Lin Grensing-Pophal

Few, if any, would argue that the internet has dramatically and permanently changed the publishing industry. As print publishers have scrambled to find ways to compete with and, ultimately, embrace the digital world, some are excelling through a combination of traditional and online options. Others, new to publishing, are operating in the online-only world, but everyone is dealing with the age-old problem of circulation building and audience development.

There is little room for debate: The introduction of the iPad has changed the computing environment irrevocably. It's a device that is rapidly breaking down the barriers between the traditional desktops, laptops, and mobile devices and significantly impacting how-and where-consumers access information. As a consequence, another trend is also emerging: the move from the wide-open web to semi-closed platforms that use the internet for transport but not the browser for display.

Discovery has never been a simple process for organizations, even in the "old days" when discovery generally entailed gathering piles of documents into large boxes and wading through them by hand. Information long ago evolved from print documents to electronic formats, which has created challenges and opportunities.

If you talk to "those in the know" in the technology world, they'll tell you that HTML5 is really nothing new. In fact, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international community that "develops standards to ensure the long-term growth of the Web," created its working draft of the "HTML5 Publication Notes" back in June 2008. While some of the new features afforded by HTML5 have already been incorporated into various webpages and applications, it's the iPad that made HTML go mainstream.

In October, The Wall Street Journal reported that several popular Facebook applications had been transmitting users' personal identifying information to literally dozens of advertising and internet tracking companies. While Facebook maintains that there is "no evidence that any personal information was misused or even collected as a result of this issue," not all observers have been appeased.

With the proliferation of search-oriented online content providers such as AOL, Yahoo!, Demand Media, and About.com, internet users are increasingly likely to find that most of the general searches they do return results from these SEO-oriented content creators and so-called "content farms". Whether this is a good or a bad thing from the user perspective remains to be seen—and opinions vary. But from general tactics, to long tail search and universal search strategies, SEO remains critical to web publishers.

There is a new breed of content creator seeking to dominate the world of search-based information gathering by leveraging keyword-driven editorial missions and a huge supply of journalists who currently find themselves in need of revenue streams. Are these so-called content farms the end of cultivated content or do they represent a necessary state in the evolution of the content creation model?

Although evidence continues to suggest that students and consumers in general are not yet ready (if they ever will be) to entirely give up print as an information source, e-readers, e-technology, and etextbooks are becoming increasingly common. As consumers become more familiar with the options that technology provides in terms of lower cost, personalized access to information, and accessibility anytime, anywhere, the impact on the textbook market is unavoidable.

In September, The Washington Post's senior editor Milton Coleman published guidelines to the paper's staff members about their activities on the internet-while on and off the job. His email to staff said, in part: "Social networks ... can be valuable tools in gathering and disseminating news and information. They also create some potential hazards we need to recognize. When using social networking tools for reporting or for our personal lives, we must remember that Washington Post journalists are always Washington Post journalists." It was the "or for our personal lives" part that created a firestorm for The Washington Post. But its concern about what its staff members-particularly reporters-are saying online is understandable.