Microsoft continues to develop Word and add features. The software is mature and stable.

I use it every day in work as a writer, but I'm frustrated I can’t use it to create professional, high-end output.

You couldn’t produce a great-looking printed book with Word. There’s little point sending Word manuscripts to professional book printers. And Word is not much better when it comes to top-flight on-line layouts or creating classy PDFs.

Word does basic page layout well enough. It seems designed for people who still print documents using laser printers and ink-jets. And it’s fine for emailed documents.

Word’s new fonts are gorgeous. Calibri works particularly well on-screen. However, fonts are part of the problem, you never know which fonts Word will use when you send a document to another computer. Things can go badly wrong when you send Word documents to commercial printers or pre-press companies.

Colour is also a Word danger-zone. You never know what colour you'll see at the other end.

I’ve found if I’m just doing low-resolution work, Word is good enough.

When I’m creating high-end documents or working with professional printers, I still have to use Adobe InDesign. At around NZ$1,500 that’s an expensive sledgehammer cracking my layout nuts.

Print publishers make money from copy sales and advertising. Some publishers rely mainly on advertising, others on copy sales, but most newspapers and magazines make money from a mix of the two.

The balance between advertising and copy sales revenue is important. Advertising driven publishers approach their business in a different way to copy sales driven publishers.

Copy Sales

Publishers rarely keep all copy sales revenue. Newspapers, magazines and books usually sell through newsagents, bookstores and other retailers. Retailers keep between 30 and 40 percent of the cover price.

Sometimes distributors take a slice of copy sales revenue. Usually distributors charge a fixed fee per copy delivered.

Sell-through rates

Retailers rarely sell all the copies they get of a title. Publishers talk of sell-through rates – the percentage sold.

Most publishers, particularly those chasing advertising sales regard a sell-out as failure. It means they didn’t maximise their circulation – which is what they sell to advertisers.

Long established, popular, frequently published titles often have better sell through rates than new or irregular publications.

Revenue lags sales

Publishers have to wait weeks or months to get copy sales revenue as it trickles back from the reader, through the retailer and distributor.

Printers often require payment – or a guarantee of payment before they print. So a publisher needs to carry the costs of at least three editions of a monthly title before seeing a penny of sales revenue. The investment is more in the case of weeklies, less in the case of bi-monthlies and quarterly publications.

Subscriptions

Revenue lag explains why publishers like selling direct to readers through subscription sales.

With subscriptions, publishers get their money upfront – usually a year in advance. Some publications offer two-year and even three-year subscriptions.

Publisher keep all the revenue – there’s no retailer cut, although they pay the cost of mailing out subscriptions.

Advertising

Publishers make Advertising sales revenue by selling ‘space’ in their titles.

Most publishers set aside a number of pages or parts of pages for advertisers. They have an advertising ratio.

Paid for publications usually have a lower advertising ratio than free publications – although this is not always true.

There are different types of advertising. Display advertising means larger and more colourful ads – often with creative text and images. Classified advertising is often text-only with a minimum of graphics.

Magazines typically sell advertising by the page, although they offer double page spreads, half pages and other formats. Newspapers will sell pages, but they also sell column centimetres (or column inches).

The more you buy the cheaper it gets

The more an advertiser buys, the cheaper the rate per column centimetre (or page if they are buying magazine advertising).

A full-page is cheaper than two half pages and so on. Publishers offer advertisers discounts if they commit to buying a series of advertising over a longer time. So, booking a year’s worth of advertisements in a monthly magazine is cheaper than buying 12 single advertisements.

Some advertising positions attract a premium rate. On newspapers this is the front page and maybe the front pages of sections such as business.

Magazines typically charge extra for the back cover and possibly the inside front cover. Successful titles can charge a premium for early right hand pages or other attractive sites.

Agencies and commission

Specialist media buying companies buy most advertising. They develop strategies for their clients and negotiate with publishers. Publishers pay media buyers a commission. Typically this is 10 to 20 percent of the booking’s value. In return for commission, media buyer agree to pay invoices on a set date.

Advertisers who buy their own space are known as direct clients. They often haggle over prices, but unless they are large-scale buyers, they have less clout than agencies. It's often harder to collect money from direct clients.

Rate cards

Publishers issue rate cards. Historically they used card, but now they are usually available online. Rate card prices are often negotiable.

Advertorial

Advertorial is when publishers offer advertising linked to editorial features. In some cases editorial integrity is up for sale.

Advertorial deals come in different flavours. Many publications are entirely advertorial – if an advertiser pays for space they have a say over the publication’s editorial content.

More credible titles wall off areas of content for advertorial. These might be clearly marked with terms like “advertising supplement” or “special advertising feature”. This isn’t always transparent to readers.

Some publishers run editorial-style material provided by advertisers and charge for it. Others allow advertisers to send copy for inclusion next to advertisements.

Publishers may or may not allow advertisers control over advertorial content. Some publishers have journalists write advertiser-friendly copy for these sections, others keep a strict demarcation between editorial and advertising.

Business model

Free publications are more likely to run advertorial and compromise editorial integrity for commercial consideration than paid-for titles.

Paid titles are less likely to take this approach. Some paid titles have little in the way of advertising and charge a hefty premium for quality editorial content. This works best if they can manage a high circulation.

Have I missed anything here? Do you have any questions about how this works?

Steve Yelvington is on the money when he says Apple’s iPad is not the new print.

Like me he thinks Apple has the tablet computer just about right “from a usability perspective”. And for many people, tablets will replace PCs.

Yelvington says old media companies like the iPad because it seems to return things to the business model they know and understand.

In my view, the iPad could herald a new era for the publishing industry, but it requires new business models. I don’t think selling iPad apps or expensive electronic editions of print magazines is the answer.

I doubt selling banner advertising, advertorial or ad words is the answer either. But both approaches may have a place in whatever publishing business model emerges.

A whack on the head from Maslow's hammer | yelvington.com

America's exhibition industry declined 12.5% in 2009, according to Center for Exhibition Industry Research. It fell by 3% in 2008.

I can't find hard numbers, but anecdotally I've noticed New Zealand exhibitor numbers and visitor numbers are down at many of the trade and public shows.

It seems the expo business faces the same challenges as newspapers and magazines. Not only are marketing budgets are being squeezed, but increasingly the money is being spent online with Google Ads and social media growing rapidly.

The difference is Expo companies don't have the option of an iPad strategy or building an online paywall.

Jim Sinegal is the boss at the US Costco chain. Costco's stock price has doubled while he has been in charge.

Apparently:

• Sinegal's name tag just says 'Jim'.
• He answers his own phone.
• His headquarters office doesn't have walls.
• He earns an annual salary of US$350,00. He reckons he should be paid more than 12 normal company workers.
• He has a one page contract which says he can be sacked if doesn't do his work.
• His employee turnover rate is the lowest in the retail industry, over five times less than rival Wal-Mart.

In Ethics: Harder in a Recession? Mary K Pratt says corporations find it harder to stick to lofty ethical goals at a time when most organisations  focus on cost-cutting.

It’s a good piece, but misses the most important dimension. Pratt worries about green initiatives and corporate responsibility programmes. I’m more concerned about day-to-day ethics.

When the recession hit New Zealand – a year or so before the story appeared – I noticed bosses were quick to drop ethical standards.

In particular I observed:

• Lying – suddenly many companies thought it was OK to tell lies. I sat through a management meeting where a colleague was berated for not lying. This was despite the lie he was told to tell being so obviously untrue it would undermine his and the company’s credibility for a long time into the future. Any gain from the lie – and I suspect there would have been none – would have been short-lived.
• Cheating – I saw close up many examples of companies cheating others – acts of minor dishonesty such as charging for services not delivered.
• Bullying – within days of the recession hitting, I heard bosses threaten employees with lost jobs if they didn’t do x, y or z. The threats and bullying made for a seriously disrupted and demoralised workplace.

It’s a cliché, but technology changes at a frightening rate. If you pay, or take responsibility for paying the bills, depressing might make a better word.

For example, the typical shelf life of a new personal computer is now just nine months.

More worrying, some PC makers estimate you'll use a desktop machine for just 18 months before needing, not merely desiring, a replacement.

File servers and other larger computers last longer. Manufacturers expect you to get two to three years use from such a machine.

While software and operating systems change less often, the changes need extra spending elsewhere as other software, hardware and support will all need updating.

Network technology may not change at the same rate, but your communications needs will.

Of course, you don't have to allow the people who sell technology to dictate your replacement schedule.

If you aren't continually re-evaluating, upgrading and improving systems you could quickly fall behind competitors. It isn't going to matter if you wait an extra year before following the herd to a new technical nirvana, but you will need to move on at some point.

In information technology, standing still is not an option—try buying a mainstream application for Windows XT to see what I mean. Vista replaced XT only a couple of years ago, yet Microsoft treats XT like ancient history. So do other PC application suppliers.

While you don't want to be a hostage to fortune, your organisation's IT plan must include an orderly renewal schedule. A good plan takes expected technical advances into account as well as the hardware, software and support costs of regular upgrades and replacements.

This need not be as expensive or as difficult as you might fear. There are cheaper ways of squeezing more performance from an existing technology investment than throwing everything out and starting again.

This is true if you can devise a forward-looking IT strategy putting systems and policies in place to take your organisation through the next few years without expensive discontinuities. This kind of planning is the core idea behind future proofing.

Or, more accurately, it is the core idea behind the usual meaning of future proofing.

Like many IT terms, the word is hijacked and misused. Some advertisers use the word to imply a product or technology won't be outdated for a long time. That's a part of future proofing, but it's not the whole story. Nor is it the most important aspect.

At the core of future proofing is the idea today's decisions affect future decisions.

Most importantly, you shouldn't commit to technical dead-ends. Buying the best tools for today's needs is not enough. You need to look over the horizon as well. There are two types of changes to consider, those inside your organisation and those outside.

A good organisational IT plan should closely align with the business plan. It needs to look forward to tomorrow's needs. A growing organisation should put IT systems in place that can expand to meet future capacity and application requirements. An organisation expecting to get smaller might need to add IT capacity to compensate for workers or it might just need less IT.

Externally, you need to read the IT industry. Will company X continue to market, develop and support software Y?

Is the feature being heavily promoted by company A likely to become an industry standard as promised or will it go the way of the Betamax video and EISA bus?

This can mean using an inferior technology because it is a standard. Standards tend to hang around longer than non- standards and new standards tend build on old ones. Of course there is the question of `which standard?' but, on the whole, standards make a good starting point.

Similarly, there is safety in numbers. Products that sell well are more likely to survive than those that don't. They are more likely to be developed, improved and updated. The companies making the products are more likely to be around to give support. So picking industry winners can help.

On the down side, if you play safe and opt for obvious standards and industry winners, you'll have systems that look a lot like everyone else's. This might be comforting, but it's no way to gain a strategic advantage over your rivals. Your system might be future proof, but your organisation might not.

In some respects building a future proof system is like the way exporters buy currency options. Both processes reduce risk. You take a small hit now to cut the chance of a big hit later. In some cases those yet to happen big hits are fatal.

You'll need to do plenty of homework. Reading the technology press, keeping track of marketing material, paying for expensive analysts' reports and attending seminars is part of this process.

As an IT journalist with some 30 years experience, I want to warn you companies don't always tell the truth and other times they get it wrong.

Sorting good information from bad is hard enough for those who do it for a living. For people with other responsibilities it is almost impossible. Listen to what people say by all means, but don't bet the business on a supplier's promise.

At this point, you could be forgiven for thinking that future proofing sounds good, but belongs in the too hard basket.

Thankfully, there is a way around the problem. To find it, consider how company's reduce currency risk. Few organisation's handle their own currency risk management. Most contract specialists who agree to deliver a predetermined set of results.

There is no direct equivalent to currency hedging in the IT world. But organisations can move to IT arrangements where they buy predetermined deliverables and not specific tools and technologies.

For example, you might hire or lease equipment, not buy it outright. More specifically, an organisation could future proof payroll processing by hiring a service provider who delivers an agreed number of correctly processed pay transactions within a fixed time at an agreed cost. This approach explains the success of software-as-a-service vendors.

In an arrangement of this nature, the customer doesn't need to know or care about the technology used or how the payroll is processed, merely that the job is done.

Contract clauses can account for any efficiencies gained by technical advances during of the contract, or they could be put aside until contract renewal. Competitive tendering means service providers can bid on a combination of service quality and cost.

Finally, future proofing is about managing risk, not necessarily eliminating it. It's important to develop a realistic awareness of your organisation's IT risks and the impact these risks have on your organisation's main business. Learn where you can take a punt and where you can't. If you start to think about your IT in terms of risk, you're part way to building a future proof organisation.

If you're writing an about page on a web site, compiling a brochure or putting the finishing touches to a business proposal, don't fall into the trap of adding a lengthy company history.

It is best to avoid histories altogether. If you must have one, keep it short and either stick it at the bottom of the printed page or link to the information on another web page.

Certainly don't start the page with a history lecture.

Hardly anyone cares when or where your company started.

Too many about pages begin with something like: "In 1997, three clever guys had the idea of forming a widget business and set up shop at 101 Boring Street, Dullsville, Arizona". Yawn.

Not only does a company history bore readers, it sends a message that you are self-obsessed, maybe vain, possibly even narcissistic.

Worse, Google and other search engines will pick up on this information – particularly if it is near the top of your company about page – and regard the history as more important than the valuable information potential customers search for.

This rule doesn't apply if you are selling history. For example, if you run a café in a historic building.