The internet is a source of infinite information made accessible only by those who have permitted themselves to make it accessible for free.

Newspapers and magazines have made their revenues from advertisers for over a century before the internet came along. Whether it used to be $0.10 or $0.50 for a printed newspaper, to a few dollars for a glossy magazine, media companies made their money through ads, this is a given.

When the internet came along, though it was neat to be able to share information in one common world wide web, advertising on the web was, right from the get-go, very cheap. Pennies were made based on impressions, clicks, and leads. Then, when content was reproduced on the web, the print media followed. However, the fatal mistake from print media was to reproduce their content for free.

If I were a business person, who made their fortune by offering a service for a price in person, and then offering the same service for free on the internet, of course my client base will grow on the internet. But my internet clients aren’t paying for my services, they’re getting it for free. And everybody, and I mean everybody, loves the word “free”. So it’s only logical that you would attract more people online than you would in person. By the end of if, I wouldn’t be making any money at all since my in-person clients will flock to me indirectly and get my services for free rather than in person.

Thus, my question to the big print companies such as the New York Times, The Globe and Mail, and the thousands of other newspapers…why did they make their content online free? It’s like shooting yourself in the foot. The Wall Street Journal was smart, they limit their free content and still rely on paid subscriptions to generate some revenue and it isn’t free falling into a black hole like other newspapers. Women’s Wear Daily is also able to stay alive with their subscription base model, while offering just a trickle of free content. It’s content is still linked to from numerous websites despite it being mostly off limits to casual browsers. Newspapers could have still been afloat if they would’ve offered their news for the same subscription price online as their print version. The only foreseeable problem with that is having their content reproduced by users – however, with hundreds of articles being printed each week, I doubt all of the content would be made public.

Fashion magazines however are not entirely at fault. Fashion brands have established their own sites and thus can propagate their ad campaigns from their home base without the need to pay for space in a physical world. The internet allows them to reach a much wider audience than their print (and costly) versions ever could.  Combine that with viral marketing from blogs, and cheap web space, there’s little need for fashion magazines except for the fashion gurus to cherry pick the cream of the crop of products. I suppose a temporary solution for fashion magazines is to also privatize their content online and have users pay to read their fashion experts’ opinions.

If print media companies would’ve started out with privatized paid subscriptions online, then I doubt there would’ve been such a global meltdown in the print world, perhaps saving thousands of jobs. Of course, there are hundreds of thousands of sophisticated users who can pirate content, but quality content as the big medias were known for, wouldn’t have disintegrated so quickly if they did some planning and foreshadowing.

If print work does indeed die out in the next decade (and reduced to an art form), I expect online advertising prices to go up. With no ulterior source of income, I think coveted online fashion websites will have the opportunity to break out a new standard for online advertising. Of course, online fashion magazines will have to compete for attention with the very brands who are buying their ad space.

If you’ve been to WWD.com, you’ll notice that they’ve changed their layout and has optimized it for current web standards. That means better RSS feeds (although probably too long to load), keyword search, and scrollable featured articles. It’s improved upon organizing its content and looks a little younger and very corporate 2.0. Fashion sites have come a long way, and I think WWD has done nicely for a first Beta try at optimizing its content for the web.

And for today, August 4th, it’s the official launch of the new WWD.com site and so today is a FREE ACCESS DAY! I don’t have the funds for a subscription to this great fashion website, but I’m so happy that every single article is available to read in its entirety. Yay for WWD!

Now, if only Style.com could do something about their website, they could use a facelift as well.

You’ll also notice that Independent Fashion Bloggers, a fashion blogging network I belong to, has also undergone some changes and moved to a new URL and gotten itself a new (and pretty professional looking) 2.0. interface. A very clean look, simple, organized and with a few new features like a forum for fellow fashion bloggers to connect and network.

Now it makes my blog a little old fashioned, but I don’t have time to fiddle around with the look of my site. One day though

I’m going on a trip to Las Vegas, LA and San Francisco next week, and hopefully I’ll have enough time to properly blog this time. My trip to Japan was great, but I didn’t have any energy left to blog since I was exhausted of the 5hr walking trips I’d take every day.

Had I known that Las Vegas had signed a whopping $9 billion deal to create perhaps the most luxurious retail space in North America, I would’ve postponed my trip til next year. According to WWD, CityCenter is an 18 million square feet of commercial space that will include over 70 retailers, a 61-story, 4,000-room gaming resort; three luxury nongaming hotels, and a 5000 square foot “flower carpet” where flowers will be changed daily. CityCenter will feature The Crystals – 500,000 square foot of retail space. And I thought our H&M’s 15,000 square feet of space was big. Perhaps there’s a reason why I’m not in architecture right? Most of the well known luxury brands will take up space in this new project including a 10,000 sq.ft for Tiffany’s, and the second largest Louis Vuitton store in North America. Nevermind that many of these retailers already have several store locations in the city.

Frankly, I’m split two ways about it. One is that I’m majorily curious as to what these fanciful places look like (so far they all look the same either in the US or in Japan’s Ginza district). Plus, will they make a profit from all this construction? Second, $9 billion dollars? Is it really necessary to have a repeat of the same luxury retailers? Do you know where all that good money can be used for to help poorer countries? This is what’s contradicting of the luxury world, you have all this money, and you’re always seeking more of it when you very well know you could perhaps donate a few dollars – ok, thousands, hell, millions of dollars – for charities and such.

We will see next year. For now, I will be making rounds in Vegas and dutifully make observations on the shopping experience. I haven’t been to Vegas since I was 12, and back then I was confined to the Circus Circus arcades where I wasted many hours of my youth fending for raffle tickets that would get me at most a toy water gun. I was even told by my mum that the Golden Strip “didn’t exist” when I had asked her about it.

San Francisco should be lovely as I heard so many good things about it. My stop in the LA area would be more so on the beaches of Santa Monica, I’m not really interested in LA to be honest. All that Hollywood gossip is such a turn off.

Image credits: CityCenter (artist rendition)