Behind a pay wall for content from the Times lie some really complex questions. Here, at last, was an allegedly game-changing call outlining all newspapers' future. But the NYT has taken a dithery year to choose its next move. It'll spend another year "building a new online infrastructure to provide purchasers with a frictionless experience across multiple platforms" ( whatever that suggests ). All we actually know is they will not throw a total wall around everything. You will get a specific number of free site visits a month and then get asked to cough up. How many, how much? Perhaps twenty free, perhaps $15 afterward. Witness the incontrovertible fact that the total time expended online by a mean NYT unique user during one up to date month was only seventeen mins or so. The second class of visitors, though , spent much longer on site - and taking a look at adverts. They were steady, devoted, engaged, and perhaps twenty five percent of the user total. They are the regular men who'll get hit toughest in their pocket when the pay wall goes up. To $100 a year, $150? on industry norms, maybe seventy percent of them are subscribing to the print version of paper and so may get online free. So see how multimillion numbers shrink to a relatively miniscule few. See how simply the incorrect size of wall, too high, too costly, could send critical "core loyalists" packing. They make the net appear a great balloon of expansion " and that helps bring in some ad income. That means squaring circles as well as building walls.

You try hard not to offend the thorough advocates who matter by asking them to pay too much. You try and manage a complex, shifting equation. Small wonder the Gray Woman has gone white at the gills. Not surprising that Murdoch, for all his brave words, moves slowly. Chuck in apps that raise a little money ( but depress print sale ).

chuck in price cuts or rises or going free in print. But recognize that salvation for the NYT, with its mighty 1,300-strong newsroom, may come through twelve different routes : if, that is, flexible, fast-paced net stories needs 1,300-strong newsrooms. Are print stories and net stories 2 sides of the same coin or inherently different, not solely in style and tone, but in organisational imperatives, too? That is the next query the NYT has not thought of yet : a headbanger, not a game-changer. The chelsea mag company has vacancies for amb.