New York Times Co. (NYT), which has said it plans to move to a metered model for its online presence, is scheduled to discuss its fourth-quarter and full-year 2009 financial results in a conference call Wednesday, Feb. 10, at 11:00 AM (ET). An live webcast of the call will be available at the company's website.

During the three months that ended in December, New York Times released an app for the BlackBerry and new features for NYTimes.com, as well as named a new HR chief. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters are looking for earnings for that period of $0.38 per share. That's up from $0.16 per share in the previous quarter and $0.30 per share a year ago. But revenue for the fourth quarter is expected to be 15.4% lower than a year ago to $653.2 million.

How are readers finding the news? Well, increasingly, the answer is Facebook. The social networking site, which boasts well over 350 million registered users, is now the fourth largest referral source of traffic to online news destinations. Almost a year ago, only 0.5% of traffic to news and media sites came from Facebook. Today, that level is 3.5%, according to data from Web analytics firm Experian Hitwise.

Only Google (GOOG), Yahoo! (YHOO) and MSN (MSFT) send more traffic to news sites. Google News, a subset of the search engine giant, failed to keep pace with Facebook, despite the fact that it exists specifically to send Internet users to media outlets. Only 1.39% of referrals came from this source.

The recent announcement by the New York Times (NYT) that it would start to require subscriptions next year has drawn no shortage of attention and commentary. It has tried to put content behind a pay wall before (and failed), as have other newspapers.

Almost universally, newspapers have struggled with online subscriptions, with the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal, a News Corp (NWS) property, the only two that have really delivered results better than awful. Whether the New York Times can operate at that level is in doubt, particularly given the stunning realization about Long Island daily newspaper Newsday.

On Monday, Tom Johansmeyer indicated that a for-pay model for the online version of The New York Times was imminent. Indeed, a press release from The New York Times Company (NYT) hit the wires Wednesday morning, revealing that a paid version of NYTimes.com would launch at the beginning of 2011 -- that's next year. So "All the News That's Fit to Print" will be available to Web browsers at a cost.

But the only folks that will have to open their wallets are those who leaf through lots of Times articles. The casual news browser will have free access to a specified number of articles each month before being charged. Subscribers who pay for home delivery of the traditional paper will have free and unlimited access to the site.

The New York Times (NYT) has been struggling to figure out the web, which has led to a debate over whether to charge for electrons that has spanned years. Well, the Times seems likely to take the plunge, hoping to replicate the successes of the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal ... except, of course, that the Wall Street Journal is famous for not really delivering profits. Fortunately, the new pay wall is expected to look more like the Financial Times than the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times is considering a "metered" system. Visitors will be able to read a certain number of articles free before being required to subscribe.

A friend of Arthur Sulzberger, according to New York Magazine's Daily Intel, said that the final word could come in a few days, a sentiment corroborated by a newsroom source who said that the plan could be announced within weeks. Yet, plans need to be implemented, so it could take months for the Times to begin charging for content.

The New York Times (NYT) reports today that newspapers dominate the news creation business.

This is an interesting twist -- instead of touting readers or paid circulation or ads or total revenue, it's talking about production. It's almost as if Ford (F) were to announce: "We make more cars than anyone else." Who the hell cares if they sell any, right? What's important is production, not sales! For the Times, and print media in general, it feels like yet another attempt to justify its existence and "prove" that it is more valuable than the more cost-effective and nimble online outlets.

The New York Times (NYT) is putting its 2.3 million followers to work. It isn't ready to start charging a la carte for Twitter advertising, but it is including the channel in the comprehensive packages it presents to advertisers. And, the Times isn't alone. Several media outlets (including BloggingStocks) have ads running through their Twitter streams, but this is still virgin territory, for the most part, and media companies are still feeling their ways through it.

With close to 60 million users, Twitter is a force corporate marketing departments just can't ignore. The reach offered by this microblogging platform is profound, and skipping it means yielding digital turf to the competition.

Yet, as the country's major brands have flocked to Twitter, not all have mastered it. Some merely push headlines and deals, while others have used it as a way to open a dialogue with their customers, build relationships and ultimately grow their businesses. A study by The Big Money sought to determine the dozen companies that are mastering Twitter and why they are the masters.

Facebook is implementing a new stock structure to make sure the founders retain control, immediately causing rumors about an impending initial public offering. Why would Facebook need Class A and Class B shares otherwise? Under the new structure, which is similar to Google's (GOOG), Mark Zuckerberg and other early entrants wouldn't have to worry about yielding the floor to outsiders when if the company goes public.

The stock structure was adopted to ensure that existing shareholders keep control on voting issues, according to Facebook statement. No details were given as to who the winners are in this arrangement, but a Wall Street Journal report says that, according to its sources, all current shareholders would be converted to Class B shares, which carry 10 times the voting rights of Class A shares.

We've put three quarters behind us in 2009, and the most recent one was merely another miserable step downward for the beleaguered newspaper industry. Total ad revenue plummeted in the third quarter to $6.4 billion for the print jockeys, a decline of 28%. This info from the Newspaper Association of America drives home the notion that conditions will only worsen for the newspaper industry. So, if you're hoping those shares of New York Times Company (NYT), Gannett (GCI) and Washington Post Company (WPO), holding your breath will leave you little more than dizzy.

Of the total advertising revenue generated in the third quarter of 2009, $5.8 million came from print, the lowest quarterly amount this year. The $623 million in online advertising sold by America's newspapers was also 2009's worst. Both are down substantially from the same quarter in 2008, when the newspapers posted print ad revenue of $8.2 million and online ad revenue of $750 million, according to NAA data. At this time last year, we lamented year-over-year declines approaching 20%. Now, we have the same feelings as ad revenue drops approach 30%.

Activist hedge fund Harbinger Capital disclosed in an SEC filing yesterday that it has sold 2.5 million shares of The New York Times Co. (NYT), reducing the company's largest outside shareholder's stake from to 14.6%. It also sold shares in September, when it reduced its position in the company from a 20% stake.

Harbinger declined a request for comment from The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), but it's possible that Harbinger is finally realizing that the shares' dual-class voting structure will make it impossible to affect change on the company's operations or corporate governance -- and as long as the Sulzberger family controls the company's fate, it will continue to be a value destruction machine trading at approximately the same share price it was at in 1984.

This winter, a bit more of New York is headed to Florida. Layoffs for 2010 have already been announced for the New York Times Company(NYT). The New York Times News Service will lose 25 editorial positions next year and shift the service's editing to one of the parent company's Florida newspapers. At present, the news service has 30 editorial jobs. Some of the layoffs will occur in February, and the others will happen in May.

These layoffs are not included in the planned slashing of 100 jobs in the flagship newspaper's newsroom -- a workforce reduction of 8% that should take hold by the end of the year. The NY Times is also ceasing pension contributions for nonunion employees.

The broader economy is showing signs that we can at least interpret as positive, but this doesn't extend to the media industry, it seems. Condé Nast's ad page results are out for its 2009 issues, now that the last issue of the year has been sold for each of them ... and the situation is grim.

Condé Nast lost 8,359 ad pages this year, according to a report released on Wednesday. Ad pages have plunged 30% this year. Cost cutting has been used to offset the revenue declines, with more than 450 positions removed this year and several magazines shuttered, including Gourmet and Modern Bride.

Vibe, the urban music magazine, is clawing its way back to life. New owners and editors are trying to make the magazine a success reality again, and they are making the web a priority ... which shouldn't be news but is for an ailing print industry.

The new editor-in-chief, Jermaine Hall, told AdAge that "Vibe.com is really the hub," and that everything needs to point back to the online presence. The print publication will be just one part of the Vibe Lifestyle Network, a move we're also seeing with the likes of Rolling Stone, where the website is being brought back into the fold (and may actually get some resources).

The Washington Post Company (NYSE: WPO) published data for the third quarter earlier today. Can't say I was mightily impressed by the numbers. Sure, there was a profit increase, but the top line wasn't exciting, and the newspaper division, as you might have expected, experienced a sharp decline in sales.

Net revenues rose 2%. Earnings per share came in at $1.81. That was sharply higher than the $1.08 per share recorded in the comparable period. Yet, I think you have to be careful in terms of reading too much positive spin into the growth rate.