« Previous | Next »
Say it: The RSS model
Published on 09/01/08
by Zac Echola
There’s some great discussion at editor on the verge regarding the full vs. partial feed debate.
Obviously, as a user, I’m on the side of full text feeds. But I think the business argument against full text feeds is exactly the same as those early arguments about putting print content on the Web. That argument, clearly, has been wrong.
Partial feed myths like “feeds take away page views” or “the market isn’t prepared to advertise via RSS” are stupid.
Feeds take away page views when you offer no extra value on your site. I’d argue that they can increase page views if you do it right, turn your best readers into your marketing department. Give them the tools.
Secondly, the market isn’t prepared to advertise via RSS because you’re selling based on page views and impressions rather than reach (or better yet, click-throughs). You, the advertisers, have not yet educated the market on the value of RSS. Instead you’re perpetuating these fears and myths of RSS while blogs and other sites come in and cut you at the heels for advertisers in this marketplace.
Advertising, like content, needs to be relevant to the readers. Don’t just give a sports page feed and attach ads from the local sporting goods store. Give people granular feeds and pump in ads from smaller, more relevant advertisers.
What do you think?
The end. Or is it?
Please leave a comment so I know what you think about this post. After that, check out It's randomonium! Or, if you're so inclined, take a gander at what I'm reading and my del.icio.us links.
Trackback URL: The RSS model.
Tags: business of news, fourth estate is a conversation, readers