One study, 27,000 people, 52 countries involved and little or no obvious result. US research agency Neilsen has released a huge survey where it asked if consumers would pay for online news and entertainment they now get for free. The answer? Ahem… “maybe”

“As expected, the vast majority (85%) prefer that free content remain free. Yet there are opportunities to be found in the details. Indeed, when asked to focus on specific types of content, survey participants are more willing to at least consider paying for particular categories, especially if they have done so before,” noted the report.

TGDaily pointed out that the areas that consumers don’t mind paying for content are pretty much where they’re used to spending their change already – with more than 50% of respondents saying they would pay for online movies, music, or games.

Three-quarters of the 27,000 participants believe if they already subscribe to a newspaper, magazine, radio or television service they should be able to use its online content for free. And 71% said online content of any kind will have to “improve”  before they will pay for it.

Another interesting figure was that 62% said that once they’ve purchased content, it should be theirs to copy or share at will. The LA Times, a publication that would be very interested in the results on offer note that almost 50% of respondents would consider paying for online access to a magazine, while a little over 40% said they would pay for newspaper content on the web.

Most interestingly though, they note that “the thorny question remains: how to make that product worth paying for”?They refer to Wired’s recent potential effort on this score – their demonstration of how its magazine would run on a tablet computer – as one example of how content can become a little more dynamic. This follows Time Inc ‘s demo of a tablet version of Sports Illustrated  last Decemeber.

“Still,” adds the Times, “consensus on the pay question has been elusive across the industry”. Backing up the point, the Times refers to recent rumours that two factions within the New York Times are battling over what to charge for an iPad version of the paper. One group says the company should charge $20 to $30 per month for access to its content, while the other group thinks $10 per month is a fair price apparently.

In fairness, even after 27,000 responses in the Neilsen report no one at NY Times can even be sure if anyone will pay for it whatever they charge. Bet they all wish they were in market research eh.