Every few months, an article appears in the mainsream press about the demise of a bunch of web sites. The ominous tone of these reports declare the internet a somewhat failed experiment... usually judged in dollars. I shouldn't be surprised by this-- journalists aren't well- known for their new media saavy. It's not exactly their own fault... they're not used to covering evolution and that's exactly what the internet is doing - evolving.

The most recent myopic example comes from the Wall Street journal... a newspaper that boasts one of the best new media columnists . Turns out some entertainment sites are shutting down, most notably, internet soap operas.

Sure enough, places like The Spot are having trouble breaking even financially even though they have huge online followings. But this and other articles like it don't stop there... they go on to link these troubles to an overall failure of most web sites to turn a profit for their owners. The reports usually end with a pundit or two saying 'there's gonna be a shake up Real Soon Now' so watch out!

But lets do a little reality check here folks... think for a minute about a topic the Wall Street Journal knows a little bit abbout: long term investing.

Most people ddon't buy stock one day and sell it the next. Doing so can make you money if you're lucky, but its also a great way to lose your shirt. Any good financial advisor will tell you that the better method is to set some goals, put a limit on what you can invest, and most of all don't panic. This is exactly what some web site owners ARE doing right now: they THINK they've invested enough (probably too quickly)... set unrealistic and short term goals... and are now bailing out because they're expetations weren't met. For some reason, this part of the equation escapes most reporters.

Sites aren't shutting down because the web is failing. They're going dark because the people running them are approaching it all wrong. The web is a long-term investment-- its about learning, figuring out how to reach people in a new way. Look at radio and TV-- i used to work for a radio station owner who had a shot at a TV license in the 1940s. She turned it down because there wasn't any money in TV, after all, no one had one then.

Rather than write about the failure of these sites to rake in the cash, the real story should be the lack of vision these companies have in pulling the plug. They MAY HAVE invested too much, too soon, BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS MORE LIKELY A bad business plan and a lack of perspective on the industry. Its easier, though, to say the web is failing because you can't make money online.

Evolution is a tough thing to capture. If reporters were around when man first spoke, they'd be analyzing it a year later saying speech is doomed because we failed to make a buck from it