Publishers of printed magazines have two options with regards to their business model. They can opt for a subscription model with adverts or they can opt for an advert model and controlled circulation without subscription. The first model best suits publications that are not targeted to a vertical market --think glossy fashion magazines, men’s and women’s magazines, etc. The second model fits a vertical publication best. Trade magazines often use the latter business model.

As soon as publishers venture outside the paper publishing business, however, the rules change. The Internet is a consumer-driven market place and consumers hate to pay. They want everything for free. But there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Or can technology help?

Small publishers squeeze their editors and journalists to deliver more work for less money. That’s called rationalising resources and publishers --especially the small ones-- need to do that in order to survive. They have a hard time selling their magazines and rags because their readers are moving from reading printed content to surfing the web and finding the content they want, when and where they want it --instantly and often for free.

The above stated reason is the one most often quoted by publishers and is a reason for them to migrate their printed content to the web as soon as they can. But it’s wrong to assume people don’t want paper-based magazines anymore --the Metro phenomenon in most large cities throughout Europe is a fine example of how wrong it is. Metro is free, and that’s where the difference lies between what most publishers see happening and what is happening in reality.

Consumers on the Internet

Content consumers’ attitude has changed due to the Internet. Metro gives them what they want: free content. The magazine may be called by a different name in different cities around the world, but the business model is always the same. You get a couple of freelancers to write some stories on local shops, restaurants and other entertainment subjects, and you see to it that your rag gets as many advertisers as you possibly can.

You have the thing printed on the cheapest paper and you distribute it in strategic locations such as railway stations, parking lots, basically anywhere large crowds of people pass by. The model is very successful because it focuses on local events, is largely aimed towards entertaining, and helps people keep their minds off of long waiting queues and other aggravating events.

The Metro model has flaws. You can’t properly develop a story that needs some background information for people to understand. Just like what’s happening now with the Wall Street Journal, the publisher doesn’t want that because the people who read these rags are tired, or just want distraction and are not really after in-depth information.

In many respects, the Metro model resembles the model of Web publications. Most web publishers try to give away their content for free, but rely on ads to survive. The ones that charge a subscription fee are mainly interested in the quality and authoritative nature of their content, but are also usually aimed at very narrowly defined audiences (vertical markets like trade magazines). What very few people seem to realise is that quality of content and free, advert-based publishing are not a match made in heaven.

Metro Publishers

Web publishers differ from Metro publishers in that they will have to deal with the reality of the Web. One of these realities is banner blindness. In order to overcome banner blindness an advert on a web page has to closely resemble content --regular information. Google AdSense is based on this idea. However, isn’t one of the basic rules of good, objective and authoritative content that there should be a clear distinction between an advert and the objective information --the article itself?

Banner blindness is a problem that Metro-type publishers don’t worry about. On the web, it is a serious problem as advertisers only spend their money when they’re convinced the visitor will click-through and end up on their web site. As click-throughs, impressions, and all that are instantly measurable, advertising only may not cut it after all. Sure enough, adverts and content are each others’ enemies if you want your online magazine to be read (or viewed, or listened to). 

How do you solve this problem? I don’t know of any web site where they can answer this question, and if someone can, he or she will probably keep it to himself for as long as he/she can. My personal guess is that you can’t really have it both ways. If your content is of a high enough quality, adverts that look like adverts won’t be clicked on, and if your content has lower quality, visitors will stay away. The answer that most bloggers propose is to create online communities. These should then become self-supporting.

However, creating an online community is not easy, and it still does not solve the advert performance problem. Ads on forums, for example, under-perform. Having a thriving community means your visitors won’t click --they will interact and spend all their time to living their online lives. Luckily for those who have created online communities, most marketing professionals don’t yet seem aware of this.