(FORTUNE Magazine) – I was interviewing Halsey Minor, but he was asking me a question: "What do you think CNET needs?" CNET is the Internet company Minor founded in 1992 and still runs as CEO. Answering his question was easy. "America doesn't know your company's name," I said. Minor nodded. I wasn't telling him anything he didn't know.

That was a few months ago. Now CNET is in the early stages of an 18-month, $100 million marketing campaign to make sure you know its name real well. You've heard stories about growth companies spending more than their annual profits on marketing. A hundred million is way more than CNET's annual revenues. And while the company's big-bet strategy is scary, it's undoubtedly right.

CNET's ad budget is one indication of why conventional wisdom about new media is wrong. Remember the predictions? The Internet would fundamentally reshape the media industry. Goodbye to the old few-to-many model of communication, exemplified by publishers and broadcasters, and hello to a new many-to-many model in which we could all become mini-Murdochs over the Web. After all, anyone can create a Website, and all sites are equally accessible. It's the twilight of the media gods!

It hasn't happened, and it isn't going to. The CNET story is one reason. This outfit is a new-media play; most of its revenue comes from its Websites, which provide consumer advice on all sorts of electronic products. A great business model, right? No paper, no postage, just an excellent environment for advertisers, plus a commission when a reader clicks over to a product site and buys. Trouble is, when anyone can create a Website, you get zillions--all clamoring for attention. How do you win in a world like that? Mainly one way: Spend tons of money buying awareness (via the big old media, I might add).

Think of it this way: If you could have downloaded The Blair Witch Project this past summer for, say, $10, would you have done it? In a few years millions of people will have sufficiently fast Net connections and enough storage to make this kind of thing practical. And Blair Witch is the media revolutionaries' Exhibit A of the moment, a film made on a minuscule budget that became a major mainstream hit. Just think: When content can go direct to the public via the Net, the studios and exhibitors become irrelevant, and content creators take command.

But wait. When anyone can offer movies online, hundreds will be available. In that marketplace, how would you know about Blair Witch? Maybe through word of mouth; it does happen. But more likely the only way any significant number of people would know about it is through the CNET solution. It's instructive to remember what actually happened with Blair Witch. A pair of kids made it for something like $35,000, then sold it to a distribution company, reportedly for $1 million. This company then spent $11 million to promote the film against not hundreds but just a few dozen films concurrently in release. So a $35,000 film became a hit--with $11 million of promotion behind it.

There's another reason the many-to-many model won't revolutionize the media industry, as some predicted. Most Web media enterprises are built on an ad-based business model; you and I can look at the content for free, and they'll make money--someday--by selling ads. Now suppose you represent one of the largest advertisers. You need big audiences, probably several different ones. Many Web media are attractive to you because they're so finely segmented. But are you going to chase after hundreds of Web outlets, making deals with each one, or are you going to look for a few big companies that own stables of media--Web based and traditional--and assemble your audiences through them?

The best example of what's really happening in media is, incredibly, CBS--incredibly because until recently this was the most hidebound and clueless media firm. But in the past year, CEO Mel Karmazin has bought stakes in more than a dozen Internet outfits, each time on similar terms: He pays not a single dollar or share of stock, instead just giving ad time on CBS and in some cases the right to use the CBS logo. When I started seeing these deals I was incredulous, but in fact they make sense, because what these Web startups need more than anything is promotion.

Karmazin's deal to sell CBS to Viacom is another shrewd trade because it consolidates so many Web-based and traditional media. Major advertisers have to go there. That's why the American Association of Advertising Agencies just asked the Justice Department to investigate the deal.

The many-to-many model isn't all wrong. Entrepreneurs will continue to create thousands of Web-based media outlets. But most won't be commercially significant unless they're bought by a major media group or at least get the massive backing available to only a few. My four-word prediction for the media future: More outlets, fewer owners.