With the rise of sites like Twitter that boast real-time updates and breaking news (albeit some sources may not be credible), will consumers be willing to pay for content? A Pew survey says 82% say no.

I feel like I’ve been having this conversation a lot recently – are people willing to pay for content?  Sadly, as the Pew survey points out, the answer (for now) is a resounding “no.” So why would The New York Times decide to start charging for access to its online content in January 2011? Aside from the obvious (they have to find a way to make money), I’m afraid that they (like a lot of other publishers) are reading too much into the early numbers for digital readership via e-readers and more specifically, the iPad. The success (modest or otherwise) of a limited number of newspapers and magazines on the Kindle and nook are the first signs that the answer could someday be “yes.” Add to this the excitement around the magazine apps being developed for the iPad and other anticipated tablet devices, and the fact that some publishers are charging (or are planning to charge) as much as $3.00 or $4.00 per digital issue and you’ve got just a bit more cause to be optimistic. Then factor in the notion that a converged device like the iPad will start to blur the distinction between “applications” and “Internet” to the point where you (the reader) might not remember if you’re on a site or in an app, and you’ve got publishers basically salivating. Whoa – I just woke up from an awesome dream!

I believe it’s too soon to move to a paid subscription model if you are looking for instant success. Even January (seven months out) is too early. The first problem is audience size – there still aren’t enough e-readers and iPads out there (and I know they number in the millions already) to turn the tide yet. Most magazine issues that have been distributed in “app” format have only achieved distribution in the tens of thousands. My sense of the revenue that they generate would hardly amount to a single four-color page ad. Point being, right now, I’d argue that the proof of scale is glaringly absent. In other words, that the revenue generated by subscribers will outpace the revenue lost as a result of lower traffic hasn’t been established. The second problem is the audience itself – us. We are cheap. I think about all of the squawking about the price of e-books being “unfair” because of the substantially reduced overhead they represent to publishers, and I’m reminded that we basically cannot get our heads around the value of content. It seems we don’t think that authors should be compensated fairly or handsomely for keeping us informed, entertained and enlightened.

So, you know what? I’m with you NYT.com! Sure, you spilled the beans in a clumsy way and I actually think that you may fail initially, but you have seven months to make your case. And it’s an important case to make: Good content has value. Good content shouldn’t be free. And those who create it deserve to be compensated and rewarded.