If you are a subscriber to Technology Review, reading this column in a printed or digital issue, perhaps you've noticed that the magazine looks a little different. If you're a regular visitor to TechnologyReview.com reading these words there, you know that the website looks very different. And if you're reading this on a tablet like the Apple iPad or a smart phone like a Google Android device, welcome--you are, in the jargon of the consumer technology business, an "early adopter" of one of our new publishing platforms.

Editors place great emphasis on the design of their publications, and the columns they write about redesigns are among the most boring and self-indulgent forms of journalism. Suffice it to say, we'll be happy if you find our magazine and website prettier and easier to use, and if you like to read us on mobile machines. We had good advice. We hired Roger Black, probably the world's most famous publication designer (he has been responsible for the look of magazines as various as Rolling Stone, the New York Times Magazine, Newsweek, the New Republic, Fast Company, Reader's Digest, Foreign Affairs, and Esquire, and also of websites such as Bloomberg.com and the Houston Chronicle's Chron.com). I think we succeeded in our goals. But write and tell me what you like and what you think doesn't work at jason.pontin@technologyreview.com. If you don't tell me, I'll never know. I promise to write back.

It's more interesting to think about our redesign as a form of institutional psychotherapy: it provided us with the opportunity to reëxamine how we publish our journalism. The new designs are the formalization of a strategy I announced in a column (and elaborated upon in a blog posting), "How to Save Media," in May 2009. Part of that strategy was to expand our number of publishing platforms to include tablets and smart phones. If you've not tried reading Technology Review on one of these electronic devices, do: I am sure you'll like it.

We wanted to publish the different kinds of journalism we create on as many platforms as made economic sense, but it was even more important that we should follow a consistent pricing strategy across all those platforms. Last May I wrote: "Content that some readers pay for in one medium (now, usually print) should never be offered without charge to other readers in another medium (usually electronic). Instead, publishers should distribute editorial to their subscribers on a variety of platforms. This is not to say that much content should not be freely available to readers and paid for by advertising revenues."

For Technology Review, this means that our daily news stories and blog posts--about 80 percent of the editorial we create--can be read free on all our electronic platforms. That's been so since we started publishing daily news and opinion, and it won't change. But starting with this November/December issue, readers on the Web must pay to read the longer magazine stories we publish less frequently, stories that subscribers to our print and digital publications have always paid to read.

You can purchase a subscription to the print or digital magazine; the latter you can read either in a Web browser or on a tablet or smart phone. All subscribers have access to current and archived magazine stories on the Web. Readers who do not care to pay for a subscription can purchase individual magazine stories or packages of stories on all our electronic platforms. On the Web, readers who don't know if they want to subscribe will be given three free magazine stories--a kind of metered journalism.

There are other changes for Technology Review. This fall we've launched a new online publication, called Business Impact. Its editor, Evan I. Schwartz, who has written for BusinessWeek and other publications, describes it thus: "The name Business Impact suggests our wider mission. We're broadening our coverage of innovation by following technology beyond the labs into your hands--to the point of impact, where an innovation can become a strategic tool for transforming a company, disrupting a market, or creating an entirely new industry."

Every month, in daily stories, Business Impact will examine a different topic. The first month, we analyzed digital marketing; in November, we explore the mobile enterprise, and in December, predictive modeling. Business Impact has a novel mode of business. Schwartz explains, "The daily content is free. But at the end of the month, the entire month's stories will be gathered up and designed and packaged as a premium digital publication that will be sold for a fee thereafter."

Last year, in my prescription for saving media, I wrote with pardonably heightened feeling: "Things change or die, including once-cherished organizations. Today's newspapers and magazines will be transformed or replaced by other publications, which will have new modes of business." Technology Review's new designs, and the publishing strategies they express, are our best effort at excellence in our business. They thus represent our best hopes for survival.

Every year, Technology Review lauds 35 innovators under the age of 35. They are chosen because they are transforming technology.

Our process for selecting the innovators is rigorous--not to mention arduous for our editors. We seek nominations more than six months before we announce the winners. Candidates, who may come from either industry or the academy, are nominated through a form, open to all, on TechnologyReview.com, or through nomination by an editor.

An important source of the latter nominations are the editors of Technology Review's editions in Germany, India, China, Italy, and Spain: we want our list to be as international as possible, because technological innovation is a global enterprise, and because we are particularly interested in innovations that will solve persistent problems in the developing and poor world. The nominees are screened for appropriateness, and we collect curricula vitae, personal statements, and at least three reference letters. Simultaneously, we convene a panel of judges who are experts in different technological fields and who may be past TR35 winners themselves. We ask each judge to assess about 10 candidates. The editors consider the final list, which may include several hundred names, weighing the judges' comments and seeking a mixture that represents current trends in emerging technology and the diversity of innovation around the globe. The list is whittled down until 35 innovators remain.

The whole process, as well as the editing of the stories about the young innovators, is led by Stephen Cass, Technology Review's knowledgeable, wise, and eloquent special-­projects editor, who writes in the introduction to the TR35, "We strive to identify those individuals who are tackling problems in a way that is likely to benefit society and business. ... We pay special attention to those solving some of the most intractable and critical problems in the developing world." He notes that this approach can lead to the selection of a technologist who is developing new materials for new devices--and also to rewarding an entrepreneur who is creating new business models that will move technology from the laboratory to the marketplace.

Over the last decade, many of the young innovators we've selected have gone on to be spectacularly successful. Previous winners include Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the cofounders of Google; Mark ­Zuckerberg, the cofounder of Facebook; Helen Greiner, the cofounder of iRobot; Jonathan Ive, the chief designer at Apple; Max Levchin, the cofounder of PayPal and founder of Slide; David Berry, who cofounded and funded (as a venture capitalist at Flagship Ventures) the biofuel companies LS9 and Joule; and MIT neuroscientist Ed Boyden, one of the inventors of the emerging field of optogenetics, which makes it possible to control neurons with light.

This year's winners have created innovations over a wide variety of fields, including biomedicine, energy, materials, communications, and transport, as well as software, hardware, social technologies, and the Web.

And as we do every year, we have selected for special attention a Humanitarian of the Year, the TR35 winner who we believe is most likely to improve the condition of humanity. This year, the winner is David Kobia, a Kenyan expatriate who designed the open-source Web service Ushahidi (the name means "witness" in Swahili). Ushahidi collects citizen reports and pinpoints them in space and time on an interactive map so that election fraud or ethnic violence can be more easily reported. It also makes it possible for first responders to disasters to react more rapidly and effectively. Since Kobia created the service as a way to document the violence following the disputed Kenyan presidential election of late 2007, Ushahidi has become central to coördinating the response to crises around the world.

Although Kobia is especially concerned with the plight of the world's dispossessed and unfortunate, he shares something with all the young innovators this year and in the past: they inspire and expand our sense of what is possible. The innovations of the TR35 allow human beings to do something difficult that they were not able to do before.

Please read this year's list, and write to me and tell me what you think at jason.pontin@technologyreview.com.

One year ago, I wrote a much-linked and discussed blog that prescribed "How to Save Media."

I conceded that the modes of business that had sustained publications for 300 years were vanishing, but I rejected the notion that no one knew how to turn contemporary media companies into sustainable businesses. I wrote:

"There are plenty of stupid publishers and editors, and their publications will die; but there are many smart, technology-savvy leaders, too, and their publications will prosper. While the details are still debated, the broad outlines of tomorrow's media are becoming clearer. Consumers must pay for more of what they read; publishers and the media buyers who purchase advertising must be given technologies that will make online display ads more competitive with the keyword ads that search firms sell."

I was very specific about the kinds of editorial for which readers would pay:

"Editors can charge readers for content that is uniquely intelligent; that relies on proprietary data, investigation, or analysis; that helps readers with their jobs, investments, or personal consumption; or that is very expensively designed. Everything else should be available for free, because it is news or opinion, which are commodities and must be offered up to the aggregators, social networks, and feeds. Such content can be monetized (to use the ugly jargon of our industry) only through traffic, which drives ad impressions."

I promised we would implement new strategies and create new products based on the principles I described.

For the last year we've experimented with a pay-wall for archived editorial, and we've learned a lot. Based on how our readers used that pay-wall and the principles I described in "How to Save Media," we've devised a strategy for paid editorial and subscriptions. I'm pretty certain that what we're developing will work for niche, thought-leader media companies like Technology Review (I make no claims that our strategy would work for general-interest newspapers). But I lay out Technology Review's new policies below because I want to know what you, our readers and colleagues in publishing, think. We'll amend our policies based on what you tell us.

We plan to launch the new strategy (and the products with which it is associated) in the late fall of this year.

Here is what we're going to do.

Our overarching philosophy is simple:

1. News, news-like editorial such as blogs, and multimedia should be "Free Editorial."

2. Editorial that has a higher value to readers and a longer currency is "Premium Editorial" and must be paid for by readers.

3. Editorial that is free on one platform should be free on all publishing platforms.

4. Editorial that is paid on one platform should be paid on all platforms.

5. Subscription and per-story prices should be comparable across all platforms.

Some further words on this distinction between Free and Premium Editorial. One way to think about it is: if Free Editorial will be our daily news, blogs, photo essays, and video (around 70 to 80 percent of our editorial), then Premium Editorial will be everything else. It's important to understand that Premium Editorial is not a fancy way of talking about the print magazine or the digital magazine on our various electronic platforms. Both Free and Premium Editorial stories will be individually spotlighted on all our electronic platforms in a variety of ways, and will appear in story scrolls such as the "Rivers of News." Finally, there will be Premium Editorial that can be read on our electronic platforms, but which will never appear in our print magazine or digital edition--for instance, the company profiles, econometric data, charts, and infographics of the Business Channel.

Premium Editorial stories will be clearly distinguished with icons and graphical design cues like fonts and layouts.

Each publishing platform demands a slightly different implementation of our strategy. I describe them in detail below.

The Web: A flexible meter, allowing readers access to a variable number of Premium Editorial stories for free per month. The metered number will be adjusted according to the relative strength of demand by advertisers for page impressions versus audience demand for Premium Editorial. When a reader clicks upon the link to a Premium Editorial story, if he or she is not logged in or has never logged in before, he or she will be prompted to log in to technologyreview.com by providing a minimal amount of information: a username and password. After a reader has reached the monthly story limit, he or she will be asked to pay for the story, a package of seven stories, or a digital subscription (see below).

The Mobile Web: As above.

Digital Subscription: Access to all the Premium Editorial on the Web, plus e-mail delivery six times a year of the digital edition of Technology Review magazine, plus access on the Web to all our archives, dating back to 1899. Digital subscribers will be counted as part of our circulation "rate-base," because the larger our rate-base, the higher the return from the advertising sold next to Premium Editorial stories.

Print: Delivery six times a year of the print edition of Technology Review, plus access to all the Premium Editorial on the Web, including our archives, dating back to 1899. Print subscribers will not be e-mailed a digital subscription to the magazine unless they pay an additional sum.

iPad: The app, available through the iTunes store, will itself be free. Readers will have access to all our Free Editorial. When a reader attempts to read a Premium Editorial story, he or she will be prompted to log in to technologyreview.com, and will be asked to pay for the story, a package of seven stories, or a digital subscription. On the iPad, the digital magazine is not delivered through e-mail, but directly to the platform. Readers will have access on the Web to all our archives, dating back to 1899.

iPhone: As above for the iPad, except: On the iPhone, when a reader chooses to read a Premium Editorial story, we will deliver it in the iPhone news format: no one is going to read a long story on the iPhone in a traditional Web or digital magazine layout. But for the sake of consistency, and so that we can count our iPhone readers as part of our circulation rate-base, we will still deliver a digital magazine to the iPhone. As with the iPad, on the iPhone, the digital magazine will not be delivered through e-mail, but directly to the platform. Readers will have access on the Web to all our archives, dating back to 1899.

Plastic Logic Que: As demanded by the vendor.

Google Android: We don't know enough about Android as a publishing platform to make many definite plans, but our app is likely to be informed by our experiences with the iPad. We'd hope to launch an Android app early in 2011.

A final note about friction: when readers encounter the meter, there should be as little difficulty as possible. We will collect the minimum information we need to manage the meter. When a reader pays for Premium Editorial, we will prompt him to more fully complete his profile as a member of the Technology Review community, and we will use the information we collect for smart, targeted marketing purposes.

Readers, colleagues: tell me what works and doesn't work about this strategy.