Current thinking in the newspaper biz is that the cure to what ails them is to figure out how to get some of the people to pay for some of the content. In other words, keep some stuff for free, but charge for the stuff that people really want. Not a bad strategy, and not a new one either. On demand programming on cable offers some free (but not so good stuff) stuff but keeps the new releases and top picks behind a pay wall. And, notably, the Wall Street Journal and Barrons, have succeeded in erecting a pretty big (and expensive) pay wall, such that almost nothing is free. Hearst Publishing has taken a different track, driving people to the print edition of their magazines by not offering all of their “good” content online.

But, as with all good strategies, the devil is in the details of the implementation. The biggest problem that newspapers have isn’t with people like me who grew up having newsprint on my fingers every morning and who have remained loyal in spite of the blackberry and iPhone apps and free digital versions of the paper. It’s the fact that the younger generation doesn’t feel compelled to read the paper – on or offline. Their news comes from a variety of niche sources that are all available to them for free (at least for now). The solution may not be as simple as trying to figure out how to erect a pay wall, but stepping back and evaluating the core product and what will make it attractive to a new audience. Barrons and the WSJ have survived (and thrive) in spite of their paywalls because they offer information and analysis that is “need to know” for anyone in business or finance – regardless of your age or demographic. The same doesn’t hold true for the New York Times, or my hometown paper which is on the verge of extinction, The Boston Globe.

What most people miss, I think, in this whole discussion is how interwoven print and online content production has become. The same teams that produce articles for print, also have those pieces posted online. Is it reasonable to expect the same quality of online content if the journalists who produce the print content that is also viewed online are “retired” because there is no longer the revenue on or offline to support them? Not so clear. Here’s a scenario to consider. My 26 year old colleague probably doesn’t buy the New York Times, but chances are that she pops on line to read it a few times a week. Would she miss it if it disappeared entirely and more importantly, does she value its content enough to pay a modest subscription fee to get its content online, knowing that if she didn’t, it would disappear entirely? Also not so clear.

So, I totally agree that it is about time that the industry is now talking seriously about new business models. Whether or not it’s too late, remains to be seen. A lot will depend upon how much independent soul searching these guys are willing to do. And, how much change they are willing to embrace.