Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
practice applicationsTOPICS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST
Print vs Online: Can There Be a Cohabitation of
Competing Media and How Readers Can BenefitI f you’re reading this article on theprinted page, you realize that thedeath of print has been greatly
exaggerated. “Everybody’s talkingabout the death of print, but that’sjust not going to happen,” says BobSacks, a publishing industry analyst.“There’s going to be billions of dollarsfor the next 20 years in print.” How-ever, within the next 5 to 10 years,the chances you’ll still be reading aprinted version of the Journal willbecome at least a little less likely, asdevices like iPads (Apple, Cupertino,CA) continue to improve and winmore converts, and as publishers con-tinue to shift their focus to the elec-tronic. “Primarily the way peopleread will be digital,” Sacks says.
Across the publishing industry,whether it’s books, commercial maga-zines, or trade publications, econom-ics and user habits are tipping towarddigital and away from print. That tip-ping point may vary wildly across theindustry, perhaps even from title totitle—but as a force, it is irreversible,Sacks says. By 2020, according to me-diaIDEAS, a consulting firm Sacksowns with other industry analysts,about 58% of the US periodical indus-try will be digital (1). Recently, in ahighly publicized campaign, Maga-zines: The Power of Print (2), commer-cial magazine publishers championedthe growth of print subscribers as asign that business is returning to nor-mal. But in an editorial for Publish-ing Executive, citing data from the Pub-lishers Information Bureau, Sackswrites: “This year we will publish moreprinted magazine titles than we pro-duced last year. Next year we willprobably publish and produce moreprinted magazine titles than this
This article was written by SaraAase, a freelance writer andfrequent contributor inMinneapolis, MN.
doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2011.02.017500 Journal of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATIO
year. The unfortunate corollary tothis prediction is that in each year, wehave been and will continue to pro-duce fewer and fewer printed pages.The industry we know and love . . .has fundamentally and irreversiblychanged (3).”
The story is similar throughoutpublishing. The sale of e-books is pre-dicted to hit $3 billion by 2015, atwhich point that format, not the boundbook as we know it, will drive that in-dustry, predicts James McQuivey, aconsumer products analyst for For-rester Research (4). Wharton DigitalPress (formerly Wharton School Pub-lishing, a division of The WhartonSchool of the University of Pennsyl-vania and Pearson Education), whichpublishes business books aimed atmanagers, will cease printing titlesthis year in favor of an e-book–onlystrategy, says executive directorStephen Kobrin. As for niche trademagazine publishers, “somethinglike 60% or more have moved to adigital magazine format,” Sackssays.
This big-picture transition, how-ever, doesn’t mean that the Journalwill stop printing copies anytimesoon. Member-driven health publica-tions like the Journal may be amongthe last to give up print, says KarenHunter, a senior vice president withthe Journal’s publisher Elsevier.Hunter was instrumental in startingthe electronic database ScienceDirectin the mid ‘90s. In 2007, she pub-lished a paper examining the print todigital transition called, The End ofPrint Journals: (In)Frequently AskedQuestions. “The biggest question, ‘Whenis the end,’ is still unanswered,” shesays. “There’s an understanding atElsevier and its partners that paperwill recede,” Hunter says. But when-ever she asks other executives if thereis an end-date for the printed journalin mind, the answer is always no. “As
long as there’s still a demand forN © 2011
print, it’s a disservice to everyone tostop.”
CONTENT 2.0: A SLOW CHANGEThe demise of print is actually an oldstory. A 2010 study by the Universityof California at San Diego finds thatAmericans’ print consumption has de-clined since 1960 (5). “When peoplesay, ‘Print is dead,’ what they’re re-ally talking about is the habit ofprint,” says Jeff MacIntyre, founderof Predicate, a content strategy con-sultant for digital publishers. “Morepeople are getting all of their dailynews online, or a great percentage ofit, or their sports scores, driving di-rections, shopping—it adds up to be-come this overwhelming media diet.”Meantime, reading has only in-creased. First, the rise of computersand then the Internet has boosted thevolume of the written word dramati-cally, according to the same study:“Reading, which was in decline due tothe growth of television, tripled from1980 to 2008, because it is the over-whelmingly preferred way to receivewords on the Internet (5).”
This shift in reader habits to morescreen time is rippling through thepublishing industry, forcing an ongo-ing, often painful restructuring of theway it does business. Although, asmentioned previously, not necessarilyat the same pace. For many smallcommercial publishers, going exclu-sively digital saves money. “We nolonger print because postage has gonecrazy,” says Molly Joss, publisher ofthe Seybold Report, an independentnewsletter on publishing and printingtechnologies. “I can’t get the ratesthat big publishers get.” The changealso hit libraries swiftly. According toa 2007 study by the Association ofResearch Libraries (ARL), the num-ber of institutional print subscrip-tions drops every year, going from64% of library subscriptions in 2002
to 30% in 2006 (6). In that same timeby the American Dietetic Association
TOPICS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST
period, e-only journals rose from just5% to 37% of library collections. “Pub-lishers increasingly have ‘flipped’ theirpricing so that print subscriptions arecharged at a premium (often 15%) ontop of a contract for electronic accessinstead of online being an add-on,” itreports (6). In 2007, Elsevier countede-only subscriptions as nearly 40% ofits ScienceDirect subscription reve-nues (7). (ScienceDirect is one of a fewdifferent databases that carry theJournal.) Today e-only subscriptionsare the “vast majority,” Hunter says.Reduced demand for print results inless shelf space and smaller printruns, until eventually printing is nolonger economically viable. As onlinemeasurability improves, more adver-tisers will move online, too, furthershrinking a valuable revenue streamfor print (6).
Because the conversion from aprint-dominant to a digital-dominantpublishing world is such a slow, pain-ful, and enormous change, it’s easy tofall victim to circular logic—ie, thedecline of print in turn spells the endof magazines, journals, and books.
This debate has gotten louder re-cently as many newspapers and mag-azines failed, and as the book indus-try faces drastically shrinking sales.Although we can’t predict with cer-tainty how the forms of journals,magazines, and books might changewith the available technology, we canbe certain that the ideas transmittedthrough the written word will be asvaluable as ever. “The argument is afunction of a new industry,” Kobrinsays. “At some point we’ll understandand live with the advantages and dis-advantages of both.”
THE QUESTION OF UTILITY: PRINT STILLRULESThe Internet has added tremendousvalue to how we experience and inter-act with published content. More thanever before we can search for specific in-formation quickly and browse from morediverse sources. There are myriadways to connect, comment, rebut, andpublish. We can even choose to watcha video or listen to a podcast, in addi-tion to, or instead of, reading text. Butuntil very recently, the attempt to
digitize books and periodicals hasApril 2011 ● Journ
failed to replicate many of the quali-ties we value about print, such as theability to flip through a publication,pore over lush, detailed illustrations,carry it anywhere with us, dog-earpages, underline, and make nota-tions.
The tactile nature of print is impor-tant to us—but why? One reason maybe because the work of readingquickly causes cognitive overload.When we must learn or remembersomething, or when we are expectedto respond to a written piece—with areview or comments, for example—wetake notes. On paper. “By actively be-ing involved with the text, users canbetter memorize and understand it,”write the authors of a 2009 studycomparing paper-based and onlineannotations. “By contrast, annotatingon a computer-screen is an activitythat competes with the reading itself,due to the lack of direct manipulation(8).” The study noted that in absenceof a quick, easy way to annotate arti-cles delivered via Web browser, usersresorted to e-mailing themselves orcreating notes in separate text docu-
ments.al of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 501
ssJi
tafoatlnhtJawtnmtsJpa
pfscasadlofias
RWtmzctovpedpscis
tftpieewtKsdctptc
umott“ttWsjtTc
adsbhc“aJs
TOPICS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST
Digital annotation is fast changing,however. In the same study, userswere asked to try a new online anno-tation tool, SpreadCrumbs, and foundthat it worked as well as traditionalpen-on-paper notation for in-contextnote-taking. And in some ways better,in fact, as the notes could be sharedwith others, searched, indexed, or-dered, and rated. The Kindle (Ama-zon, Seattle, WA) and iPad let readersbookmark, highlight, and make noteson e-books, all of which are search-able and, through the Kindle, shar-able.
The growing ability of digital de-vices to mimic the printed book andmagazine experience will be a criticalfactor in increasing adoption of thisnew technology. Consider that, buck-ing conventional wisdom, printedmagazines are still the most popularwith 18- to 34-year-olds (9). Likewise,Journal readers with less than 5years of dietetics experience were themost likely to rely on the Journal fordietetics-related information (10). Go-ing even younger, three quarters ofcollege students surveyed said theystill preferred a bound textbook to thedigital version—not only citing theease of use, as noted above, comparedto a digital book, but also the freedomfrom connection to Facebook andother online distractions. Granted, e-textbooks are still exotic, currentlyrepresenting only 3% of textbooksales (11).
HYBRID NATION: JOURNALS CAPITALIZEON PRINT�ELECTRONIC FORMATSWhat about journals? Unlike books,each of which usually stands alone,the information in journals con-stantly evolves around the needs of aparticular audience. Authors are fre-quently in dialog with each otheracross issues—hence, readers expectto be able to move easily betweenthem. Readers also are a more imme-diate and interactive audience, influ-encing and contributing to issue con-tents. Because of these demands,most magazine and journal publish-ers find themselves, like the Journal,supporting a hybrid or “multichan-nel” mode—building up an onlinepresence that can more effectively en-gage those readers, for example,through blogs, podcasts, video, anddiscussion forums.
At the same time, they still recog- e
502 April 2011 Volume 111 Number 4
nize the value in offering a printedjournal, particularly to member sub-scribers and advertisers, since digitalstill can’t beat print for visibility.Publishers firmly expect to hold thispattern for some time. According to a2009 survey by the Audit Bureau ofCirculation, 78% of publishers saidtheir publication would not be in adigital-only form within 5 years(12). More recently, trade publicationsources and statistics show the suc-cess of periodicals that offer bothprint and online issues: “[J]ournals inprint and online format were morestable than those published in printonly or online only” (13). “As far asI’m concerned, print is not going awayfor a long time for the Journal, prob-ably not within my lifetime,” saysTony Trioli, senior publisher incharge of the Journal at Elsevier. Be-ides a strong member-based printubscription base, Trioli noted thatournal advertisers still overwhelm-
ngly prefer print.In a still print-dominant world,
hose who have moved too swiftly andrbitrarily away from print have suf-ered. According to the ARL study,ne society lost 25% of its membersfter print was abruptly dropped athe instigation of the board (6). Theatest reader survey shows that forow, Journal subscribers are stillappy to have both printed and elec-ronic versions. For example, 52% ofournal subscribers visit the Web sitelittle more than twice a month, andell over half of regular visitors rated
he site highly for comprehensive-ess, speed, appearance of new infor-ation, ease of use, and application to
heir personal needs. But of thoseubscribers who hadn’t visited theournal’s Web site, 28% said theyreferred print and 23% were notware of the site at all (10).Publishers see great benefit in ex-
loiting all channels, including print,or readers and advertisers. A 2009tudy by BIGresearch found thatommercial magazines rank first ofll media at influencing consumers totart an online search, and that mag-zines—and their ads—held the un-ivided attention of readers muchonger than other media (14). “Somef the features that enable users tond and use digital content—for ex-mple, search—are keeping print alive,”ays James Mathewson, search strategy
xpert for IBM and author of Audience, aelevance, and Search: Targetingeb Audiences with Relevant Con-
ent. Another example is the place-ent of so-called QR codes on maga-
ine pages. When captured by theamera on a mobile phone, they takehe reader to a Web page, coupon,nline video, pricing information, re-iews, or other content (15). But allublishers need to be pushing aheadlectronically. “Companies need toevelop systems to manage and serverint assets digitally,” Mathewsonays. “But the assets themselves willontinue to become less important asnformation consumers tend to prefermaller, on-screen media to print.”Publishers are trying to expand
heir online presence as they prepareor the coming shift, when “the oppor-unity cost of continuing to invest inrint becomes too great (6).” Accord-ng to the ARL study, “most publish-rs appear to recognize the risk that,ven in the scholarly world, readersill eventually stop using informa-
ion that is not available online (6).”obrin of Wharton Digital Press is
uch a reader. “I look through aca-emic journals digitally, find the arti-les I want to read on the iPad, andhose I really need to work through, Irint out,” he says. “It’s a lot betterhan having a 2-inch–thick journalome to your office every 2 months.”Publishers know they need to build
tility for readers and new economicodels for themselves in anticipation
f an e-dominant world. “We continueo encourage members to registerheir online accounts,” Trioli says.We’re not at 100%, and nowadayshat’s a head scratcher.” Since regis-ering an account at the Journal’s
eb site allows the reader to set upearch alerts and save searches, “weust assume they’ll go to the site to doheir research or read back issues,”rioli says. “I’m hopeful that willatch up.”In January, the Journal rolled outnew Web site with improved drop-
own menu navigation, browsing, andearch capabilities. “Supplements areroken out by themselves, so you won’tave to go through the entire table ofontents to find them,” Trioli says.And we’re really going to exploit theudio and video.” For example, theournal’s recently launched podcasteries features conversations by ADA
uthors and other experts that go into
TOPICS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST
depth behind the latest articles (www.adajournal.org/content/podcast).
Other improvements include:
● subject collections featured on thehomepage;
● a “most-viewed” articles box;● Top 25 Hottest Articles (clicks
through to SciVerse ScienceDirectdatabase); and
● CiteAlert, which automatically notifiesauthors by e-mail soon after their workis referenced in a newly published ar-ticle on SciVerse ScienceDirect.
TRADING OLD-WORLD PROBLEMS FORNEW ONESWhat would make you give up print,or at least turn to it less often? Otherupheavals— exchanging the buggyfor car, for example, or letters for e-mail—occur when the new technol-ogy becomes ubiquitous, affordable,and offers clear advantages. In otherwords, consumers have to adopt thenew technology as a need. “The tran-sition will depend a lot on how quicklymost of us adopt mobile devices,” Josssays. The International Telecommu-nication Union predicts that mobileInternet use will surpass that of desk-top computers within 5 years (16). Inthe meantime, most users don’t ap-preciate innovation for innovation’ssake. “We don’t want to make a Kin-dle version of the Journal availablejust for the sake of doing it,” Triolisays. “It has to be something themembership really wants. We want tomake sure we’ve looked at all of thepitfalls and benefits first.” The Jour-nal of the American College of Cardi-ology is the first Elsevier journal topublish an iPad edition, which wentlive in November. “Depending on howthat pilot goes, we may roll that out toother journals,” Trioli says. “We’relooking at e-readers, iPad applica-tions, mobile applications.”
A big hurdle to the digital transi-tion for publishers is the cost of goingdigital while maintaining a printproduct. “Our library customers atfirst thought there would be an imme-diate end to print, and that the elec-tronic-only version would be a lotcheaper,” Hunter says. “But the pub-lisher took on the added costs of hav-ing to maintain two issues, and theadded costs of maintaining and dis-tributing electronic versions along
with print.” And, of course, simplydigitizing existing content does not agreat experience make. It takes re-sources to create a Web site, applica-tion, or other content that comple-ments or replaces some aspects of theprint product. The Journal’s readersurvey shows, for example, that Website users want to see additional orig-inal content, more of the latest indus-try and product information, videos,and more industry-related ads (10).For publishers, the business modelsfor digital—what to do, how to do it,and how to pay for it—are still verymuch in flux.
Concerns about prestige, issue au-thenticity, and archiving are ongoingconcerns in the transition to a digital-dominant publishing world, althoughHunter says that the last two havemostly been resolved. Electronic jour-nals are now considered the version ofrecord, Hunter says. “They have linksto the underlying data set, or moreinformation, for example, on a partic-ular molecule,” she says. If there wasan error, the electronic version can beamended with that correction. “It’snot that the paper version is less com-plete, it’s that the databases have somany features you can’t get in paper.”Likewise, archiving, which used to bestrictly the work of libraries, is nowhandled by consortia of libraries andpublishers. Elsevier participates withat least two of the large preservationgroups, such as the nonprofit organi-zation Portico, to hedge its bets aboutchanging technologies. It also main-tains its own digital archives. But thelast question is still open. Do printedjournals still command more prestigeover their e-only counterparts? “Whowants to be first to stop print?”Hunter says. “We still don’t know ifwe stop doing print whether that willstop authors from submitting manu-scripts to us.”
A POST-PRINT WORLDOnce print fades to an on-demand orboutique offering, what might thatmean for the format of journals? Oncethey slip their bindings, will the con-cept of a unified journal fade away,too? Since people continue to organizethemselves by interest, particularlyprofession, it seems likely that theywill continue to want publications toreflect that need. In the same Pub-lishing Executive editorial, Sacks
writes that the magazine “must beApril 2011 ● Journ
paginated, edited, designed, periodic,permanent and date stamped,” re-gardless of its format (3). If that is thecase, magazines and journals will stillneed editorial staffs and publishers toensure quality and distribution.
What about brands? Will they stillmatter? The ARL article muses onthis question: “For many societieswhere the journal brand has played akey role in attracting members, thereis the risk that their identity onlinewill be diluted. Electronic journalsare typically aggregated in a data-base of articles that is known by thename of the database. Since users of-ten link directly to articles withoutsearching by journal name, publish-ers are discovering the importance ofhaving the name of their societyand/or journal on each page of everyarticle, including backfiles as they areput online” (6). Hunter says this issuehas been a concern as Elsevier movesto more article-based syndication ser-vices. “But overall, I honestly don’tthink brand will go away that quicklyeven in an article-based environ-ment,” she says. “It’s one of the filtermechanisms people use still, particu-larly for society journals that are wellrespected.” Kobrin agrees. “I suspectthe biggest challenge for the transi-tion is not the technology, but ratherhow we make readers aware of what’sworthwhile,” he says.
COMING ATTRACTIONS: DIGITALCATCHES UPSignificant obstacles still stand in theway of a digital-first world. But whenyou consider how rapidly technologyhas changed—particularly the rapidadoption of mobile Internet devices,even in the midst of a recession—a“paperless” world no longer seems soelusive. Experts say we can expectsome of the following features andperks:
● More personalization
People will gravitate toward theability to curate their own informa-tion in many ways, on many types ofdevices. For instance, an iPad appli-cation called Flipboard turns yourTwitter and Facebook links, photos,and videos into a magazine format,complete with headlines and full-colortext. Instead of scrolling, you simply
flip through the information (17).al of the AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION 503
1
1
1
1
TOPICS OF PROFESSIONAL INTEREST
● Easier collaboration
Findings change fast, and expertsall over the world want to find othersthey can collaborate with,” saysAhava Leibtag, principal of healthcare consulting company AHA MediaGroup. “If you have digital copies ofstudies, you have multiple ways toorganize it so that you can find eachother, by cross-referencing the sub-ject, author, country, publisher, jour-nal, author name, or area of re-search.”
● More meaningful connections
The more publishers are able to col-lect and use data provided by onlineclicks, the better they will become atproducing content for their readers,Sacks says. “When I open my iPadand read Wired Magazine, they knowwhat pages I spend the most time on,”he says. “And for advertisers, digitaldata will give them the one-to-one re-lationship they want.” Joss says herWeb readership drives her editorialcontent choices. “When a news briefgets a tremendous amount of hits, Ido an article expanding on that topic,”she says. “With the ISP address, I canoften tell who is reading it, so I get asense of who is reading in real time.That’s tremendously exciting—some-thing that no publisher has ever hadbefore.” The Internet, as we’ve seen,also democratizes the ability to pub-lish, creating the potential for anyoneto build an audience. “Dietitians withvarious specialties can easily producea niche product for that specializedaudience,” Sacks says.
● Innovation
What we experience online, onhandheld devices, and in print may beentirely different offerings from thesame publication. For example, Ski-ing Interactive, which debuted in No-vember, is completely different fromits print-based publication (18). Manycommercial magazines have becomemore like blogs online. Perhaps jour-nals will go that route, too—able todeliver new content daily or hourly.
● More like . . . paper
The more technology improves itsability to handle digital versions ofprint, the more attractive it will be-
come as an alternative to paper. “Pro-504 April 2011 Volume 111 Number 4
cessing speeds will be faster, digitaldevices will be rollable, foldable, andflexible, with full-color screens thatwork with reflective light, like paper,”Sacks says. “I’ve held some of these pro-totypes in my hands, and they are com-ing in 2011. When people are able tosave and annotate documents like pa-per, carry around their publicationswith them on one device, and relax,untethered, in a favorite easy chair,digital devices will replace most of theirprinted counterparts,” Sacks says.
PRINT WILL NEVER ABANDON USOf course, this map of a new, paper-less world is inevitably incomplete. Ata recent Web 2.0 conference, Facebookfounder Mark Zuckerberg pointed to amap of today’s online “players” and said,“I think the biggest part of the maphas got to be the uncharted territory.Right? It’s not zero sum (19).” TheiPad and other mobile devices, ex-perts point out, are still in their in-fancy, as is the Web itself. “It’s earlydays yet,” Joss says. “We’re all stillfeeling our way along.”
Picturing a world where paper be-comes like the vinyl record—still trea-sured and available for a niche follow-ing—leaves many issues unresolved.Cost of new technologies and services,for example. Bandwidth. Battery life.Recycling. Not to mention that intangi-ble something about print that nobodyhas been able to measure—the feel, thesmell, the fact that the printed pagerequires no clicking, no e-mail check-ing, and won’t suddenly disappear. Per-haps that last point will be more impor-tant than anyone is counting on, astechnology races forward now at such apace as to render any gadget obsoletethe moment its packaging is rippedaway. It may be fitting that the word“obscene” is part of “obsolescence,” es-pecially when applied to a technologythat dates to 1439. Yet even if we ulti-mately abandon print, there’s the secu-rity that print will never abandon us.
References1. PRWeb. mediaIDEAS forecasts—Most of the
magazine industry will be digital in 2020.http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/04/prweb3849514.htm. Accessed January 21,2010.
2. Magazines: The Power of Print. http://powerofmagazines.com/. Accessed Novem-ber 16, 2010.
3. Sacks R. BoSacks: The profit prophet: To moveforward as an industry, we must stop believ-
ing ‘magazine’ is synonymous with paper.Publishing Executive. July/August 2010.
4. McQuivey J. eBooks ready to climb past $1Billion. Forrester Blogs Web site. http://blogs.forrester.com/james_mcquivey/10-11-08-ebooks_ready_to_climb_past_1_billion. Ac-cessed November 19, 2010.
5. Bohn R, Short J. How much information?2009 report on American consumers. GlobalInformation Industry Center, University ofCalifornia San Diego Web site. http://hmi.ucsd.edu/pdf/HMI_2009_ConsumerReport_Dec9_2009.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2011.
6. Johnson R, Luther J. The E-only tippingpoint for journals: What’s ahead in the print-to-electronic transition zone. Association ofResearch Libraries Web site. http://www.arl.org/bm�doc/Electronic_Transition.pdf. Ac-cessed January 21, 2011.
7. Hunter K. The end of print journals (in)fre-quently asked questions. J Libr Adm. 2007;46:119-132.
8. Kawase R, Herder E, Nejdl W. A comparisonof paper-based and online annotations in theworkplace. L3S Research Center Web site.http://www.l3s.de/web/upload/documents/1/A%20Comparison%20of%20Paper-Based%20and%20Online%20Annotations%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2011.
9. Association of Magazine Media. MagazineHandbook: Engagement to Action. http://www.magazine.org/advertising/handbook/Magazine_Handbook.aspx. Accessed January21, 2010.
10. Readex Research. Journal of the AmericanDietetic Association 2010 Reader Survey.Stillwater, MN: Readex Research; 2010.
11. Foderaro L. In a digital age, students stillcling to paper textbooks. The New YorkTimes Web site. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/nyregion/20textbooks.html. Ac-cessed January 21, 2011.
12. The Audit Bureau of Circulation and ABCInteractive. Going mobile: ABC Interactivelooks at digital publishing today and tomor-row. The Seybold Report. 2010;10:6-8.
13. The Center for Association Leadership. Pub-lications: Peer-review premium. Associa-tions NOW. March 2011:17.
14. Magazines: The Power of Print. 11 facts aboutmagazines. http://powerofmagazines.com/pdf/Magazines_FactSheet.pdf. Accessed January21, 2011.
15. Tolliver-Nigro H. Best Practices for Makingthe Most of QR Codes. The Seybold Report.2010;10:9-12.
6. Associated Press. Number of Cell PhonesWorldwide Hits 4.6B. CBS News Web site.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/15/business/main6209772.shtml. Accessed Janu-ary 21, 2011.
7. Flipboard. http://www.flipboard.com/. Ac-cessed January 21, 2011.
8. Husni S. The doctor is in(teractive): Bonni-er’s Tom James on the future, magazines,tablets, and the good old desktop computer.Mr. Magazine Web site. http://mrmagazine.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/the-doctor-is-interactive-bonnier%E2%80%99s-tom-james-on-the-future-magazines-tablets-and-the-good-old-desktop-computer-the-mr-magazine%E2%84%A2-interview/. Accessed January 21, 2011.
9. Rosenberg S. “Your map’s wrong”: Zucker-berg lights out for the territories. WordyardWeb site. http://www.wordyard.com/2010/11/
17/your-maps-wrong-zuckerberg-lights-out-for-the-territories/. Accessed January 21, 2011.
