The New York Times says it will decide this summer whether to offer online content through a subscription model, metered model or a pay as you go micro-payment model. Full story here.

One thing is clear, it is going to start costing money to read the New York Times online. Hopefully, more publications will follow and begin charging for the content that is so expensive to produce. As we have said before, the model, so pervasive among newspapers and magazines that traffic generates revenue, isn't working.

The New York Times ran its first front page ad on Monday- the first of its kind in its 157 year history. No front page ad appeared in Tuesday. The Times' financial difficulties are undoubtedly the motivating factor:  As MediaPost points out: In the third quarter of 2008, ad revenue fell 8.9% to $687 million, compared to the same period in 2007. While fourth-quarter results are not yet available, total revenues decreased 9.4% in October and 13.9% in November.

Ads on the front page might be a break in tradition but given a decent advertising environment they could be a significant revenue stream for the Times. But why does it always take dire circumstances for publications to embrace change? This type of thinking is largely the reason why publications are in the position they are in. There are way too few examples of publications trying something new when they don't have to.