Business Model Innovations in the Digital Publishing Industry
Dennstedt B* and Koller H
Helmut Schmidt University, Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany
- *Corresponding Author:
- Dennstedt B
Helmut Schmidt University
22043 Hamburg, Germany
Received Date: July 31, 2016; Accepted Date: October 16, 2016; Published Date: October 26, 2016
Citation: Dennstedt B, Koller H. Business Model Innovations in the Digital Publishing Industry. Global Media Journal. 2016, 14:27.
Visit for more related articles at
Global Media Journal
When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail.” This is how, in 1997, Clayton Christensen described the situation for media enterprises, particularly the news publishing industry, in his book “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. For decades, publishers operated in an established market, which generated safe revenues. However, this stable economic situation changed with the introduction of the Internet and a “for free” mentality of users. Since then, the total circulation of news publishers has been declining and digital content is on the rise. Even worse, new competitors are entering the field offering digital content and advertising companies have new options for placing their advertisements. The consequence, the publishing industry is on the brink of the most radical change since the invention of printing by Gutenberg: They have to reconsider every single element of their business model. To underline these assumptions, the present study explores users´ expectations towards digital news content. Our findings show that features of content have an impact on payment preferences. At the same time, the acceptance of payment models does not differ depending on the news source. Furthermore we show that brand affinity (towards sources of content) varies between topics. With this study, we mainly consider the changed user behavior and users´ expectations towards digital content in order to de-rive implications on future business models of publishers, in particular on the customer value proposition.
Publishing industry; Business model; Innovation; Digitalization;
Customer value proposition; Digital user behavior
The shrinking circulation Figures of printed publications changed
the traditional business model of news publishers and caused
revenue from circulation and advertising to crumble [1,2]. As
a consequence, publishers have looked for several alternative
sources of revenue through business model innovations recently
[2-4] in order to reduce the dependence on revenue from the
print segment [5-8]. Transferring the printed newspaper to an
online version is no solution either, since consumers´ willingness
to pay for digital content is particularly low due to complementary
journalistic brands on the Internet and new digital payment
models . Simultaneously, consumers expect a high added value
from digital as well as from printed news [9,10]. This is why the
customer value proposition of digital news content has changed
compared to printed news. Furthermore, the use of digital content
has steered away from the mass market and shifted towards
niche topics , which lead to new opportunities regarding
revenues from advertisers. Overall, the digitalization has led to a
disruption of the publisher's’ business model, as Christensen has described already in 1997. The surprising observation of today
is that publishers still seem to be searching for an appropriate
adaptation of their business model.
This forms the current challenge for news publishers: They
have to reconsider every element of their business model – the
customer value proposition, profit formula and revenue model,
key processes and key resources . This study addresses these
business model innovations in the digital publishing industry, in
particular the customer value proposition. Therefore, the study
investigates consumers´ demand for news content and raises the
“Are there any specific determinants (i.e. brand affinity, interests,
habits of usage) which appear in combination with specific needs
or features that determine the CVP of publishers?”
There are certain bodies of literature about changes in the digital
media industry  and disruptive innovations [14,15], about the
future of the digital publishing industry [1,6-8,16,17] and about
new business models and competition in the digital world .
There are surveys about the willingness to pay for digital content
[1,2,5,6] and about specific consumer demands, trends and
innovation [5,8,9]. However, despite the steady decrease in total
circulation many publishers do not seem to have an appropriate
answer and research concerning the potential for digital content
production and distribution for newspaper publishers is still
Conceptual Framework and Research
Existing literature about business model and business model
innovation [12,18-20] define business model with various
numbers of components. In 2005, Morris et al. conducted a
research across 18 publications and identified 24 different
components of a business model with 15 components mentioned
more than once. On average each research named between four
and eight components within its business model framework. In
practice the most used business model is probably the CANVAS
model of Osterwalder and Pigneur  with nine components.
Amongst the various definitions three to four cornerstones are
always mentioned as core elements: value proposition, revenue
stream and key resources as well as key processes. This is why
we base our research on the model of Johnson et al. . It
represents those four core elements and it is easy to use as a
framework for the publishing industry. According to Johnson
et al. , a business model consists of four characteristics: it
creates a customer value proposition by applying key resources
and key processes and allows revenues by a profit formula. “A
successful company is one that has found a way to create value
for customers. (…) The profit formula is the blueprint that defines
how the company creates value for itself while providing value
to the customer. (…) The key resources are assets such as the
people, technology, products, facilities, equipment, channels, and
brand required to deliver the value proposition to the targeted
customer. (…) Successful companies have operational and
managerial processes that allow them to deliver value in a way
they can successfully repeat and increase in scale” . Several
factors affect the publisher's’ business model . It is not only the
competition among publishers, which is going to be disordered,
but there are numerous competitors entering their domain
with new technologies, leading to radically changing consumer
behavior and increased competition in the advertisement
market. In order to illustrate possible changes of business models
in the future, the traditional business model of publishers has to
be taken into account.
The customer value proposition (CVP) of newspaper publishers
traditionally addresses the client´s demand of being provided
with news and background information. The more relevant and
reliable the content and the better the information provided for
consumer the higher the CVP . The key resources for providing
this information are qualified journalists and editors and the key
processes refer to communication networks which allow a timely
provision of this content and an efficient processing to media
products. Due to the digitalization, publishers’ key resources
and key processes have changed: Content creation is not solely performed by professional journalists but also by consumers
(user-generated-content) and is delivered via various devices and
platforms. A publisher’s profit formula is based on two markets:
the consumer market (providing the consumer with content) and
the advertising market (audience). Competition in the advertising
market continues to increase since advertising companies can
choose between growing numbers of possibilities to contact their
relevant audience [1,21]. And the advertisements for jobs, cars,
real estates or personal relationships have moved to specialized
Hence, the question arises of what differentiates a publisher
from its increasing number of competitors. Is it possible to
“reengineer” publishers’ key resources and processes, such as
journalists, distribution-channels and strong brands, in order to
deliver a unique value to the consumer (CVP) and to distinguish
them from their competitors [12,20,22].
Examples of digital content distribution suggestions:
innovative offers in the publishing industry
In order to illustrate new approaches of production and
distribution of news content and a change of the Customer
Value Proposition of Publishers, international approaches can
be taken into account. In 2014, the authors have conducted a
document analysis of international innovative business models
of digital content. Therefore, the collected data focused on
the parameters: product portfolios, pricing, target groups and
content distribution in order to obtain a picture of international
innovative business models in the publishing industry. The focus
lied exclusively on the largest and renowned models. In order to
list benchmarks, selected terms were run through various search
engines to seek international approaches for innovative business
models within the publishing industry. Furthermore, blogs and
websites reporting on digital media were analyzed with regard
to their coverage of innovative approaches in digital publishing.
Following thorough research and investigation, the captured
models can be assigned to three different types of digital content
services: “content flat rates”, “unbundled contents” and “online
Content flat rates, for example, Texture (USA), Readly (Sweden)
or LeKiosk (France), offer the complete digital content for a fixed
price per month. The consumer subscribes to and consumes
content from the entire product range of the platform with no
temporal and local restrictions. Next Issue Media (owned by
Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, News Corporation and Time
Inc.) offer their own portfolios’ content only, which combines
approximately 100 titles. The independent Swedish distributor
Readly serves its 15 million consumers more than 70 titles and
receives 30% of the revenue, 70% is passed on to the publishers.
LeKiosk was founded in 2007 and represents one of the oldest
content flat rates. They offer more than 600 titles and hold cooperations
with more than 120 publishers. Flat rates provide
the consumer with the advantage of testing the service by
downloading single complementary products; however, the goal
of integrating as many publishers and publications as possible
poses a challenge for flat rate models. [23,26].
Providers of unbundled content, e.g. Flipboard (USA), aggregate previously bundled content from single brands and distribute it in
the form of a new product via a platform or app. The consumer can
individually assemble his relevant content from several brands on
one platform, as algorithms are used, which offer content based
on the consumers´ interests. Most of the content aggregators
are free and earn revenue via advertisements or partnerships
with products and brands. Flipboard already has more than 50
million consumers and offers social media and sharing options,
which guarantee a high consumer engagement and scope. The
disadvantage for publishers within unbundled content and
aggregation platforms is that they cease to have control over
the placement and distribution of their content. Presently, the
editorial department decides which article appears in which
position on a website or whether it should be published as a
front-page story in an ePaper. With the unbundling of content,
the consumer decides which articles are most interesting .
Online newsstands, such as Apple’s App Store (USA) or Orbyt
(Spain), sell full ePapers via a website or an app for a price
similar to the traditional price of the newspaper or magazine.
While Orbyt offers an interactive community and an archive with
articles from the past 20 years, the Apple App Store only acts as
a digital newsstand. Particularly unbundled content and content
flat rates seem to show high potential for the business model of
Deduction of research questions
The examples of innovative offers from the publishing industry
underline the assumption that every component of publishers´
business model has to be reassessed. Subsequently, we highlight
some selected aspects of the business model, particularly the
Customer Value Proposition and the willingness to pay (Profit
Formula) [29-32]. With respect to consumers´ expectations we
assume that media usage behavior has changed and alternative
news sources like social media, blogs, special interest groups etc.
are gaining more and more attention. As a result, we assume that
changes in digital media consumption affect usage of traditional
newspapers. Hence, we derive this explorative hypothesis:
H1: Online news consumption differs fundamentally from usage
of traditional newspapers
Consumers are increasingly interested in searching for specific
topics instead of buying a whole newspaper and in receiving
individualized content according to their preferences. As a
result, several of the examined innovative media offers provide
unbundled content such as single articles instead of entire issues
of newspapers . Thus, we assume that distribution of topics
becomes more important as consumers might look for specific
topics rather than for an entire newspaper. Therefore, we assume:
H2: The demand for unbundled content is higher than for entire
Since consumer behavior and content consumption have changed
consumers expect an additional value from digital content
compared to the printed product. Besides offering unbundled
content the examined media offers also enable features such
as commenting functions or uploading user-generated-content
(UGC). By doing this, they provide the possibility of interaction (e.g. UGC, discussions, share content with friends) for the
consumer which might result into a higher brand loyalty or
willingness to pay for the news source. We assume that features
(that differentiate the digital version of a newspaper from the
printed product) have an impact on the willingness to pay and
payment preferences towards digital content. Thus, we propose:
H3: Consumer ask for possibilities to participate, particularly
Features (e.g. commenting, sharing, or creating user generated
content ) result into a higher acceptance of flat rates.
On the other hand the renowned newspaper with a respected
reputation stands for reliability and validity of the news provided.
What is more important for the consumer? And does that differ
for different kinds of information? We operationalized these
questions by the relevance of brand affinity (towards sources
of content) which might differ depending on the content´s topic
. We assume, if a consumer wants to read e.g. an article
about political news, then he prefers a reliable newspaper as a
content source, while for special interest topics he or she might
be interested in other information sources as well:
H4a: The brand affinity towards traditional newspapers is higher
in news than in other special interest topics.
H4b: The brand affinity towards traditional newspapers is lower
in special interest topics than in news.
The traditional CVP of a publisher aims at providing the consumer
with useful information and differentiating its content from that
of competitors by delivering unique content. Nevertheless, the
willingness to pay for digital news of traditional brands is low.
When it comes to digital content, consumers are less willing
to pay [2,6,10]. Furthermore, due to digitalization, various
new content providers have entered the news market, offering
unbundled content or content flat rates with multiple payment
models. Hence, the question arises, if the acceptance of payment
models depends on the type of news source? We assume:
H5: The acceptance of payment models does not vary depending
on the news source
Method and Data
Sample and Data Collection Procedure
First, a qualitative pretest was conducted with 20 MBA
students who were actively using Web 2.0 tools and consuming
digital news content as well as social media and blogs. These
respondents were asked how they interpret the items, including
the format of the questionnaire, wording, and length. For testing
our hypotheses, the survey was sent out in 2014 to a total of
2,290 full-time students (undergraduate or graduate level) at
different universities and schools in Germany. We asked students
because they incorporate digital natives–consumers who grew up
with digital technologies and new digital news distribution and
consumption. Within the standardized online survey amongst
consumers, 504 consumers completed the questionnaire about
their consumer habits concerning digital content (e.g. brand
affinity, interests), their general willingness to pay for digital
content and their preferences in payment models, such as pay
per view, flat rates or freemium models .
The questionnaires were based on items found in the
aforementioned literature and our preliminary studies. The
items were reformulated to fit to the context of newspapers. We
have studied relationships between certain variables, e.g. brand
affinity and topics and news source and payment methods. The
variables features and forms of content provision were measured
with a five point likert scale ranging from “very important” (=1) to
“unimportant” (=5). The items for content were developed based
on the studies of Meijer (2013) and Skovsgaard et. al (2013) and
adapted to our context. In addition to the items for our research
models, we asked about consumers´ media usage behavior and
This section presents the data from the survey amongst
consumers concerning the demands and the expectations of
consuming digital news content. The survey collected consumers’
perceptions about changes in consumer behavior, willingness to
pay and attractiveness of technological possibilities of digital
content. In total, 62% of the questioned consumers are male and
38% female, more than 70% aged between 10 and 29 with over
20% aged between 30 and 49. Almost 50% of the interviewed
consumers hold a university degree and more than 30% have
finished their A Levels. Subsequently, some results of the surveys
will be presented. One major finding of the survey reveals
that changes in media consumption affect usage of traditional
newspapers. Although newspapers have been the main source
for daily news consumption in the past, the majority of the
consumers do not use dailies at all (34.5%) or little more than
once a month (32%). Just 10.6% read a newspaper (22%) once a
day. Thus, H1 can be supported. Regarding digital media, there is
an obvious difference: 85.7% use the Internet more than once a
day and 73.8% use social networks or News Apps (46.5%) once a
day. 64.2% never use ePapers (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Quantity of digital media consumption (n=504).
The Figure above shows that distribution of topics becomes
more important as more than 35% of consumers search for
specific topics more than once daily. Therefore, H2 can be
supported. Offering unbundled content such as single articles
instead of entire issues of newspapers can be an approach to
suit consumers´ needs. Consumers expect additional value with digital content. More than 35% of consumers find video content
and the possibility to share the content with friends important
or very important. The majority of consumers judges audio
features and user-generated-content as not important or of little
importance (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Importance of features within digital content (n=504).
When asked how digital content should be provided almost
60% of consumers have a high interest in content from various
sources, more than 50% find the distribution on different devices
important or very important and more than 30% like personalized
digital content (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Importance of provision of digital content (n=504).
Furthermore, selling personalized content has an additional
potential of revenues from advertisers since publishers can
provide combined offers in collaboration with advertising
companies. Simultaneously, more than 80% of consumers said
they would tolerate advertisements in order to use free digital
content (Figure 4). Thus, H2 can be supported.
Figure 4: Importance of news source and acceptance of payment
models (n=504) (1).
Furthermore, 44.4% of consumers have a high brand affinity
towards websites, and more than 35% have a high brand affinity
towards traditional newspapers and news apps (40.2%). Regarding
brand affinity and topics, there is a positive linear medium high
correlation between the brand affinity towards newspapers
and sports (r504=.255; p=.000) and lifestyle topics (r504=.234;
p=.000). The difference is significant at the 1% level. Regarding
digital media, there is a low positive linear correlation between
news apps and lifestyle (r504=.115; p=.008), between news apps
and news topics (r504=.140; p=.001), and between websites and
sports (r504=.156; p=.000) or news topics (r504=.153; p=.000).
The difference is significant at the 1% level (Table 1).
Table 1 Brand Affinity and Topics (n=504).
There is a positive linear medium high correlation (r504=.210;
p=.000) only between ePapers and computer topics which is
significant at the 1% level. These results implicate that consumers
do not feel a high brand affinity when they look for several topics.
Hence, themes can be offered via various media channels to
trigger different target groups independent from any brands.
Thus, H4a and H4b can be supported.
While usage of news sources is miscellaneous, the majority of
consumers would accept a freemium payment model, which
includes free basic content and paid premium content. A flat rate
model within one product followed by an overall flat rate within
the whole digital publishing industry is also well accepted. The declaration of consumers data or pay per view for an issue or a
single article is not widely accepted. One might assume that the
acceptance of payment models or willingness to pay for digital
content differ with different news sources. However, as a result of
the survey, the acceptance of payment models marginally differs
with the use of digital news sources. Thus, H5 is supported.
Quantitative analysis shows that there is only a low correlation
between the importance of news sources and the acceptance of
payment models. The correlation between websites as a news
source and product flat rates is low positive linear (r504=.164;
p=.000) as is the correlation between websites as a news source
and freemium models (r504=.176; p=. 000). Also the correlation
between news apps and product flat rates (r504=.177; p=.000) or
freemium models (r504=.148; p=.000) is low positive linear. The
difference is significant at the 1% level (Table 2).
||Pay Per Article
||Pay per Issue
Table 2 Importance of news source and acceptance of payment models (n=504) (2).
Regarding social networks there is a positive linear medium high
correlation between the importance of social networks and (1)
product flat rates (r504=.227; p=.000) as well as (2) declaration of consumer data (r504=.219; p=.000) and (3) freemium models
(r504=.204; p=.000). The difference is significant at the 1% level
Figure 5: Importance of features and acceptance of payment
models (n=504) (1).
Audio and user-generated-content do not seem to be important
to the majority of consumers. A flat rate according to topics that
meet a consumer's´ interests such as a certain topic or hobby
seem to be very promising for the above mentioned personalized
content provided from various sources and via various devices.
One reason for this might be that the majority of consumers´
willingness to pay for digital content is only half the price of the
printed version. Only 8% of the consumers would pay the same
amount as for the printed product (Table 3).
||Pay per Article
||Pay per Issue
Table 3 Importance of features and acceptance of payment models (n=504) (2).
Regarding the acceptance of payment models and features within
digital content, there is a positive linear medium high correlation
between sharing functions and product flat rates (r504=.249;
p=.000), branch flat rates (r504=.264; p=.000) and between
commenting options and product flat rates (r504=.221; p=.000).
Furthermore, there is only a low correlation between a freemium
model and video content (r504=.179; p=.000) or sharing features
(r504=.189; p=.000). The difference is significant at the 1% level.
Thus, H3 is supported.
Managerial Implications for the Business
Model of Publishers
This paper contributes to the existing business model innovation
literature, in particular regarding the CVP of publishers. Besides
the existing knowledge about changed consumer behaviors due
to digitalization, this paper illustrates findings about consumers’
willingness to pay for certain products, news sources or features,
which can lead to more distinct aspects of news publishers
business models. Hence, publishers can no longer solely react to
established changes in technology; they have to create innovative
services and meet consumers´ demands [1,2,15] since consumers
have evolved from passive recipients to active consumers and
co-creators who like to comment, share, or generate their own
digital content. Managers of publishing houses are the core
consignees of this research, since they are responsible for the
success of the business model employed in their company. The
following statements are made from the viewpoint of publishing
houses and their managers in particular. Hence, all the research
questions address the design of the current business model.
Customer Value Proposition
The traditional CVP of a publisher aims at providing the consumer
with useful information and differentiating its content from that
of competitors by delivering unique content. Since consumer
behavior and content consumption have changed consumers expect an additional value from digital content compared to the
printed product. Features can be UGC and discussion facilities
as well as video content or “share with friends” options in
order to offer a special value besides the content of traditional
newspapers. Enabling features (e.g. commenting functions or
uploading UGC, sharing) might also result into a higher willingness
to pay as there is an added value compared to the printed
version. Thus, publishers should focus on websites and interactive
news apps instead of static ePapers, since consumers expect a
different value with digital content compared to the printed
newspaper. Referring to the consumer survey, brand affinity plays
a minor role when using digital media or searching for specific
topics. Therefore, publishers should not rely too much on their
traditional brand, as it seems to become less important to the
consumer. Furthermore, consumers are interested in searching
for specific topics instead of buying a whole newspaper and in
receiving individualized content according to their preferences.
Hence, offering unbundled content such as single articles instead
of entire issues of newspapers can be an approach to suit
consumers´ needs. Furthermore, unbundling of newspapers can
create a CVP that differentiates itself from its competitors. This
addresses niche topics which can be offered to the consumer
via personalized recommendations and which correspondingly
increases the potential for differentiation from competitors and
the CVP. Brand affinity is less important when using digital media
or searching for specific topics; hence, the brand does not have
to be the cornerstone in publishers’ CVPs. As usage of social
networks is high, publishers should consider sharing and social
recommendation features. While content creation by consumers
is already a trend on other platforms (e.g. YouTube; blogs), the
approach of allowing consumers to create their own content is
currently less popular amongst managers. Nevertheless, as this
might change in the future managers should monitor such trends.
Concluding, non-interactive bundled issues of newspapers – even
from a traditional brand – will fail to increase the consumer's´
willingness to pay in the future. As described, managers have to
innovate their digital content and create a new CVP to increase
reach and/or willingness to pay for their content. Furthermore
unbundled content helps advertisers target consumers more
accurately. Instead of striving for large reach, advertisers can
address their consumers more individually in order to interact
Compared to the former willingness to pay for print products, for
digital content it is relatively low. When it comes to digital content,
consumers mostly access free digital content and are less willing
to pay. Therefore, managers need to innovate the CVP of their
business model in order to gain revenues from sales or to gain reach with their content to increase revenues from advertisers.
The acceptance of payment models does not differ enormously
with the usage of digital news sources. Therefore, it might make
sense to take the flat rate approach of international providers
and offer flat rate packages for individual topics (e.g. news, sport,
and lifestyle); also a freemium model seems to be promising.
Furthermore, according to the survey offering features result into
a higher willingness to pay for flat rate models. Additionally, a
differentiated flat rate or freemium model for loyal consumers can
be useful in order to fragment the target group more strongly and
manage to address consumers´ individual needs. Especially for
loyal consumers with a high frequency of usage a premium model
would be beneficial, as this enables them to access personalized
offers or exclusive content. This can provide publishers with a
higher potential for differentiation. Furthermore, it leads to a
higher willingness of advertisers to pay for being connected to
these interesting target group.
Offering the aforementioned features or personalized content
has an additional potential of revenue or payment models from
advertisers, since publishers can provide combined offers in
collaboration with advertising companies. The more accurately
the consumer can be addressed by the advertiser, the more likely
will be any kind of interaction with the consumers which leads to
higher revenue potential for the advertiser. Ultimately, publishers
can ask a higher price for audience access. Referring to the survey,
the profit formula freemium and flat rate are the most accepted
payment models by consumers when considering digital content.
Key Resources and Key Processes
Applying the aforementioned implications of including sharing
and commenting features into the CVP, it indicates that this would
also have a direct impact on the key resources and processes of
publishers. By including consumers into the content creation
process, they would become more relevant for publishers and
could either create UGC themselves or contribute to content
with comments or sharing. Therefore, publishers should be
re-organized in order to (1) enable UGC as well as (2) provide
unbundled content and distribute it personalized from various
sources and via various devices. Thus publishers´ content could
be a result of UGC and content shared within communities. Until
recently the structure of publishers was built on brands and titles
instead of topics or distribution channels. Content was created
for a broad target group as technical and editorial limitations
obstructed an individualization of content. Now, as mentioned
above, it will be useful to provide unbundled content and focus
on the distribution of topics instead of titles or features. There
could be another trend concerning key processes and key
resources: co-operations with forums and special interest groups
are a possibility to provide an even wider range to consumers
and a special CVP. This kind of strategic partnership might increase reach and revenue. Furthermore, the competition in
the online segment is too big for publishers to focus merely on
an audience that had been established for many years. Social
media and aggregator models which, in a modern way, divert
a consumer´s attention to content and brands while bundling
those, will be much more important for publishers. The recipients
are increasingly using content via viral methods of distribution
and social recommendation tools – independently from brand
awareness or a product's location. The challenge for the
management of publishing houses now consists of recognizing
these trends and adapting their strategies to new approaches.
Limitations and Future Research
This research aims at providing insights of the challenges news
publishers face: They have to reinvent their business model in
order to match the expectations of their future consumers and
to gain a high reach in order to sell advertising solutions and
Anyhow, this study has an explorative character and some
limitations which lead to future research. Firstly, the sample
is biased due to self-selection. Therefore, results should be
interpreted cautiously. Furthermore, some of the presented
results are of descriptive nature, e.g. the usage numbers. This
type of results is informative, it cannot be generalised upon, as
the usage numbers change over time, though they can indicate
a trend. However, our aim was to identify the expectations of
consumers in order to illustrate possible approaches of the future
business model of publishers, in particular the CVP and parts of the
Profit Formula. Therefore, we were able to reveal the opinions of
this target group. Secondly, we assume that there are numerous
expectations towards content as well as acceptance levels of
payment models. Therefore, future research could determine
other factors influencing expectations towards content and
payment model, in order to extend our findings. Furthermore,
future studies could also focus on how publishers are trying to
integrate these findings into their business model. One could
investigate how consumers can be integrated into the business
model of publishers. As user-generated-content becomes
more popular and special interest content can be distributed
easily via the internet, future research could investigate how
user-generated-content can affect the CVP, the profit formula
as well as the key resources and key processes of publishers.
Finally, future investigations could focus on advertisers and the
integration of new advertising approaches into the business
model of publishers in order to generate revenue. Advertisers
may be interested in new advertising approaches of addressing
consumers personalized. Therefore, also content delivery could
be more personalized and able to address various target groups.
This may pave the way for a promising profit formula as the fourth
pillar of the business model.
- Akesson M (2009) Digital Innovation in the value networks of newspapers. PhD thesis, University of Gothenburg.
- Akesson M, Ihlström C (2008) From multi channel publishing towards a ubiquitous media environment. Journal of Graphic Technology, 4(3): 126-148.
- Alexa Inc (2016) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nextissue.com.
- Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 493-520.
- Anderson C (2006) The Long Tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal.
- Casadesus-Masanell R, Ricard J E (2010) From strategy to business models and to tactics. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3): 195-215.
- Chesbrough H (2005) Open Innovation – The new Imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Christensen C M (1997) The Innovator ́s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
- Chyi , H. I. (2012). Paying for What? How Much? And Why (Not)? Predictors of Paying Intent for Multiplatform Newspapers. The International Journal on Media Management, 14(3): 227-250.
- Corso M, Pellegrini L (2007) Continuous and Discontinuous Innovation: Overcoming the Innovator Dilemma. Creativity and Innovation Management. 16(4): 333-347.
- Croteau D, Hoynes W (2006) The Business of Media, Corporate Media and the Public Interest Second Edition. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks.
- Demil B, Lecocq X (2010) Business Model Evolution: In Search of Dynamic Consistency. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 227-246.
- Fetscherin, M. (2004). Business Models for Content Delivery: An Empirical Analysis of the Newspaper and Magazine Industry. International Journal on Media Management, 6(1): 4-11.
- Flipboard (2016) https://flipboard.com.
- Franklin M, Searle N, Stoyanova D, Townley B (2013) Innovation in the Application of Digital Tools for Managing Uncertainty: The Case of UK Independent Film. Creativity and Innovation Management. 22(3): 320-333.
- Goyanes M, Durrenberg C (2014) A Taxonomy of Newspapers based on Multi-Platform and Paid Content Strategies: Evidences from Spain. International Journal on Media Management, 16(1): 27-45.
- Hess T (2014) What is a Media Company? A Reconceptualization for the Online World. International Journal on Media Management, 16(1): 3-8.
- Johnson M W, Christensen Clayton, Kagermann H (2008) Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review 86(12): 51-59.
- Kanuri V K, Thorson E, Mantrala M K (2014) Using Reader Preferences to Optimize News Content: A Method and a Case Study. International Journal on Media Management, 16(2): 55-75.
- Katz E, Blumler J G, Gurevitch M (1973) Uses and Gratifications Research. In: Public Opinion Quarterly, 37: 509.
- Küng L (2008) Strategic Management in the Media: Theory to Practice. Sage Publications.
- Küng L, Picard R G, Towse R (2009) The internet and the mass media. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
- leKioskque.fr (2016) https://www2.lekiosk.com/uk.
- McGrath R G (2010) Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach, Long Range Planning, 43: 247-261.
- Mitchell D, Coles C (2003) The ultimate competitive advantage of continuing business model innovation, Journal of Business Strategy, 25: 16-26.
- Next Issue Media LLC (2016) https://www2.lekiosk.com/uk.
- Orbyt (2016) http://quiosco.orbyt.es.
- Osterwalder A, Pigneur Y (2010) Business Model Generation. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons.
- Schoder D, Sick S, Putzke J, Kaplan A M (2006) Mass Customization in the Newspaper Industry: Consumers' Attitudes Toward Individualized Media Innovations. International Journal on Media Management, 8(1): 9-18.
- Readly AB (2016) https://de.readly.com.
- Skarzynski P, Gibson R (2008) Innovation to the core: a blueprint for transforming the way your company. Harvard Business Press, Boston.
- Stahl F, Schäfer M, F Maass W (2004) Strategies for Selling Paid Content on Newspaper and Magazine Web Sites: An Empirical Analysis of Bundling and Splitting of News and Magazine Articles. International Journal on Media Management, 6(1): 59-66.
- Tennant J I (2014) Free Newspapers in the United States: Alive and Kicking. International Journal on Media Management, 16(3-4): 105-121.
- Zinnbauen M (2003) E-newspaper: Consumer demands on attributes and features. International Journal on Media Management, 5(2): 127-137.
- Ziv N D (2002) New Media as Catalysts for Change in the Transformation of the Book Publishing Industry. International Journal on Media Management: 66-74.