Encore on tablet: ‘massive mistake’ or ahead of the curve?

I think you are correct that it is early days, but you have also made some decisions that have deliberately limited your audience. In my view your decision to ignore smartphone users is a mistake.

Some of the most popular Android devices are smartphones with tablet style screen resolutions.

I tried to download your Android app, but couldn’t because your app does not support my device – a Galaxy Note phone with the latest Android software version. When you choose to only support a tiny fraction of Android devices, you should not be surprised that your Android readership is poor.

Having had both Apple and Android devices it quickly became clear that Android was far better. I access most info on my Samsung Galaxy phone including Mumbrella. I did enjoy the content of Encore but I’m now missing it as you have made a decision that it is far easier for you to produce it for one platform only. As Android market share has overtaken Apple and is booming does this really make a lot of sense?

Speaking for the “high-end” Android tablet users, this piece left me a little nonplussed.

I don’t like Apple because of its wall-garden mentality, and find I have higher functionality using Android products. If, like me, you view iTunes as the world’s most popular piece of malware and Apple products as dumbed-down, deliberately crippled pieces of hardware, it’s hard to see the appeal.

I’d suggest pushing into the Android market, or even better, go for HTML5 and become platform agnostic. Why lock your magazine into a single platform of questionable value?

+1 for HTML5….

But otherwise, good job sharing this — it’s something (and data) that needs to be discussed realistically rather than waxing lyrical about the future of digital publishing.

Would be very interested to read about the cost-benefit and ROI you’ve received (cost-per-download, CPM for the advertisers etc) as well — understand this is probably pushing the “open to all” approach though 😉

I’d like to have a tablet but can’t really justify it when I have a very small laptop which is only a little bigger to transport.
When you did your Q scores (or your version) I really wanted to read the article. I want to four newsagents and couldn’t find a copy. I’m not going to buy a tablet just for Encore. I enjoy the posts on Mumbrella that come from Encore and I’d pay some money to try it out but when someone as interested as I am has to do so much work and still can’t get your publication you must wonder about how many people you’re missing out on.

Brooke, thanks for sharing your thoughts/experiences in this piece, I really enjoyed it. A few thoughts of my own:

1) The previous Encore edition was my first download, and I was only spurred into it because of the stuff I had seen leaking into Mumbrella. I think this content sharing approach is a good move, especially while your audience is relatively small.

2) I edited a tablet-focused mag for around 6 months, and a lot of our problems centred on those same issues around the balance between design, functionality, and user access.

I know native apps hold a lot of promise (in theory) on the advertising side — but IMO that potential is wiped out by the time/money that goes into tailoring a mag to a specific platform/OS. I know that after my own experiences on this front I’ve become pretty disillusioned with the promise of tablet-only publishing.

If I went through the process again, I’d definitely choose to go for a html5 web app, rather than go native. Html5 means you don’t have to chose between excluding readers or rebuilding, and as a bonus you also don’t have to hand 20%-30% of your takings to Apple/Google. You’re also given the ability to build an audience over search and social, which would surely help in the early days.

Overall, I’m not completely opposed to native apps, because there are still readers out there who enjoy that method. But apps demand much more work, and in the early days I reckon those resources are better spent in other parts of the publication.

I should add that I think you guys are doing a great job with Encore. I’ll definitely be coming back after downloading last issue, and I enjoyed the experience of reading it on the iPad (regardless of my opinions about publishing strategy, etc).

I support your choice to make it tablet only. Better ways to do smaller screens than a publishing app. And android makes publishing a nightmare for tablets.

Just wish it was a bit more seamless with Mumbrella and didn’t tell me there’s an ipad app of the site when I’m actually accessing it via the App…

Sebastien and Me hit the nail on the head.

I too tried to download the Encore app and I couldn’t.

Mentions of platform agnostic is definitely the way to go. Allow anybody, to view your content, on any device.

Why not take away the barrier even more and merge Encore into Mumbrella (you seem to be doing this anyway with many articles citing “as seen on Encore”).

Then Mumbrella really does cover everything under Australia’s media, marketing & entertainment umbrella.

Create a Mumbrella App and perhaps tag certain articles to what they are about: TV, Marketing, Social Media etc as well as their existing categories: opinion, news etc?

Do we need a separate ‘Encore Brand’ when it could be absorbed by Mumbrella, however the TV and Film stuff could still be easily found under it’s own section, as could social media and various other tabs / categories….?

Positioning is important. I’d be more interested if you focussed on film only.

Also, the concept of a specialised app that does one thing and one thing only (display Encore magazine) isn’t great.

You need to publish rich media (pictures, video, marked up text), but drop the page layout. Digital is incompatible with a set layout. Users will find reliable ways of displaying your content – Flipboard, Feedly, the web, whatever.

I don’t have a tablet device and miss Encore! I loved it and now borrow one to read the mag from time to time. I feel it is too limiting for an already small niche market. Of course, that’s Encore’s choice but the missed opportunity for greater readership must be there by having more diversity – at least online.

@Galaxy s3 bod — In terms of merging Mumbrella and Encore… I would hazard a guess that the move not to is just the classic strategy of identifying a vertical market.

@Nicholas — I don’t really get what you mean. Are you saying Encore would be better off as a standard web site?

@ Andrew Duffy

I hear you there. In that case cross promote as we see now then, (when Encore editorial is relevant to Mumbrella then feature it).

Making Encore accessible on any device is a no brainer though imo; why put a fence up if quality eyeballs want to enter..?

Oh boy… I do not envy your dilemma. I’ve just finished this and it is long and there are typos but I do not have the time to go back.
‘
I was one of the first writers for the Australian Film Review mostly on music video and digital advances. I remember bringing in my Tandy Model 100 portable computer into the office and showing Greg Bright, the publisher, how I used it to file copy globally off a 300 baud acoustic coupler modem. He said it would never take off. He thought Email was a refrigerator brand. He also laughed at my mobile phone in a briefcase with a fax machine. Ahhh, those were the days…

You are suffering from the same problem most digital pioneers faced when they tried to anticipate the trend. Most die from picking the technological approach that seems sexy and geeky, not realising that most people who pay for things, don’t give a shit. They just want it now, easy, fast and complete. They want to be ahead of their competition.

As you may know, before I retired to Coffs Harbour two and a half years ago, I produced a music industry directory for 22 years in print, online and as an Apple app. It was hugely profitable because we did it without using and translating a database. Believe it or not, we did the whole thing in Word and it was pretty seamless. It left us a lot of time to promote outwards past just the listed companies into overseas markets and by using those pesky thousand email lists that we sometimes received as the To; field of an email from some hapless idiot.

We also produced a weekly news magazine online only, initially free but with freemium content including updates to the directory which cross-callatoralised that property. We had a daily news feed which started out free and then was charges as an immediate email with links tot he stories while the free version exisited online so you had to go to a site.

All the while, we were racking up massive profits on print advertising, online advertising and related businesses like a music business bookstore, music industry conferences and representing South by Southwest. Sorry for all the background but here comes the windup.

I used your app right out of the box. It sucked. Not just inhaled sharply. It was woeful. And despite all the new bells and whistles you added, I only tried to board the train once. Like many of my time poor, data addicted peers, we can’t waste our hours trying to make your tech work. So we never return. Just like a bad restaurant opening or a kludgy new car. If it don’t work, we wn’t wait around to fix it.

I loved Encore. But the gradual erosion started long before you bought it. Making it electronic just lost a lot of readers that did not replace the print clientele. We are constantly assaulted by data smog so that which attracts our attention may not and usually doesn’t gain our loyalty.

Mumbrella started out online, filled a niche and was vital. Encore did exactly the opposite. I still think you can work your way out of it but it will be expensive and time consuming. I hope it works.

Phil, I find it hard to believe you couldn’t “work out” Encore… it’s a pretty standard format. If you found that frustrating I’m not sure those new fandangled tablets are for you… maybe stick with the Tandy 100?

I’d love to know what your amazingly successful, disruptive, forward looking digital media outlet was as well…?

Delusions of grandeur aside… do you have any real criticism of how the app works/its design/something else… or you just trolling?

Big mistake and I’ve said it a few times now including when I unsubscribed to the Encore email.

I was a long time subscriber to the Encore magazine and I’m a Digital Marketer and Film Producer.

I’ve advised on the HTML5 stuff for 2 years now but organisations like Mumbrella keep being talked into wasting their money on native mobile apps by agencies.

There is absolutely no reason why Mumbrella should not use responsive web design and HTML5 so you build one website / online magazine which is available for all PC’s, browsers, tablets and smartphones.

I use a Microsoft Surface tablet and a Nokia Lumia 920 smartphone so you’ve 100% alienated a long time reader.

The Ipad is too limiting.

Why not just make it a website like mumbrella..

I deliberately don’t use a tablet, so you miss me as a reader. I fail to understand why you are deliberately excluding so many similarly-placed people. My estimate is that you are reaching half your potential audience – by a wrong choice on your part.

I don’t think you’ve jumped too soon, I actually think you may have jumped too late. I personally think the ‘no website’ decision is a huge mistake and one that is only going to cause you more and more problems over time – particularly as HTML5 and responsive/mobile web design come into their own and tablet magazines start to lose their currency, which already seems to be happening in places.

I have 3 laptops at varying sizes and capacities, and have no intention of buying a tablet of any sort. I used to buy Encore print now and then. But no more 🙁

To answer your questions:
themusic.com.au was the site
I can’t criticise the app since it put me off initially, but I do enjoy Mumbrella as I can read it on my iPads, 15″ and 17″ laptops and 30″ screen–all Mac. Great publication, well presented.

As for Encore, it was a great mag too until it became impossible to read as print and far too offputting with defective electronic delivery. It just wasn’t that vital to spend a whole lot of time to wait for the right version or struggle to work it out.

HTML5 would have saved it.

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing – it’s is difficult time for publishers and it is useful for readers to understand the dilemmas.

Admittedly, I’m slow coming to the Encore-tablet party. I’d love to read it on my Android. But at 240MB, and crazily slow download speeds (44MB in 20mins), I’m very close to hitting the cancel button.

I’m with mazmac on this one. I subscribed to Encore for $9 when it launched initially on Android even though it was free for the iPad, and being in the industry I thought it was money well spent. I think the first release said the size of the download (up around 200Mb) was only for the initial issue and was going to become smaller as further issues were released, however this hasn’t been the case and I find I’m eating into my storage space very quickly, with almost a gig of data required each month for the 4 issues. Very hard to archive them at this size!

Additionally, I’m a +1 for an HTML5 version too.

Being early can feel a lot like being wrong

Being early can be great if you know you can create a market and then corner it. I remember when I took my idea for a music industry directory that was to be 100 pages, glossy stock, FREE if picked up, $5 if shipped and free on a music business bulletion board. THis was in 1987.

Not surprisingly all the music biz folk I shared the concept with said it wouldn’t work. No way. They said no one would buy ads, much less pay in advance, no one would use it, the major record companies would try to block it, blah, blah, blah. It was an instant success and now is about to publish its 50th edition. Of course everyone said it wouldn’t work… they’re Australians!

I like the boys and women with Mumbrella and Encore–they’ve got moxie and their magazines are not written in stone so they can change the delivery mechanism quickly according to what economic model and technology they can mate.

I don’t think anybody is arguing the concept of an online magazine, what I’m arguing is about the execution.

If you go down the route of designing, building and deploying a native app for a vendor ecosystem like Apple (and eventually Android) you end up alienating some of your audience.

Android now has a large ecosystem and market penetration than Apple.

So, Mumbrella now has to create an Android app or port their Apple app to Android. You’ve now duplicated your costs as well as management effort of managing two apps – new content, bug fixes, enhancements etc.

And what about the Windows ecosystem? Smartphone and tablet share are now creeping up (everyone said the same thing about Android vs Apple – they’ll never overtake Apple!).

You can deploy a Windows 8 desktop app or tablet or smartphone. You now have to build and manage three apps for three ecosystems. Windows still has 95% global market share of the desktop. I read TheNextWeb, CNN, USAToday and many other publications as Windows 8 apps on my laptop and tablet. *I’d still prefer to read a website version.

Regardless of the hype around native mobile apps most consumers still prefer to read news, magazine and other information content via browsers and NOT native mobile apps. All of this research is available online for free and I’ve previously included all these references in my other posts on similar topics.

I’m not even going to go into how ridiculous it is to build and deploy a 200MB+ magazine app in this day and age – particularly for a mobile device!

Answer? As I’ve been saying on Mumbrella for two+ years, to brands, organisations and even on SKY TV, a better way to go, particularly for revenue and costs challenged industries like media is the HTML5 route and if relevant, Responsive Web Design.

First of all, there is absolutely no benefit or value to being in an Apple, Google Play or Windows store except for 1 Click Commerce, unless you’re going to put marketing dollars behind it to get found or have some other brilliant marketing strategy to make people aware of it. There are over 500K apps or more in these stores.

With HTML5 you generally use the same resources, skills and experience of web experience designers but you build once which is accessible on all devices.

You don’t have to submit to the processes and censorship whims of app store approvals. You don’t have to resubmit your app just for minor bug fixes. It is easier to provide links to content and continue the benefits of social sharing.

I could go on and on but this is a classic example of not having a proper strategy and getting good advice.

I WANT to read a digital ENCORE publication as I did with the print version for many, many years. But you’ve alienated me by betting the farm on the Apple ecosystem and even this strategy has been flawed through poor technical execution. You are also now 12 months behind

You are also missing out on driving traffic, readers and subscribers and all the benefits of search, social and other media and marketing by locking the content away in a native app (publication) which in turn has decreased the advertising value of your publication.

Great summary of the issues Martin.

Alienating readers and limiting potential hardly seems a way forward.

You hit it Martin, brilliantly put. It’s the consumer, not the geeks or fanbois, who drive the platforms. And they really do want to read on browsers moreso than through kludgy apps.

…it’s called a niche, guys.

‘niche’, a bit like the Australian film industry 😉

It must surely be the desire of any publisher to have their mag read by as many readers as possible as easily as possible. Using proprietary apps is surely the antidote to that. Even more so when such unwieldy download sizes eat into meagre mobile download constraints.

Notwithstanding the obvious changes in content direction Encore has taken, people simply want their content viewable on as many platforms as possible. It would seem to be madness to stifle that. HTML5 does indeed have a LOT going for it. Particularly when it can be downloaded and saved for later offline viewing (with links to video content removing the need to download each and every video in the mag). The obvious benefits of being web-searchable are huge.

In lieu of an HTML5 version, I even believe a PDF/ePUB version would provide a wonderful user experience, keep file sizes acceptable and be cross-platform compatible whilst retaining all touch gestures and being mouse friendly. And most any desktop pub programme can create the rich content. The mags can be downloaded directly from the website and saved directly to your iPad/android/laptop/PC thereby bypassing iTunes and app stores altogether. One notable rockclimbing magazine provides quarterly 100-page mags in this format (free) from their site and the file sizes are routinely sub-50mb for very rich content. On my ipad the file saves itself to the book reader app and I can even offload it to my computer or phone for reading without a net connection. Too easy.

I’m a believer that a mag needs to look and feel (even when wholly digital) like a mag. Provide links to ads and vids. HTML5 and/or PDF/ePUB can deliver. It’s never too late to reconsider and start again with a plan that can get into more readers hands and (hopefully) recapture the ones you’ve lost.