The Los Angeles Times is the last of the major "metro" US newspaper websites that I frequently visit. I'm a news junkie, as many know, and I used to visit 3 or 4 different newspaper websites, daily. But first the Washington Post, and then the New York Times disappeared behind complex paywalls that, as a relatively impecunious international reader, weren't worth my trouble to overcome. That left, basically, only the LA Times. Perhaps my frequent deletion of cookies prevented me from noticing it, or perhaps they've only changed its implementaion recently, but the LA Times' paywall has been popping up more often, now, too. And the consequence is that basically I quit going there, just as I quit going to the NYT or WP in the past.
I'm not opposed to paying for web content in principle – I consume NPR as a donating "sustaining" member, and I've donated to other websites that use that "donor-based" pay model, where I value the content. But I much prefer the "voluntary donor" model of pay-for-content than the "sneakily block some content while teasing other content" model that has become nearly universal at US newspapers, for example. So my reaction to being repeatedly harrassed by these paywall widgets is to go find my web content elsewhere.
I have no idea if my reaction is anywhere near typical. But my own reaction can't be unique. And my consequential, rather low-key boycott of the paywalled media can't be unique, either. And so I am really not surprised at the sustained, long-term decline of US newspapers. Like Hollywood and the music industry vis-a-vis the pirates, this is really an example where the industry itself, in its retrograde movements to protect its traditional revenue streams, is destroying itself rather than adapting.