with giants like Google and Facebook, and dive into social media in order to spread their content. They should especially focus on information sub-products, like books, researches, online document archives, databases, online shopping services, web hosting, website development and so on. Basically, everything that is related to the know-how of a journalistic company: information.

In the United States, the non-profit news organization ProPublica is an example: they sell their cleaned-up,refined databases (that have been giving rise to fantastic stories) to researchers and companies. The media legacy outlet The New York Times, besides having an online store and selling trips that are guided by their reporters (both information-related services), is also investing boldly in disruptive technologies, especially with their developer’s team. Here in Texas, The Texas Tribune, also a non-profit organization, has learned how to makemoney out of events, through partnerships and tickets-selling. Their annual festival alone generated $ 700,000 in revenue last year.

The Texas Tribune Festival: last year, $ 700,000 were generated from sponsorships and tickets

Back to Brazil, Valor Economico, our national “Financial Times”, is emerging as one of the well positioned newspapers in terms of value-added services: they created a real-timeinformation service fitted to companies, sell special reports about a specific market and provide an analyticand follow-up service of relevant bills in Congress.

It’s an interesting path for newspapers, that will hopefully become an important revenue stream. I would keep an eye on it.

Is Digital News Media the “New Coke”?

According to the article assigned this week, print newspapers “remain the core product in newspapers’ home markets without a single exception, reaching far more readers than the online edition.” Additionally, online readership is showing only little or no growth at all! So why are newspaper companies so obsessed with going digital when clearly something (more appropriately, someone) is not ‘clicking?’

I would like to examine the transition to online news in light of Coca-Cola’s biggest blunder and business fail: “New Coke.” In 1985, based on consumer research, Coca-Cola decided to launch “New Coke,” which was marketed as having a smoother, sweeter taste. Coca-Cola hauled “Old Coke” off the shelves and prepared itself to surpass Pepsi as the cola of the 80s and beyond. However, when released to the public, New Coke was a failure. Consumers demanded ‘Classic’ Coke be put back on shelves, even going so far as to organize grassroots campaigns across the nation. Eventually, ‘Classic’ Coke was put back on shelves (along with ‘New’ Coke) due to the emotional attachment that consumers had for the original. Emotional attachment couldn’t be measured by consumer research. New Coke eventually was no longer offered as an option. So what does Coca-Cola have to do with digital news?

Newspaper companies should try the biggest experiment to hit the journalism world. Albeit probably not feasible, it would be really interesting to see if print newspapers were completely taken off shelves, just like Classic Coca-Cola was. Would there be a consumer backlash? Or would digital news become the core product of newspaper companies, producing profits surpassing what was attainable by print news? Maybe then journalists and companies would really know how much print newspapers are worth. My guess is that print newspapers are akin to Classic Coca-Cola and digital news media are akin to New Coca-Cola; the nostalgia and value associated with print newspapers, in my opinion, would be enough for a print resurgence.  

Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/30-years-ago-today-coca-cola-new-coke-failure/