I like the model that Tim and Carolyn advocate. Could it be done through a newspaper consortium or would it have to be a separate third party to get past anti-trust legislation?

I'm not sure that Keller is talking simply about Google indexing in the bit about "the search function". That worked just fine under Times Select, as far as I could tell. I think what he means is that, if you could figure out a way to provide the stories that get searched for a lot to irregular users but still keep a subscription package going, that would be their ideal. The Google "first hit for free" scheme goes some way toward that but there are plenty of flaws in that.

Actually that's already done. Look at how academic database JSTOR has results appearing on Google, but users get a crippled landing page. As far as I remember, this specific constellation is a special cooperation between the two.

(more: cf. http://scilibrarian.wordpress.com/2006/03/01/reference-linking-in-jstor-search-jstor-content-in-google-and-google-scholar/ and http://oieahc.wm.edu/uncommon/125/online.cfm)

On the other hand, there is something about the NYT as a newspaper of record that has me want to see the past material be indexed by search engines and retrievable (thing school students, researching student papers, and whatever someone is seeking information about, and the quality that NYT brings). Deep liinking to archival material would be OK.

That should bring more advertising views along with it.

The next question is, what is the value added that would draw revenue through a syndication or aggregation model. Perhaps time-value material, notifications, ability to subscribe to individual columnists and sections, something where there is a sustaining benefit with someone having focused attention on new material. There is probably no way to prevent someone else from engaging in such an offering directly, but it would seem licensing and revenue sharing could be worked out. Probably scary.

But I think two-tiered is somehow the way to go. Finding a division that preserves the authority and appeal of the NYT and has broad exposure of people to its quality content is the trick to ponder.

However, the question is how will the currently free content be taken to a paid model. All content producers have to participate. It is a bit easier for books as books were never given away free on the internet. It will be harder to charge for content that the customer has received (practically) free for over 100 years.

Maybe, magazines need to start on this model? Or maybe, customers will be jolted into paying when they start missing what they were getting tor free.

My company's alternative online payment mechanism is geared specifically to enabling payment for "one-off" single purchases of special articles and other low priced digital goods.

It is called OneTouch Online Purchasing, and it is currently available in 26 countries. We are soon launching with partners in the USA to charge prepaid cards, telecom accounts, and other cash alternatives that consumers already use.

Safari now provides nearly 20% of our book revenue at O'Reilly, and is our second largest distribution channel after Amazon. It's definitely a model that newspapers ought to look at.

That's the way we pay for cable television, why wouldn't it work for online content?

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com