READ THIS Dallas Morning News (DMN) has demanded we no longer allow their content posted on CZ

[CATCH17]

I am the same as you. I only visit their site when a link is posted here. I dont have time to check their site on my own every day. Their loss.

Same.. The only reason I ever went to their site was to read the full story of the clipping that a zoner posted.

I'll never just go to their website on my own.

 

[Dracula]

screw em, who needs them? It's not like there are not a zillion other places to get Cowboy news.

 

[speedkilz88]

Fish's post on the subject:

*I have received no such letter.
*I encourage us to post LINKS and brief summaries of stories on other sites here, and not FULL stories.
*Any outlet saying another outlet cant use their context would be hypocritical, given the fact that my content, and my radio station's content, is a major driving force in the newspaper content.
To wit: (our terrific visit w Wade Wilson on Dak, Romo, Kaep, Kellen, etc. ...
I don't know how DMN views CZ (no disrespect to CZ). But I assume DMN recognizes that between what I do at **click-bait**.com and at 105.3 The Fan, I'm a news gatherer and not just someone aggregating news from elsewhere.

 

[Idgit]

Fish's post on the subject:

Interesting to hear that he considers himself a 'news gatherer' and not 'someone aggregating news from elsewhere.'

I wonder what he thinks the word 'aggregate' means.

 

[Wood]

I guess I have never really understood Dallas Morning News. They failed twice at using paywall. So what do they do next....they try 3rd time. Unless a site has really unique content or access I see too much free content out there for a pay wall to work. That being said, one thing I would pay for is site who provides video content of individual/team drills during training camp.

 

[Trouty]

I guess I have never really understood Dallas Morning News. They failed twice at using paywall. So what do they do next....they try 3rd time. Unless a site has really unique content or access I see too much free content out there for a pay wall to work. That being said, one thing I would pay for is site who provides video content of individual/team drills during training camp.

That would be a rad site. I would pay, too, Wood.

 

[waldoputty]

I guess I have never really understood Dallas Morning News. They failed twice at using paywall. So what do they do next....they try 3rd time. Unless a site has really unique content or access I see too much free content out there for a pay wall to work. That being said, one thing I would pay for is site who provides video content of individual/team drills during training camp.

when they fail, it must be someone else's fault.
@Trouty - here is a business model for us given our geographical advnatage!

 

[Trouty]

when they fail, it must be someone else's fault.
@Trouty - here is a business model for us given our geographical advnatage!

Oxnard?

 

[waldoputty]

Oxnard?

i have been there once a decade ago lol
coverage focus on jaylon, rico, tapper and taco

 

[Reality]

I guess I have never really understood Dallas Morning News. They failed twice at using paywall. So what do they do next....they try 3rd time. Unless a site has really unique content or access I see too much free content out there for a pay wall to work. That being said, one thing I would pay for is site who provides video content of individual/team drills during training camp.

Exactly! There are only three ways you can get users to pay for your content. You have to 1) have unique content that users want badly enough to pay for it, 2) have unique or great content that users need regularly. or 3) have a great community who wants to support you and the community.

Most print media that has transitioned to online simply don't get it. They are trying the same premise (subscriptions) over and over, and each time it fails, they just assume the internet is just not quite ready for it yet. So, they wait a while until they see other subscription services in other markets growing so they think it will now work. Then they try again, and fail again. People are just not going to want to pay for content, especially local content, when they can get the same or similar content elsewhere.

The only way media is going to have success with subscriptions is to follow the Netflix, Spotify, etc. strategy. They are going to need to bring a lot (and I mean a LOT) of content sources together in a single network with a single paywall. For example, if people could pay $10/month and have access to just about every magazine they read, every news paper/site they read, etc., they would be a lot more interested and justified in paying for that. The networks could even share the revenue based on how many subscribers, percentage-wise, read or view each publication during the month.

All general content paywalls do is drain the user pool until they are eventually empty. In fact, just requiring users to login to use a site does the same thing. That's why you will start see more sites allowing users to do more and more without signing in as that in itself is a barrier to long term user retention.

 

[Wood]

Exactly! There are only three ways you can get users to pay for your content. You have to 1) have unique content that users want badly enough to pay for it, 2) have unique or great content that users need regularly. or 3) have a great community who wants to support you and the community.

Most print media that has transitioned to online simply don't get it. They are trying the same premise (subscriptions) over and over, and each time it fails, they just assume the internet is just not quite ready for it yet. So, they wait a while until they see other subscription services in other markets growing so they think it will now work. Then they try again, and fail again. People are just not going to want to pay for content, especially local content, when they can get the same or similar content elsewhere.

The only way media is going to have success with subscriptions is to follow the Netflix, Spotify, etc. strategy. They are going to need to bring a lot (and I mean a LOT) of content sources together in a single network with a single paywall. For example, if people could pay $10/month and have access to just about every magazine they read, every news paper/site they read, etc., they would be a lot more interested and justified in paying for that. The networks could even share the revenue based on how many subscribers, percentage-wise, read or view each publication during the month.

All general content paywalls do is drain the user pool until they are eventually empty. In fact, just requiring users to login to use a site does the same thing. That's why you will start see more sites allowing users to do more and more without signing in as that in itself is a barrier to long term user retention.

you bring up several good points. I also think traditional print companies see sites like Wall Street Journal and think if they can get paid digital subscribers then so can they. But how many are producing that level of content. Also if there is a specific personality that people have to have access to a subscription model would work. But finding those kinds of talents are difficult. Dallas Morning News has no debt and some cash so it will take them longer to understand new digital market place but I wish it would get here sooner.

 

[iceberg]

Interesting to hear that he considers himself a 'news gatherer' and not 'someone aggregating news from elsewhere.'

I wonder what he thinks the word 'aggregate' means.

trying to think of the difference here that isn't subtle.

if you're watching news come across your feed and determine what to use, you're not creating a thing.

 

[iceberg]

I guess I have never really understood Dallas Morning News. They failed twice at using paywall. So what do they do next....they try 3rd time. Unless a site has really unique content or access I see too much free content out there for a pay wall to work. That being said, one thing I would pay for is site who provides video content of individual/team drills during training camp.

this is what i said a few pages ago.

there are certain ways to grow and build a site. now i totally get where the DMN is coming from, but the way they are "growing into the digital age" is depressing and anyone working there should be looking elsewhere daily.

subscription services. i tried hulu once and dropped it immediately. it seems that when you *pay* for content you just got less advertising. so my question to the DMN is, if i pay you to access that content, and i still bombarded with ads? do you block ad blockers? hulu did offer a more expensive service to lose all ads - but you really need to pick one form of revenue and go. doing both is only going to limit yourself to the people who don't mind paying *and* being annoyed by the freaking lizard hawking insurance on every page.

if they have not figured it out by now they are *not* going to. it's like i said and will say again - but i'm not being insulting, just referencing a book title -

idiots guide to online growth

they are merely dusting off a move and trying again in a hail mary type pass. they need to put the book down and see what draws more content and viewers WITHOUT BEING the dying clickbait tactics and find new ways to improve traffic.

this is such a fail websters had to halt the dictionary printing run this year and redefine "fail" to a greater level.

 

[Reality]

subscription services. i tried hulu once and dropped it immediately. it seems that when you *pay* for content you just got less advertising. so my question to the DMN is, if i pay you to access that content, and i still bombarded with ads? do you block ad blockers? hulu did offer a more expensive service to lose all ads - but you really need to pick one form of revenue and go. doing both is only going to limit yourself to the people who don't mind paying *and* being annoyed by the freaking lizard hawking insurance on every page.

One of the things that really irks me about online media subscriptions is when they charge a subscription fee and then still show you ads, especially any kind of annoying, disrupting or interrupting types of advertisements. I agree .. pick your revenue model and go with it. Don't try to double or triple dip out of greed.

This was the main reason I stopped listening to ESPN radio long before they turned into what they are now. Years ago they were talking about how they were going to completely change their advertising strategy. They were trying something new and getting users to provide feedback, most of which was positive. The change? They were having their hosts do in-segment promotion of products. The idea, the way they explained and promoted it, was to reduce commercial breaks and replace them with in-segment promotional spots. The feedback was very positive, not because people liked in-segment advertising but because they hated commercial breaks that bring nothing but constant interruptions the moment you get interested in a segment.

So did they do what they said? Of course not. They kept all of the commercial breaks and added a lot of in-segment promotion. Even worse, the radio networks have colluded together to schedule their advertising spots at the same time to prevent channel surfing during breaks. Now, you hear an ESPN host say something like, "Tony Romo was released by the Cowboys today and this segment is brought you by ACME insurance helping you get the help you need when you need help and Romo is expected to join the CBS NFL staff on game days" all in what seems like one long run-on pause-less sentence.

Fortunately, people have finally gotten a taste of have-it-your-way media through things like Netflix, Spotify, etc. and they are starting to simply give up on traditional media making that transition. I believe that if it were not for social media, there would have been a MEDIA-DOT-COM crash by now. I believe social media and smaller sites like CZ who provide free traffic to media sites are the only reason many have survived this long. Even so, the media is shifting more and more toward click-bait headlines just to maintain traffic levels. Eventually, users will view those headlines with skepticism to the point they click less and less on all links, not just click-bait links. I already find myself reading headlines as if they were tweets and not even clicking through those links to articles that in the past would have piqued my curiosity. More and more, I treat the headline itself as the article.

What media and many sites don't get is that you need all types of users, readers, viewers, not just one type. For example, some sites require you to login just to read the site. I do that on CZ every so often, but usually only for a day or two just to get people to login as logged in users are more likely to post. However, requiring users to login constantly, especially now we use multiple devices for everything, just to read your site will eliminate a lot of future traffic for your site. When I go to a new site that requires you to login to read the site, I rarely ever register because I don't even know if it's worth the hassle. Now, add a subscription fee and I know I'm not signing up, much less paying for it, as I know nothing about the site at that point that would justify doing so.

That's what media doesn't understand. They assume users know what they would be getting. Of course a lot of sites try the "let's show them a few pages, then block them" strategy which actually ends up being pointless and a lot more irritating. Ignoring how easy it is to circumvent those blocks, they are pointless because most users arrived via an external link and only care about the one article. If they can read it without subscribing, then they are done with the site afterwards. If they are blocked either because the pay-wall is instant or they have followed previous links to read one-off articles and hit the lock-out counter point, all they are going to see and know is, "this site is pay-only, click the back button and continuing viewing posts/links from the previous site"

The good news for us is that we don't have to stress over this. Natural law will take care of the poorly managed media organizations that cling to old school tactics and strategies until we eventually end up with something we like.

 

[JW82]

I used to read their site until they started charging for content. Learn how to make money from advertising, it's 2017, there is plenty of free content for consumers.

 

[iceberg]

it sucks to be them, to be sure. they went from a "you must buy a newspaper" that had ads in it they sold and their revenue model was untouched for as long as we've had printing presses.

in *todays world* you're selling nothing and your content must stand on it's own. you must be the reason people come to you and *want* to put up with ads OR subscription models. on my radio site, i've never made a dime cause i never got the traffic to support it and feel good about selling any form of ads. most ads i could generate would push as many people away as bring them in. but the focus of "be the content" is the same for me as anyone. if i only relied on music i'd never get a hit. simply too many people like me out here competing where even the big boys can't make a run at it.

you have to be a hub and you have to find passive ways to monetize this. you have to bring people, all the people you can, to your site via any way you can and then - the hard part. get them to stay there.

dallas morning news vs. dallas times herald. which you gonna buy? done.

simply not the case. and advertisers in the print days knew they were getting 1/4 of a page for "x" dollars and could equate that to their overall printed numbers in approximately how many people they were going to reach with that ad. hell, people would look for the paper to see what was on sale at the grocery store so we'd have to put in "inserts" of ads which again the paper could charge distribution for.

none of those revenue streams exist today. not a single one. they can't sell a paper for .50¢. they can't say how many people will actually see their ads, much less care, and people don't go online to see the ads - they go in search of what they want and ads follow along going LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME cause google tracks them. then you buy whatever it was you searched for and google still targets you for a week+ bombarding you with ads that are now just going to piss you off at the company in question vs. make you want to visit them again.

again - be the hub. in so doing you pull the #'s and people develop habits off this and will continue to come to you for this reason. the content, the ease of use, the lack of seizure flashing on your site and certainly no more click bait "fake news" designed to get just that - clicks. of which the advertisers pay for and of which do them no good.

and yea - anytime i see a headline going YOU WON'T BELIEVE THE REACTION - i move along. it's just another way to get a click today maybe but lose a customer for life when that fad wears out.

again - they're rehashing their "strategy" (for lack of a better word) to rehash things and hope this time it takes off but they don't change anything or invest in a future direction of change that people will use via todays tools.

they had a great chance to work *with* you and this site and chose not to. just another rookie move done out of frustration and zero planning or foresight.

 

[diefree666]

it sucks to be them, to be sure. they went from a "you must buy a newspaper" that had ads in it they sold and their revenue model was untouched for as long as we've had printing presses.

in *todays world* you're selling nothing and your content must stand on it's own. you must be the reason people come to you and *want* to put up with ads OR subscription models. on my radio site, i've never made a dime cause i never got the traffic to support it and feel good about selling any form of ads. most ads i could generate would push as many people away as bring them in. but the focus of "be the content" is the same for me as anyone. if i only relied on music i'd never get a hit. simply too many people like me out here competing where even the big boys can't make a run at it.

you have to be a hub and you have to find passive ways to monetize this. you have to bring people, all the people you can, to your site via any way you can and then - the hard part. get them to stay there.

dallas morning news vs. dallas times herald. which you gonna buy? done.

simply not the case. and advertisers in the print days knew they were getting 1/4 of a page for "x" dollars and could equate that to their overall printed numbers in approximately how many people they were going to reach with that ad. hell, people would look for the paper to see what was on sale at the grocery store so we'd have to put in "inserts" of ads which again the paper could charge distribution for.

none of those revenue streams exist today. not a single one. they can't sell a paper for .50¢. they can't say how many people will actually see their ads, much less care, and people don't go online to see the ads - they go in search of what they want and ads follow along going LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME cause google tracks them. then you buy whatever it was you searched for and google still targets you for a week+ bombarding you with ads that are now just going to piss you off at the company in question vs. make you want to visit them again.

again - be the hub. in so doing you pull the #'s and people develop habits off this and will continue to come to you for this reason. the content, the ease of use, the lack of seizure flashing on your site and certainly no more click bait "fake news" designed to get just that - clicks. of which the advertisers pay for and of which do them no good.

and yea - anytime i see a headline going YOU WON'T BELIEVE THE REACTION - i move along. it's just another way to get a click today maybe but lose a customer for life when that fad wears out.

again - they're rehashing their "strategy" (for lack of a better word) to rehash things and hope this time it takes off but they don't change anything or invest in a future direction of change that people will use via todays tools.

they had a great chance to work *with* you and this site and chose not to. just another rookie move done out of frustration and zero planning or foresight.

Identify your customer base and do the best you can to keep them happy. It is so simple yet so few do it.
If you satisfy your customer base then the rest is actually just common sense.

 

[casmith07]

Wow, all these years and I had no idea you were such a pretentious jerk.

Learn something new every day, I guess.

Oh please - I've been a jerk for a long time, you must not be paying attention!

 

[casmith07]

I respectfully disagree. Nobody wins with this C&D order. I think both sides lose.

Point taken, and I do agree in part.

 

[CCBoy]

Oh please - I've been a jerk for a long time, you must not be paying attention!

Always have your six, Sir.