Comments on: The Tallahassee Democrat’s New Paywall. Or is it a PeopleWall?

By: Bob O'Lary

Bob O'Lary — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:11:38 +0000

I have been trying to get the Tallahassee to establish a “community ombudsman” for over 2 years! It was obvious right after Gannett came in that there was NO formal community input in a meaningful way going on in the Crat’s management. When Publisher Dorsey no longer follows the long tradition of writing a weekly Sunday Column for our town,… when the exec. editor and most of the writing staff show a strong disregard for their online community of readers, it was apparent EARLY to me that the Democrat NEEDED community input, but it was not welcome.
Please note that this entire “pay wall” scheme was NOT developed, or instituted by the Tallahassee Democrat, but by Gannett corporate, as 2 other Gannett newspapers in the country also switched over on July 1st. All three far enough geographically apart so each other does not see or read about the FLACK they all are facing for this hair-brained, and some may say, “hostile” action. We agree that there needs to be a new model of revenue, but we’ve known this for years, and the Crat has NEVER EVER even ONCE asked this community to help them brainstorm the problem and suggest meaningful solutions. Some surmise that Gannett controls it, and local editors have NO input… others think it simply a bunker mentality at the Crat, and if you don’t work there, you have no idea what is what. So sad that their mistakes can cause such a dumbing-down of our community by the lack of competent news being published and circulated.
Bob O’Lary
ps. My fervent wish is that they have now simply “bet the farm” on this pay-wall’s success, and will either now regain profitability, or will sink, go away, and make room for a new, and better newspaper to move in & pick up the dropped ball Gannett left on the field.

By: Michael Calienes

Michael Calienes — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 17:01:05 +0000

I do understand the need to make some cash along the way, I’m just surprised that they didn’t, like you said, reach out for better ideas and more acceptable solutions. “Listening to the digital community” would have been nice. Not to mention they would have won over many more subscribers in the process. Thanks for coming over and commenting Joe.

By: Joseph Davis

Joseph Davis — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:37:16 +0000

Well, with today marking the change in the way the “community paper” as we see it handles business, my feelings are mixed. While I understand the need to further examine business practices including the existing model for revenue, I can’t say they came up with the most logical or efficient way of handling this. For instance, a few of the alternatives you mentioned appear to be no-brainers on the surface, but how did they come to a result like this? My immediate thought when I heard the news of the change wasn’t outrage – it was curiosity. I thought, “I wonder if they’ll start with a limited subscription fee that incorporated an option for premium content. Paid online content isn’t new, nor is the need to make money from it, but they failed to adhere to a simple digital community principle – listen to the digital community first.