On the surface the logic is sound, but scratch deeper and you'll uncover a disconnect. The problem is the product: most magazines and newspapers use their websites as an echo and archive of their print titles. Sure, they add a little value by hyperlinking within their stories, offer expanded job boards, and have some simple spaces for discussion. But this is a web publishing model created in the early nineties. It's logical, simple and safe, but Google, Wikipedia, MSN, Pandora, Flickr and Second Life it is not.

The reason web traffic to media sites is exploding is because of the new communication models that have been uncovered in the last few years. The first generation model of web publishing just won't cut it, and without the audiences those sales teams will never succeed.

In the digital networked economy consumers have new expectations. Technology has suddenly created the tools to hold conversations and capture knowledge, reshaping the way we communicate and share information. The publishing models of the 'Web 2.0' era leap massively beyond those of print, placing the viewer at the heart of the media experience, inviting them to participate in content creation. It's this content that builds that essential traffic, and with that comes the advertising revenues media owners are chasing. Some go further still, delivering toolkits and services that weave themselves so deeply into the fabric of people's daily lives that their visits become essential.

As the knowledge we need and the services we use migrate from our desktops to the network, a new role for media groups can open up, but only to those prepared for rapid and radical product development. The sales force cannot sell what is not there, and that's why doing little more than duplicating the magazine on the web fails to harness any of its real potential.

Dotcom pureplays have known this for many years, but the 'product' of most magazine group websites remains fundamentally flawed. It maybe heresy to say, painful to think, embarrassing to admit, but if you don't believe me then try this simple test:

• 1. Think about the needs of the markets you serve - list the complete needs of both your audiences and advertisers


• 2. Forget your current website or your offline products


• 3. Take a white sheet of paper and list what would satisfy those needs


• 4. Then overlay what your website is actually delivering

It can be an uncomfortable exercise, but rethinking your product offering from the bottom up lets you think the unthinkable. Yes, it's a horridly crude form of gap-analysis, but when you actually do it, it makes a bold point. Relying on a print model to power your web business just doesn't stack up.

Great editorial is only the starting point for a publishers' website. The blogs, the community, the social networks, the directories, the toolkits and the practical services; they all need to be there too. Traffic may be growing on magazine sites, but it's not exploding, and that's why even a great media sales team cannot win the revenues if they don't have the audiences to sell. What worked for those of us publishing online media sites back in 1995 is certainly not good enough ten years later, yet those are the models of many magazine sites. It's time to get serious or get out. That means not only making the investment, but getting the thinking right for the product itself. Magazines can have great futures online, but the jury is still out on which titles will make this transition.

The stars of the internet are the businesses that built those products - and what's more they continue incredible investment in product development. Media groups need to act in the same way if they're to realise the ambitious goals they set themselves.

Danny Meadows-Klue is an award winning web publisher who now helps media groups figure out their strategies Danny@DigitalStrategyConsulting.com

This article also appeared in the title Magazine World and on www.FIPP.com