In an interesting interview in yesterday’s FT, the CEO of Guardian Media Group Carolyn McCall addressed the issue of the moment for newspaper publishers – to charge or not to charge for online content.

Media analysts have questioned the Guardian’s strategy of building large online audiences and delivering content for free. However, the article points out that around 25 percent of the group’s advertising revenue now come from its online channels.

McCall doesn’t reject the ‘paywall’ idea favoured by Rupert Murdoch completely, suggesting that “certain areas of specialist content could be charged for”. A theory backed up by the success of FT.com, Economist.com and niche sites such as Breakingviews.com (prior to its sale to Thomson Reuters); sites that all charge for content in one form or other.

In my opinion, the most telling comment from McCall explores how charging for content fits with the culture of online media consumers in 2010. “It [a paywall] is not really the way that the web works” – a comment that rings true with organisations that are demonstrating successful online strategies. Why would you want to limit the number of people who link, share, comment on or bookmark your content?

The Guardian website’s army of ‘commenters and sharers’ are a far broader (and far larger) group than the newspaper’s readership ever was. Why make these online brand advocates pay to read and promote your online content?