Yes, subscription membership revenue models can pay well, but only if you can get the subscribers. So when I read that Hollywood Reporter and Variety are going for the paywall model, I wonder if they're missing something. Writes Nikki Finke on Deadline Hollywood:

I've known that Variety spent 6 months intensely studying all its options. Now toppers Neil Stiles and Brian Gott have decided to go to a paid strategy right after the first of the year. That means the website will no longer be free. So online and print content will both be subscriber-based. Exactly which combination of content and services will be offered has yet to be determined. But this is being done in recognition of the sad fact that, ever since Variety pulled back that paywall in 2006 (back when all that mattered was traffic numbers at the expense of subscription dollars), the trade has lost a ton of money. Meanwhile, sources tell me that The Hollywood Reporter is about to dump its daily print version. The date considered was October 16th, but now that's been moved back. So this means THR will pursue a paid web-only strategy for its content.

The thing is that Hollywood of all industries is a community, with gossip, rumors, insider tips, deal-makers, wannabees, and a very insider, insular, provincial social graph, often colored with a healthy dose of cynicism. What better place to leverage community participation in a trade publication?

This wouldn't preclude Variety from setting up freemium approach, with a paywall around their hottest news. But maybe they could build some traffic by leveraging the open source tools out there to build an online community. It's a tough pond with plenty of sharks, but if anyone has an advantage, it's the industry insider Variety.

Or maybe not.

Comments on the Deadline Hollywood post are interesting.