New York magazine has an interesting piece by Inside.com founder Kurt Andersen on the business side of the current generation of internet media. I’m hesistant to call it Web 2.0, since that term implies a raft of technologies and design philosophies that don’t necessarily apply to some of the projects he describes. (For example, I’d admit the blogging phenomenon as Web 2.0, but for-profit blogs just seem like niche media properties, a low-overhead version of the trade press.) The primary point he makes, which others have made elsewhere, is that the new businesses like YouTube resist taking a lot of venture capital money. I do wonder, however, how a business like YouTube, which is heavily dependent on bandwidth and server capacity, can operate for long without a serious cash infusion, not to mention the inevitable intellectual property litigation.
Andersen quotes John Battelle, a founder of the Industry Standard saying “I have the same tingly feeling I had with magazines.” I’ve got to say, that some of these projects give me the same feeling of dread I have with magazines, but I worked at a technology publisher during the dot-com crash. At the end of my three-year publishing career, I was the only editor out of a dozen that was still working in the office where I started. Oddly, Folio, a trade magazine for trade magazines, named the CEO of my former employer one of the executives of the year, saying he turned the company from a “dot-com disaster to a new media player.” Fair enough, but it was no fun being mired in the wreckage of a failed business plan.