What Will Charging for Web Content Change?

“In the annals of history, perhaps only the D-Day invasion required as much meticulous, torturous planning as the New York Times Co.’s decision to begin charging consumers for its online content,” the Wall Street Journal reported today, although the rumors and speculation that fee-based news have been flying for a while.

It’s not surprising that the NYT is bending under pressure to increase revenue as ad dollars dwindle. We agree, it is time for a new business model. But we can’t help think that there has to be a better approach. Especially because a straight charge-for-content works for print, but not necessarily online.

Up for discussion tonight: how might publishers create a hybrid revenue model, perhaps by even restructuring author rights. For example, were the Times to use more freelancers and become a marketplace, it would vastly reduce overhead and increase its coverage capability. Meanwhile, breaking news would come from AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg. Rights to features would be purchased at whatever cost made the most sense to the paper and the independent writer.

Of course, rights and royalties are sticky wickets, ones that have the potential to generate much controversy, as seen with Amazon’s new bid to offer authors a 70 percent royalty on e-Books. We don’t pretend to have the answers, and so we’re asking you:

• Writers: Would amending your current contracts to include different rights and royalty agreements increase your bottom line?

• Editors and Publishers: What are your biggest concerns with a hybrid model? What opportunities are you preparing to exploit?

Join us tonight at 8:30pm ET to discuss these questions and more on FriendFeed.