Is The Dallas News About to Duck Behind a Paywall? Well, That's What One Report Says.

• Dallasnews.com is the most bloated website I visit. It hardly loads, throws up ads all over the place, and looks like a site from 1998. WHO would pay for that?

• Morons. Walling off content only has the effect, oddly enough, of walling off your content. DMN will lose eyeballs and ad revenue -and- subscriptions will be a few dozen or so after six months. By then, everyone has gone off to find new, ad-supported content providers (it isn't free, you pay for it with face-time) and getting them back is a bear after you've removed yourself from the conversation. See, Times Select. And comparing the NYT walled content to DMN is a joke. If NYT couldn't get the numbers of subs to justify Times Select, who is going to pay for DMN? I cancelled my paper subscription ten years ago when they jacked the subscription prices and the only thing I've missed is taking a pile of papers to the curb. Observer, HuffPo, Christian Science Monitor (perhaps the most neutral paper anywhere), NYT (for now) get the job done.

• I don't even want it for free. The navigation on the site is one of the worse I've ever encountered. Besides, the right-wing bias in the Morning News has just gotten too much out of step with the times. They might try a little objectivity to increase their reader base, but that would alienate their current reader base, so we all know that isn't going to happen. Access to their image database for a reasonable fee might be another story, but they'll never want to do that because they'll never figure out the value of their images until they're out of copyright and the demand will have disappeared.

• Can't disagree with most the comments about how suckie the DMN's website is. Wasn't is cited by the industry as one of the worst newspaper sites in the county? I wonder what management is smoking, K2?

• You're not supposed to charge for propaganda.

• I wish the newspapers would consider the TV-business model rather than the PPV-model they seem to favor. Let advertisers foot the bill and get your free content in front of as many eyeballs as possible. Isn't that how DO manages to pay for its website and hard-copy versions?

• I haven't been able to get my cuecat to work for the last couple of years...

• Thanks Robert, I am a weekend subscriber only not 7-day so I imagine the DMN will find a way to charge me.

• The DMN charging for online content isnt really worth it, as most of its borrowed content from other resources and AP wire feeds. To charge me to read Steve Blow and Gromer Jefferson Jr rant and rave is a joke with a really bad punch line. I'll pass and keep reading honest news sources such as The Observer and Huffington Post..

• I wouldnt pay $33 a month to read the garbage website muchless pay that to have that crap dropped in my front yard. There are tons of other ways to get your news content. I wonder how the story sharing between the S-T and the News will work out. Will you still be able to see your S-T sports stories that are crossed published at DMN?

• I just don't think most people will pay for this kind of content online, it's the same problem the music industry has, most people know they can get the paid content for free elsewhere.

• Didn't the DMN try this and fail with Cowboys Plus? Eh, good luck on the second go-around, they'll quickly learn their target audience will have access to the major networks/opposing newspapers/local tv/blogs and radio, which gives the same content or better for free.

• @Heelsoftar, from the report: "Seven-day-a-week print subscribers will still be able to see all of dallasnews.com's content free of charge. The Morning News charges new subscribers up to $33.95 per month for home delivery, and $37.95 for mail delivery, among the industry's steepest subscription rates for a general-circulation daily."

• The paper is a rip-off at its current price. Little worth reading. Lots of stuff I saw on the Internet the night before. I can get my local news for free from the television stations and KRLD.

• If I am alreay a print subscriber and they want me to pay more to read it online, I will cancel print and not pay for either.

• The Dallas Morning News, world wide leader in internet innovation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CueCat

• can't wait for their first check to show up in my mailbox. always wanted to be paid to read their content. oh! wadeaminnit! you mean I'm going to have to pay them???? why?, does this mean they'll have a page 3 girl on line?

• They tried something similar a few years ago with cowboysplus.com and then gave it up. Maybe it will work this time. I'd consider paying a small fee (perhaps $20/yr-$2/mo) if they would serve me pages without advertising and put me on a "priority" server, but there's no chance I'd pay for the current user experience.

• If they plan to wall off locally written news, then nothing will change. By the time they get around to covering anything newsworthy, I've already read it here, or in the NYT.

• so basically they've convinced themselves that people want to pay for Cowboys coverage. I'm not so sure.

• It is a questionable value priced at $0

• Shouldn't they pay us for dealing with their 1998 format, annoying ads, and year-round Cowboy propaganda? The mere fact JJT is still employed there is reason enough to refuse to give them a dime for anything they consider "content."

• So, will they consider their news blogs (city hall etc.) writer content? Seems like city leaders would take a shine to weeding out riff-raff (poor) readers when it comes to DMN investigative Metro stories. It's like sweep hard news under the rug and help out Belo's income at the same time? No brainer for moving our democratic city forward...into the dark ages! Poor people can't afford Internet service; they'd have to pay to read news stories even if they got Internet, and who the heck wants to pay to read Steve Blow?

• Fail

• Uh, yeah. As if the stupid popups weren't enough. Along with crap editing and a weirdo blog team?

• If its a money problem, maybe they should consider firing all of their editorial writers, and stop purchasing editorials from national commentators. Then just let their Saturday community volunteer writers have the editorial page for the whole week. I mean who really cares about two wars and a mini-depression when Milly in Mesquite can do 800 words on the perfect sack lunch for the back-to-school stressed out mom?

• I take the "online" version of the WSJ because it came with my dead tree subscription...but even at $140 per year there is another "professional WSJ" online paywall for investor types. Now, the DMN is NOT the WSJ. I cannot fathom paying additional monies for their online content.

• They're already behind the slowest loading, most cookie laden web site as is, what's another obstacle. Of course, they think they have no competition. Come on Startelegram

TotalComments: 28