Media and Full Text Feeds Should Lock Lips

The following is my column in this week's issue of Advertising Age.

Welcome to the subscription era.

Really Simple Syndication (RSS) represents the third major shift in how consumers interact with the Web, after the first Internet epoch, browsing, and the second, search. RSS allows regular readers of a publication to sign up for regular news feeds, delivered their mainstream media. While that's the greatest beneficiary of the RSS revolution, disappointingly, few companies are fully maximizing it yet.

To their credit, media companies have adopted RSS feeds in droves. And they deserve a hearty round of applause for doing so rather quickly. Syndication plays directly to their strength. Whether it's ESPN, HBO or The New York Times, consumers want content delivered continuously, without interruption. RSS feeds mirror this opt-in model and give the media a new powerful distribution channel that's monetizable.

Unfortunately, the dirty little secret of the media biz is that RSS is so disruptive few have fully embraced it. Let me explain.

Those who have adopted RSS still publish headlines and summaries in the feeds in an effort to drive more eyeballs back to their Web sites to boost page views. I propose syndicating content in an ad-supported full-text format-something the largest publishers on the Web haven't done.

So far that strategy is working. But media is democratizing. And as feed use and interest in RSS advertising pick up, failing to go full-text could have long-term ramifications. Bloggers are more than happy to syndicate their content far and wide in full-text format. And they have numerous monetization options, such as Google AdSense, Pheedo and Federated Media. Gawker Media, for instance, lets readers subscribe to ad-supported full-text feeds or ad-free summary feeds.

The mainstream media continues to give RSS half a hug rather moving full speed ahead to lock lips. That was fine in 2004. But now that everyone from AOL to start-ups is making RSS feeds easier to use, the media needs to go the full-text distance, and in doing so, it will open new doors for advertisers.

Comments

[Elise]

Hi Steve -
The main problem I have with full-text feeds is that it makes too easy for aggregators to slurp up all your content and display it on their website as their own. At least with a partial feed, if they slurp and display, they'll be pointing traffic back my way. The trick is giving people enough of the content to be interesting, but not so much as to give away the store.

[Sunny Smith from Spotnana]

As a reader, I prefer to get the full feed as opposed to just a summary. From a company perspective, it is kind of a 'catch 22' - by offering the partial feed, you can lure readers to your site, in turn boosting page view statistics and possibly boosting ad revenue via this medium. If you send out the full feed, page views will be lower overall, but you also can take advantage of the new feed advertising options. I would suggest a revenue analysis for both types of advertising revenues to see which is the most profitable option.