When it comes to the $64,000 questions of whether The Times will have to begin charging for content to survive, Nisenholtz didn't make any big announcement about where the paper was headed. But he
acknowledged that "you have to look at it, because a dual-revenue stream is a better business, it just is." And he noted that research is showing that people are beginning to realize that people are
realizing they may have to one day starting paying for content.
My guess is not a question of if, but when the Times will begin charging for at least some content, whether putting up a pay
wall around the op-ed page again or coming up with other premium content involving Web applications tied to specific sections of the paper. The Economist's Edwards also said the magazine is "exploring
it's options" in connection with charging for access. The Economist can probably get away with even more easily than the Times b/c people are already paying a lot for the print version and on the
Kindle. Its an audience that will pay.