David Fletcher is talking about advertising in RSS feeds and says:
If some entrepreneurs have their way, it won't be long until RSS feeds are filled with advertisements - just another commercial channel like html, email, etc. I just don't want them to find a way to force their subsciptions upon me as another spam channel. Moveable type spam was bad enough and I don't have time to figure out how to block everything.
I've been thinking about this a lot in the last few months (big surprise, right?). I'm of two minds on the issue.
- Publishers who depend primarily on advertising to make a living should offer two feeds: a summary-only feed without ads and a full-content feed with ads. That leaves the choice up to the user.
- I don't want to have to choose between ad-laden full-content feeds and the pain in the ass summary only feeds. Anyone whose ever tried to catch up on their reading while on an airplane or train gets this.
But if television, radio, print media, e-mail, and the web at large have taught us anything it's that we're going to end up with #1 if we're lucky. Realistically, I expect the majority of publishers not to bother offering a no-ads summary feed.
There's a part of me that's waiting to see how the web-based aggregators like Bloglines react. Do they try blocking the ads? Inserting their own? Charging subscription feeds? Work out revenue sharing agreements with Feedburner and the other RSS ad networks that are sure to pop up?
Maybe I'm just cynical about all this, but something tells me I'm right. I just hope we get to enjoy this relatively ad-free time while it lasts. And I hold out hope that most bloggers will be able to resist the temptation.
Posted by jzawodn at November 23, 2004 09:58 PM