Cross-Media Publishing: Like It or Not, Here to Stay
In the editorial, “Whatever Happened to Cross-Media Publishing?”, Thad McIlroy argues that cross-media publishing was an ill-conceived term, a quaint concept that failed to take hold because the Web is its own medium. Although McIlroy makes several salient points, he arrives at the wrong conclusion on two fronts: first, that print and Web don’t have much in common, and second, that a cross-media approach to publishing is a flawed concept that is not gaining traction in the industry.
Not much in common? Look again. McIlroy claims that “the majority of what we find in print today does not appear on the Web, and very little of what’s on the Web today ever makes it to print.” Other than Web logs, I’m not sure what McIlroy is reading these days, but a surprising amount of professional communication — nonfiction and fiction, reference and entertainment, as well as the ads that surround them — appear in both electronic and print media.
As evidence of the lack of overlap, McIlroy points to search engines, the modern equivalent of yellow pages, which, by the way, began in print and remain published in both print and Web media. He points to stores, like Amazon, and claims they have “little or no connection to the world of print,” when, in fact, the metadata that goes into Amazon’s product listings typically also appear in print catalogs. The image of a hardcover book on Amazon is typically a photo of the dust jacket wrapped around the printed book — the same image that will appear in print catalogs, posters and other promotional materials.
Whether it’s corporate communications, news, textbooks and training materials, financial reports, business research, or scientific literature, I see considerable overlap between print and the Web, and I don’t see it going away. The culture is demanding that businesses communicate with customers over multiple media. The businesses that are taking a holistic approach to their publishing and communications operations-and not pretending the two have no relation to each other-are the ones setting benchmarks for efficiency, accuracy, timeliness and clarity in their communication.
Not much happening? Look closer. The graphics arts community did not invent cross-media publishing to salve a wounded pride. They coined the term to describe this holistic approach to delivering related content through multiple channels.
The reality is that most professional publishers — in both commercial media and corporate publishing settings — struggle to synchronize the delivery of similar material across multiple media. Pick your adjective — cross-media, multi-channel, cross-platform — they all speak to the tremendous opportunities to streamline a communication process that gets bogged down by changes to products, pricing, and messages that have to get translated and reworked for each deliverable-direct mail, e-mail, Web site, catalog, data sheet, brochure, financial report, and so forth. Cross-media publishing is not about making the Web look like print; it’s about reducing the costs and time it takes to publish related material in multiple media.
Today, many feel that pressure just as intensely as three or four years ago. Just last month, at Seybold San Francisco, numerous speakers described the benefits they’ve reaped from a cross-media approach. Gloria Gomah illustrated how Ford’s use of digital asset management to feed agency-produced product images to different departments and media is saving the company millions of dollars. Steve Anderson of John Deere explained how Deere has built a cross-media publishing architecture that enables it to publish its 5,000 manuals worldwide in different media. Denise Witt, system manager at ad agency T3, cited a 50 percent reduction in costs that resulted from applying a systems approach to the catalog work they do for Dell Computer. Even though the agency carefully tailors all of its promotions to the medium, there is tremendous overlap among print and Web ads, because they both promote the same Dell products. Changes to a product must be reflected in every medium that Dell uses to promote that product.
Not spreading? Look ahead. The drive to streamline cross-media production is not limited to publishing — it’s hitting broadcasters as well. The Discovery Channel and WGBH in Boston both report significant savings in production costs through the use of content systems that share assets across multiple projects. The Associated Press relies on its Electronic News Production System to track, prepare and archive stories for TV, radio, newswire, and Internet distribution. The BBC unveiled OneVision, its new all-digital production system. By capturing new footage digitally (instead of on tape), cataloging, and indexing it, OneVision will streamline the process of developing programming for new media, such as interactive TV, Net-based distribution channels, WAP-enabled mobile phones, and DVDs.
Where is it? Look around. McIlroy is right that the Web is a unique medium, and that people don’t necessarily read Web pages the same way they do printed pages. What he neglected to point out is that there are many different types of printed publications that are also read in unique ways. What do a dictionary, almanac, textbook, poetry anthology, biography, novel, and travel guide all have in common? All may be printed as books. Yet, at the same time, they are read and navigated very differently, and the writing, editing, structure, and layout reflect the respective purposes of the publication. Thus, the need to tailor the writing, graphics, and layout to the medium is not new to the Web. And, I would argue, the graphic arts community as a whole is quite sensitive to the nuances that make different media unique.
Regardless of the type of publication, adjustments have to be made, even if it’s just downsampling the images. So the question isn’t whether or not to treat the Web differently than print. The questions are how much reworking of the material is required to make the message effective for a given medium, and how much of that rework can be automated?
There are exceptions, but, in general, the message usually should be tweaked for the medium. But even though each medium is different, it turns out that quite a lot of the medium-specific processing can be automated. By switching from medium-specific analog processes to all-digital workflows, companies are able to leverage work they do for one project or medium onto the work they do for another project or medium. By taking a more holistic approach to their publishing processes, implementing repositories, cataloging assets, sharing content, and automating repetitive, rules-driven tasks, organizations are reaping tremendous benefits in time and speed to market for their professional communications.
In answer to “whatever happened to cross-media publishing,” I’d reply that we continue to advance our understanding and capabilities-and to extend the concept to new media. Each medium has its characteristics, but professionally communicated messages will flow along multiple paths. Like it or not, cross-media, multi-channel, multi-platform communication is here to stay.
Mark Walter is Senior Editor of The Seybold Report and enjoys debating in person as well as online and in print.
This article was last modified on January 18, 2023
This article was first published on October 17, 2003
Commenting is easier and faster when you're logged in!
