In a world in which content has become a free commodity, it has been puzzling to see magazines participating in the free-for-all.

It’s a market many magazines should be avoiding or, at least, only have a light presence. Why? The biggest reason is many magazines aren’t offering a product that is widely available. When the New Yorker, Harper’s, the Walrus or Fortune publishing an article, there’s only one place to read it. It’s not like you can go to another magazine to find James Surowiecki’s article on Wal-Mart vs. Amazon.

This stands in contrast to newspapers in which much of the news can be read in multiple places. If, for example, you want to read about Obama Barack’s talk about Afghanistan, there are hundreds of Web sites offering coverage.

Given this editorial landscape, it is interesting to see that Hearst, Conde Nast and Time Inc. are planning to create an “iTunes for Magazines” in which people would pay a fee to read issues or articles.

While some people think the idea has no chance of being successful, there’s actually a really good chance it could thrive. Of course, it would mean that most, if not all, of the free content now offered would have to disappear behind a paywall because why buy something when it’s available for free.

These magazine publishers would also have to create news ways market their content so consumers are aware of what’s available. This might involve the aggressive use of social media services to put the spotlight on articles. Another option would be offering excerpts, or making an entire article available if a sponsor was involved – like what Salon does.

In the short-term, traffic to many online magazine sites would likely tumble but this would be the cost of launching a new business model based on subscriptions as opposed to advertising. In the long-term, an iTunes model might be the best thing that ever happened to magazines because it would give them a business model for the 21st century that reflects their value and uniqueness.