Traditional media and the journalism industry are scrambling to locate a profitable business model. Many companies are trying a shotgun approach to target the wide-ranging, flowering market of digital devices and platforms, hoping to chance upon a model that will work across its increasingly fragmented audience.

While this method may be fine, many companies are losing track of the actual value audiences have come to expect. Any user of the New York Times’ iPhone application, one of the very first to be released in the App Store less than 2 years ago, probably knows what I mean.

While the original releases received much grief for their poor speed and propensity to bugs, the current New York Times app is quite dependable and speedy, and offers a suitable selection of features.

The main pitfall lies in the interface itself, which, despite following the Apple-issued iPhone application guidelines closely, fails to provide the chief curatorial benefit of the paper’s design with the omission of the mythical Frontpage.

Users are presented with distinct sections, loosely following those available on the Times’ website, all providing access to articles in the same list presentation.
This solution would be perfectly fine if the only value the publication offers its users was news content, but for over a hundred years, a ‘New York Times Cover Story’ has come to mean something specific to American, and even world, culture. In the current format of the Times application, ‘MEN WALK ON MOON’ would have received exactly the same treatment as any other story.

This situation is a shame.

If the Moon Landing happened in 2010, would the story be lost as a result of a limiting interface?

On my iPhone, I generally prefer using the New York Times’ website, as I get the same editorial and curatorial benefits I look for and enjoy from the paper version of the Times. The portrait of a single day is a great hierarchical reference point that should be maintained as new platforms emerge.

A few interface tweaks would go a long way to provide users with a compelling experience. Showcasing the main story, or few principal stories, as a multi-line item, for example, would help the user know understand the editorial importance of the story. Currently, only the order in which stories appear provides that curated touch. Furthermore, the paper and online version of the Times are both offered in a layout that enables many related stories to be presented together, providing unique insights (News, News Analysis, Opinion, Multimedia) to a particular story. Some sort of expandable menu on the iPhone app would be an interesting way to showcase this analysis.

With the release of the iPad and with the access the Times has provided to Apple’s forthcoming device, it will be interesting to see the enhancements made in order to feature a more compelling layout on the platform. Even in its own iPad marketing, Apple chooses to advertise its Safari web browser with the Times’ homepage.

If one looks at alternative content providers that do not have the celebrated heritage of the Times, strong attempts at a dynamic layout for iPhone applications may be found. For example, the Huffington Post provides a Section Homepage in its app that prioritizes a single story, and CNN’s $2.99 app provides many strong and varied content display options, especially for a company with relatively limited experience in non-broadcast content.

As we explore new mediums and approach opportunities for bringing content and users together in more useful and convenient ways, we should aim to improve the experience and build on the value offered by media companies in alternative forms. The editors of The New York Times should have more tools than a 1-2-3 list to bring us the news.