Many pubs claimed to go 'digital first' in the mid-2000s (e.g. InfoWorld, a 25 year old publication even dumped print entirely). But the cost of unique content creation often still far outweighed the cost of production. And online, it's still easier to run a "story" about an iPhone rumor to generate traffic than real hard news or investigative journalism. Soon, all pubs start to re-publish the same tired crap in the race for pageviews and everything gets watered down.
Content can be a lot cheaper to produce and promote if you aren't the content originator (e.g. Associated Press is literally everywhere now) but it's death by a thousand cuts more often than not for publishers that go this route.
Unless one has simply massive online traffic, the advertising model that propped up print for so long is broken online. Print is mostly free from delivering hard metrics with the exception of circulation numbers. Online, pure visits and ad impressions are never enough. Thus, an impossible slippery slope forms creating a paradox of expectations between "engagement" with vendor content and "real content."
In all reality, the "digital first" strategy is impossible for many publishers as the subscription dollars are almost free money for them. The lure of another $20 annual subscription is too great. And the growth necessary to survive, so hard.
I bet The Guardian is looking very closely at this - they have been losing money for years, and they're going "digital first" too. Let's hope it works out as well for them.
The Atlantic has certainly been promoting itself heavily here and on reddit this past years, and catering its content to interests of the net-savvy reader:
There's a bunch of stuff about the huge increase in online ad revenue. I think it's a reasonable to assume that this was driven by their "digital first" approach.
Personally, having been a past subscriber to the Atlantic but given up on it owing to never having time to read magazines and only being interested in a subset of the articles in a typical issue, I like being able to read interesting stories when the mood takes me rather than piling the magazines up in the unread pile and then feeling stupid when I realize I missed a really compelling article. (I often found out about articles in my unread magazines on NPR or online.)
I have a subscription to the Atlantic because of reading the articles and their blogs online. I don't think it would be incorrect to attribute their turnaround in going digital first. I've been reading their properties for years and there was definitely a change (perhaps in just attitude).
Glad to hear! The Atlantic Monthly is the only magazine I subscribe to. The content is absolutely worth it, and I feel like I'm supporting something truly needed in society today.
Of course digital first should be the first inclination. Succeed where the success is, not where the past has died.
Good for the Atlantic.