The New York Times recently announced their decision to start charging for content in 2011. Here is a quick primer on what this means for them and for you.

For You = You’ll still be able to access content
This new model allows the casual reader to access the occasional article- the question is, “how much is occasional”? We’ll find out in 2011. The Times may set the meter at 4 articles, 8 articles, or 20 articles a month. So, if you just go online every Sunday to read Thomas Friedman, Dave Anderson, or one of your favorite columnists, you probably won’t have to worry much.

For the Times
It’s a great decision for them. After years of thinking this through, the Times has finally put a line in the sand. (They’ve been hemming and hawing for a while) Here’s why it makes sense.

The Times is one of the few, probably only, publishers that can do this. Excellent content IS their entire business. There’s a reason you can get a printed copy of the New York Times virtually anywhere in the world.

Numbers
The NYT has 17 million monthly readers a month, and 800,000 paid print subscribers a year. Even if they get a fraction of those 17 million readers, they are in good shape

Access
Search! The most important reason for going with a metered system here is that you’ll still be able to find and access the Times’ content using Google/Bing/Yahoo. Using any other model, the Times content won’t be “findable”

Pricing Flexibility
Advertisers will still get their money’s worth. If you are a casual Times reader, you’ll still be exposed to advertisements. If and when the Times needs to change their pricing based on how much you read, it won’t affect their relationship with key advertisers.

So, in effect, the Times has set up a virtual toll booth for the consumer. So, while driving down the content highway, how far do you want to drive, and much are you willing to pay the New York Times?

NOTE: Some Additional Perspective about  the NYTimes from the NY Times is here
For an outsiders view on how they should really do it, click here
For an unbiased view from the Associated Press, this is a great read