Pay for Play: New York Times and the Definition of Content

Everyone's talking about The New York Times' new plan for metered charging. In 2011, the newspaper will begin charging users for content beyond a certain (and, as of yet, unspecified) amount of articles. Blogs are buzzing, Twitter is (ha!) a-twitter - and people are all asking the same question: how much will it cost? But what they should be asking is, for what content?

As far as The New York Times is concerned, they do have one of the richest online newspaper sites. Video, audio, photo galleries, blogs and the Sunday Magazine set them apart from the crowd of "let's just move the print product online." The question is, when the Times says they'll charge after a "certain number of articles" are viewed. Are these "articles" text? Video? Photos? What about articles that go for multiple (sometimes more than 7) pages or posts that just come through a news wire?

I think that the Times has opened up a bigger can of worms than they expected. They'll be fighting a battle on several fronts: against those opposed to paying for online content and a fight to decide what their content really is and what it's actually worth. I've said before that I would (gasp!) consider paying for richer, more interactive articles & media. However, in this situation, it seems like the Times is just trying to charge for each page of the paper you flip (turn the page, you wash your hands...).

They're trying to monetize traditionally in a new media world. You can see it in their Q&A on their own site: "You will still be able to read individual articles through search sites like Google, Yahoo and Bing without charge." There are just too many factors to consider for this plan to be effective.

What do you think? Would you pay for online content?