There is really no answer to the question of distribution on the Internet today. One thing, however, is certain: unless you are the Wall Street Journal, or a pornographer, you will not make any money publishing on line.

     Sharon Machlis, in Journal Finds Quality Pays Off, reports that while other major publishers online have yet to cross over into the world of profit, the Dow Jones Company has scored big with the WSJ online. Machlis cites the profit as the result of unique confluence of an affluent readership of online subscribers who pay a premium for the service, and up-to-the-minute financial information that the Internet supports in a way that print never could. Dzintars Dzilna in Playboy’s Online Spin reports that Playboy publisher Christie Hefner stands to lose as much as $50 million over the next five years because of investments in online publishing that have yet to pay off. Hefner identifies four clear paths to making money online, all of which she intends to pursue: online catalogue sales; online gambling; advertising; and subscription sales. All of this, Hefner feels is viable due to Playboy’s potential for "identity and brand equity of [the] magazine… in another format and medium," but she concedes that "it’s not that easy."

     Others in big-time publishing feel that magazine publishing simply might not work in an online setting. Christopher Ott reports in Paradigm Lost: Technology’s Confusing Promise, that after three years online the big-money backed e-magazine Word.com shut down, because as the former editor-in-chief stated, "They weren’t making any money on it." The original founder of Word.com is quoted as saying: "Online magazines don’t necessarily make sense. The Internet is really about focusing on targeted communities—services and communities and user-generated content combined with original editorial content. Magazines are for print and online media properties and communities are for the Internet."

     Later in Ott’s article the conclusion is reached that "there is a parallel between the publishing industry today and the movie industry in the early 1980’s, when it was widely feared that cable TV and VCRs would put movie theaters out of business." What is touted as likely to happen in publishing is the same thing that happened with the movies when video rentals added a new dimension to movie sales, without replacing the way the real money is made at the box office.

     The model implied is one based in print publishing, with the option of viewing online alongside for those who prefer the online experience.

    The facts that are in so far are all pretty much the same. Nobody makes any money online, and users are not rushing to the web for information of the kind found in print publishing. Many sources (Ott, Hoffman) report that the online bookseller Amazon.com has yet to turn a profit, even though, as Savage reports, Amazon’s "total market value at $20 billion is larger by far than the $14 billion annual sales figure of the entire bookselling industry."

    Really, no one knows if people will ever fully accept Reader's Digest online, and it may turn out that they won't.  Certain publications will work online, and other's will not.  The general tendency among analysts in this area is to suggest we accept, and get used to, a mix of print and online publishing.

Back to Conclusion.               View site Map.