The New York Times announced on Jan. 20, that starting in January 2011, it will charge a flat fee for online article access for frequent readers. Readers will be able to view a certain number of articles before having to pay the set fee.

Through this move, the Times intends to maximize revenue by utilizing reader loyalty while still allowing site access to the online readers that visit the Times Web site each day. Subscribers of the print version, however, will have free access.

The announcement that the fee would not go into effect for a year left many puzzled. Several staff members in the Times newsroom possess an element of impatience, according to Richard Pèrez-Peña, the reporter who wrote the Times’ story about the change.

“A lot of people think that this should be done. A lot of people think that it should have been done already,” Pèrez-Peña said.

The move has been in the works for over a year now, and is not new to online media. The Wall Street Journal has been charging for online media access since 1996.

Pèrez-Peña denied that the Times’ switch had anything to do with the competition of its rivals, however.

“You can’t extrapolate The New York Times to the rest of the industry,” Pèrez-Peña said. “[Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corporation, which owns the Wall Street Journal], has nothing to do with it.”

He said that some papers charge for online content if they have a monopoly on their industry – that is, if they are the only paper in the metropolitan area. The Times has many competitors for its New York City market. Nevertheless, it has a different approach as it is widely considered the standard in print journalism and the national newspaper of record.

“Our pitch is that it’s not unique, but it’s uniquely good,” Pèrez-Peña said.

In response to the recent announcement, many newspapers have been asked how they feel about the change. Publisher of The Washington Post Katherine Weymouth said the Post does not have plans to charge consumers for online content, according to an article in the Post published on Jan. 21.

“There are a number of pay models being tested by content providers of all types, and we will be very interested to see how consumers respond,” Weymouth said in a blog post on the Post’s Economy Watch. “At this time, we have no plans to charge consumers for access to our stories on the Web.”

In light of the recent news, Georgetown University Interhall’s Vice President of Student Advocacy Will Cousino (SFS ’12), the largest proponent of bringing back the Collegiate Readership Program to Georgetown, stressed the newfound importance of the program.

The program – which provided free copies of the Times, the Post and USA Today to the university community until a hiatus this fall – will return as soon as Feb. 1, but the program’s start still depends on the transfer of final sponsorship funds of the $6,000 necessary to run the program.

“I think in order for print journalism to survive it needs to adapt,” Cousino said. “If it takes a subscription fee to keep it going, it’s important to get daily news from upstanding sources like The New York Times. It is disappointing [to have to pay], but it’s reality.”

The Times tried a fee of this sort from 2005 to 2007, charging for some of its opinion content. This blocked off many of its best writers from national exposure, however, and the Times removed the pay wall.

Weymouth cited possible monetary motives for The New York Times’ decision in her Economy Watch blog post. The Times took out a $250 million dollar loan at a 14 percent return interest rate last year from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim and also is having a difficult time supporting its mortgage for its new NYC headquarters, which were completed in 2007, before the recession.

Conjectures have also been drawn from the proximity of the announcement of the Times’ decision to the release date of Apple’s new iPad. An exclusive application on the iPad allows readers to access the Times with reader formatting almost identical to a print copy. Thus, the timing of the move could be a marketing ploy by the Times.

Ultimately, the readers will determine the effectiveness of this pricing initiative.

“I’m upset [about the change] only because I read the Times every day, but at the same time I understand why they’re doing it,” said Ben Mansuor (COL ’13), a daily reader of The New York Times online version. He added that he appreciated that the Times would be charging just a flat fee, and not a fee per article.

“They’re looking for a way to increase revenue in the long run,” Pèrez-Peña said. “I hope it works.”