Honestly, how should we react to the report by Michael Learmonth in Ad Age about AOL's new publishing strategy on the web ("AOL Cracks Web Publishing - Sans Time Warner"). Should we laugh or cry, or stand to applaud?
It seems that un-encumbered by the weighty media assets of Time Warner, AOL has discovered the joys of smallness online, and the ability to publish freely according to the range of human interests and emotions. Quoting from the article:
The model goes something like this: Find a vertical with an audience attractive to advertisers, brand it (Daily Finance, Asylum, Lemondrop, Politics Daily), hire five to seven people to run it and plug in AOL's traffic fire hose. Repeat.
Sounds easy enough. But, of course, keep in mind that:
They're the antithesis of the kind of quality standards Time Inc. and Condé Nast tout, relying largely on aggregation, blogging and traffic-goosing tricks such as provocative slide shows. But unlike the print publications trying to port their cost structure to the web, these publications can be cash-positive from the start. In fact, one could argue these sites cropping up represent today's version of the magazine launch -- after the old, splashy kind died with Portfolio.
Yes, indeed, one could argue that these sort of web sites represent today's version of the magazine launch. We might call it, in fact, new media. We might even call it the Internet.
(Hello?!)
Whatever, as the Ad Age article reports,
The notion of thin-staffed online publications is sweeping the industry.
Honestly, how should we react to that news? Millions of web publishers out there, some of them online for years, producing exceptional content and making tidy livings (actually, wait, I think there was just something about that in this space last week) creating the mosaic that we call the Internet -- or the World Wide Web, if you prefer. AOL President, Global Sales, Jeff Levick calls it a "Massive change" to AOL's business model. Sure it is. And welcome to the Internet party, Jeff.
Do I sound cynical? I'm not. (Maybe a little.) Nothing could be better for the industry than having AOL -- and any other leading, influential players -- adopt behaviors that validate the business model that has been and is the foundation of new media: quality vertical content, produced with small batch sensibilities, by and for people who care.
Obviously, AOL is proposing to output vertical content in factory-like fashion, which is how companies like ours will compete with them. Their version of online publishing will be a bit like Time-Life Books, which is (so) funny thinking about in the context of their desire to shed the entanglements of branded Time Warner content. But after so much Big Media building, AOL's foray into small media is welcome -- and an important sign of an industry finding itself.