The biggest thing stopping most of the outlets from going online (besides the fact that there’s still an “un-wired” consumer base out there) is the difficulty in coming up with a profitable business model to monetize a web-version of their publications. With so much free content (and some of it very good stuff) out here already, selling subscriptions is a real challenge. “Why pay for the cow when the milk is free,” to abuse an ancient axiom.

Without subscriptions, they have to rely entirely on advertisers. This may be “do-able”, but it’s a challenge under the current business model of full-time, paid staffs, writers, photographers, etc. Some significant organizational and procedural changes will have to take place from the ground up. On top of all that, as Holly notes (and as echoed in the Conde Nast article), ad revenues are pretty light right now.

I like the start that Field and Stream (and to some extent, Outdoor Life) has made with blogs, special “web features”, and making archived articles available for free. But while I’m not privy to their business, I’m fairly sure they’re still relying most heavily on their print publication as the key revenue generator. It seems like a pretty solid, blended solution and I hope it works.

I think that Albert has made a great point, and I definitely think that could happen. I’m only in my early thirties, and I love the internet and everything that comes with it, but I still like sitting down with a regular magazine. I would hate to see them go.

Someone will come out with a top quality color printer that is affordable.

There will be an add-on for your word processor that will allow it to print a magazine article just like it came from the printing press with little or no fuss.

Or you might go to the F&s or OL website and custom make your own magazine that then gets printed out.

The permutations are endless!

It could happen…

Albert