Chip Babcock Communiqué

Chip Babcock Communiqué Reading the Real Newspaper v. Reading the iPad Newspaper

The iPad is an amazing device projecting sales of 12.9 million units in 2010 (the year of its birth in April) and nearly 100 million units by the end of 2012. But I fear that the iPad will accelerate the demise of the daily newspaper. The one you can hold in your hands; the one you don't have to shut off when the flight attendant announces that they are closing the cabin door or are preparing for landing. Whereas the Kindle device (remember the Kindle?) charged for newspapers (generally the newsstand price), the iPad does not. My iPad screen has an icon for the Financial Times, the New York Times, the Dallas Morning News, and the Houston Chronicle – all papers I subscribe to at home. When I'm home, I'm still going to read the real newspaper.

But I'm not so sure when I'm traveling. It used to be that my first stop at the airport (after security) would be the newsstand, where I would get the above-mentioned newspapers. Now I am starting to skip that step in favor of my iPad. Not good for newspaper revenue. But aside from having to shut down during prime reading time (takeoff and landing), I am starting to wonder if I'm missing something by reading the iPad edition as opposed to the real thing. I'm in far Northern Michigan right now, and the Financial Times, Dallas and Houston papers are not available, but the New York Times is sold daily at a little store called Birch Hill about two miles down the road. Today I decided to compare the real New York Times with the iPad New York Times.

First, I turned on my iPad, slid to unlock (click) and hit the New York Times icon. In 15 seconds, the Times appeared, but it looked way different from the paper I bought at Birch Hill. Then I noticed (for the first time) some items above the masthead, one of which said "Today's Paper." So I hit that. Five seconds later I had, as advertised, "Today's Paper," with a picture of the front page. It invited me to "enlarge this image" which, as any iPad owner knows, you can do by twisting your hand and contorting two fingers in such a way as to expand whatever image you are dexterous enough to manipulate. But I was a little disappointed. A message above the enlarged front page said: "To reduce download time, this page has been scanned at a resolution that makes the headlines and photos legible but not the body type." I will say this – it did show up fast on my screen, even though I couldn't read it.

So what about content? Well, the real New York Times had three stories, a picture and two teases (to stories inside the paper), as we used to say, "above the fold." In addition, there were three stories, a picture and teases to sections of the paper (National, International, Arts, Dining, Business, Sports and Editorial) on the bottom half of the front page. The iPad "Today's Paper" had four stories "above the scroll" – that is, before you have to get your finger limbered up to scroll down the page. Below the scroll, however, there was an extra story not contained in the paper I bought at Birch Hill. This new story had to do with "Carl P. Paladino connecting with voters' anger and worrying Rick A. Lazio's supporters." I suspect we got the extra story because iPad has the final edition, whereas in Northern Michigan we received the earlier National Edition. We also got on the iPad edition all of the stories in today's paper listed by section. So my iPad edition had something extra, but to be honest, the Paladino/Lazio fight has not captured my attention yet. I just remember Lazio was mean to Hillary.

What about ease of use? The real NYT led with a story about President Obama declaring an end to the Iraq combat mission and showed two related stories, one a news analysis by David Sanger and the other a reaction story from Baghdad by Anthony Shadid. The iPad edition listed those stories in the international section but showed no linkage to the story on the front page. (They were linked once you opened the lead story). The lead from the real NYT jumped to page ten, which contained the Shadid article, and across the crease at page 11 you saw the Sanger news analysis, some "Notes From The Front Lines" and six photographs. The iPad edition did have six pictures of the President, but when I was done looking at them, I wanted to get back to the article I was reading. One way was to hit the back arrow, which meant I had to see the same six pictures in reverse order. The other way was to hit the iPad master button, go to the home page, then to today's paper, and then back to the article I was reading. Either way, it took 20 seconds. But when I got back to the story, there was a compelling slide show of photographic images of different stages of the war – something the real New York Times didn't have. But when I hit the back button, nothing happened. So I went through the same ritual to get back to my story. Twenty seconds.

The iPad edition also had the full text of the President's speech and a timeline of major events in the Iraq war. These items were not available in the paper product.

Two more comments. First, there is a stunning picture of the ballerina April Giangeruso taken by Gene Schiavone that appears in both the print and iPad editions. But the latter does not do the photograph justice, even when you "enlarge this image" as is suggested. In the print edition, the photograph spans six columns, takes up the upper two-thirds of the page and is appealing to the eye. Second, maybe the iPad edition has major league box scores available, but I couldn't find them – even when I typed in "Box Scores" and hit "find." I was directed, however, to some interesting websites regarding baseball statistics. But no box scores. I guess there's always MLB.Com or ESPN.com for that.

Here's the bottom line for me. All things being equal, I'm going to read the real newspaper. It gives me a complete picture of the day's events (I don't need to read President Obama's speech, and I already had gotten it on my blackberry anyway), and I can read the paper uninterrupted on an airplane or anywhere that my iPad doesn't get a signal. I enjoy the newspaper layout (don't get me started on the dizzying information overload of the NYT home page), I appreciate the illustrations (pictures, graphs, artistic works), and I can turn the pages back and forth in one second. But if you want my advice, the NYT and other newspapers are going to have to start charging people who read their product on an iPad. It may be, as Rupert Murdoch predicts, that the iPad will encourage young people to start reading the news and that ultimately people will "pay for digital journalism." But they'd better hurry. The New York Times has an iPad app called "NYT Editors' Choice," which the NYT advertises as "free (for now!)."

— Chip Babcock is a partner at Jackson Walker. He can be reached at cbabcock@jw.com.