What I’m calling for is wider experimentation, not this attempt to wall off the publications and try to treat their online versions like packaged digital versions of the physical magazine. If it were one of twenty experiments, I’d applaud it, but as their complete thrust, I think they’re unlikely to succeed.

I recently met with a trade publisher – they have a very nice business, four employees and a group of contract writers. Their revenue is around $2 million per year. And they publish a newsletter 5 days a week and a full updated site, with video and special features. It’s a nice living, but not a big business. I think the model of the future is more like theirs than what they’re showing for Sports Illustrated and Bon Appetite.

Thanks for comments – I’d welcome a “guest” post from your perspective!

Randy

Unfortunately, I can’t agree with the contention that,
“And publishers can be profitable in the new model, just not wildly profitable.”

Right now the business models don’t work out–the amount you have to pay writers to have a “continuous stream of information” of the type that isn’t news can be ruinous. Models are not worked out to have 24/7 flow, and the logistics are nightmarish. (Speaking from the side of the fence that I’m on, I’m intimately familiar with these problems.)

The conversion is not the simple. Which is not to say that it isn’t possible, but it isn’t possible directly, and the route from here to there is fraught with peril. And no one is willing to make the first mistake. But it is in making the mistakes that you learn how to do it right.

So I do agree with your ultimate point which is–no one yet is doing it right–though Salon and Slate try.

shalom,

Steven