Comments on: Full Feeds Financially Fruitful For Now http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:35:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Val http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-761041 Val Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:01:30 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-761041 Have a look at entopica (http://www.entopica.com/), an online system that allows you to easily access, categorize, share and store your bookmarks online.It is free to join and registration is both quick and easy. Discover a whole new world of social bookmarking. Have a look at entopica (http://www.entopica.com/), an online system that allows you to easily access, categorize, share and store your bookmarks online.It is free to join and registration is both quick and easy. Discover a whole new world of social bookmarking.

]]> By: Lee http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-62140 Lee Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:05:59 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-62140 Definitely in favor of full feeds! Check out http://www.fullfeeds.com/ Definitely in favor of full feeds! Check out http://www.fullfeeds.com/

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14547 Anonymous Mon, 27 Feb 2006 02:54:06 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14547 <blockquote>For instance an entire post just about a product that the content producer is paid to shill for.</blockquote> And when they start doing that I'll abandon their site completely ;)

For instance an entire post just about a product that the content producer is paid to shill for.

And when they start doing that I’ll abandon their site completely ;)

]]> By: polvero http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14540 polvero Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:20:36 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14540 What I meant by honoring feeds is that they won't in fact display them in the Feed Readers, eg: They just don't show them, so there's nothing to click on. What I meant by honoring feeds is that they won’t in fact display them in the Feed Readers, eg: They just don’t show them, so there’s nothing to click on.

]]> By: bishfish http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14402 bishfish Fri, 24 Feb 2006 03:41:44 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14402 "For the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the users of RSS aggregators are the power users, journalists and other information addicts of the world. These people don’t generally click on ads unless they are very, very targetted." This assumption is made with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever. What is worse, is the unstated implication that anyone who is not a computer power user, Journalist, etc., click on ads that are not tightly targeted, because they are somehow less discerning perhaps, or less intelligent? But that is an unsupported assumption, as silly as Mr. Scobles. I can find absolutely no evidence to support even remotely the contention that different groups of people react to advertising in ways differnet to other groups - if it is not targetted the message is lost regardless of the viewers situation. “For the moment, and for the foreseeable future, the users of RSS aggregators are the power users, journalists and other information addicts of the world. These people don’t generally click on ads unless they are very, very targetted.”

This assumption is made with absolutely no evidence to support it whatsoever. What is worse, is the unstated implication that anyone who is not a computer power user, Journalist, etc., click on ads that are not tightly targeted, because they are somehow less discerning perhaps, or less intelligent? But that is an unsupported assumption, as silly as Mr. Scobles.

I can find absolutely no evidence to support even remotely the contention that different groups of people react to advertising in ways differnet to other groups – if it is not targetted the message is lost regardless of the viewers situation.

]]> By: s|k http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14374 s|k Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:10:49 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14374 The truth is that people are going to have to find new ways to advertise, and that not everyone one will be able to support themselves with ads. Instead peppering the periphery of your content with random ads, more than likely you'll have product placement with in the feed of the ad itself. For instance an entire post just about a product that the content producer is paid to shill for. This violates the pay-per-click model, but for high traffic feeds I see this as a viable way to generate revenue. The other thing is: I have so much adblocking software (I don't even see Google ads) that it wouldn't make a difference if went to your site or not, I still wouldn't see the ads. The truth is that people are going to have to find new ways to advertise, and that not everyone one will be able to support themselves with ads. Instead peppering the periphery of your content with random ads, more than likely you’ll have product placement with in the feed of the ad itself. For instance an entire post just about a product that the content producer is paid to shill for. This violates the pay-per-click model, but for high traffic feeds I see this as a viable way to generate revenue. The other thing is: I have so much adblocking software (I don’t even see Google ads) that it wouldn’t make a difference if went to your site or not, I still wouldn’t see the ads.

]]> By: Octal http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14366 Octal Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:02:56 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14366 Scoble has summed it up nicely. I am definately one of those info addicted power user that only clicks on ads if they are "very, very targetted" I subscribe to SP's blog feeds but I am also on here almost every day and though I haven't blogged on anything for a while I have editorialised on occasion. Scoble has summed it up nicely. I am definately one of those info addicted power user that only clicks on ads if they are “very, very targetted”

I subscribe to SP’s blog feeds but I am also on here almost every day and though I haven’t blogged on anything for a while I have editorialised on occasion.

]]> By: WarpNacelle http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14341 WarpNacelle Thu, 23 Feb 2006 05:07:40 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14341 If someone is going to subscribe to a sites RSS feed they are obviously interested in the content it provides. (Exactly why I have SitePoints feeds) so I look at RSS as a way to easily keep your site right in front of somebody and an alert them to come back for more of the content they want. I thinks it's a very valuable marketing tool for repeat visits. It doesn't make sense to me to have someone be able to read the content on your site without actually having to visiting it. If someone is going to subscribe to a sites RSS feed they are obviously interested in the content it provides. (Exactly why I have SitePoints feeds) so I look at RSS as a way to easily keep your site right in front of somebody and an alert them to come back for more of the content they want. I thinks it’s a very valuable marketing tool for repeat visits.

It doesn’t make sense to me to have someone be able to read the content on your site without actually having to visiting it.

]]> By: mrsmiley http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14336 mrsmiley Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:56:14 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14336 <blockquote>Even if you decide to put ads within your feeds, not all aggregators will honor them (Eg. Yahoo! Publisher Network, Google Adsense).</blockquote> What is meant by this statement? Honour in terms of paying out click charges?

Even if you decide to put ads within your feeds, not all aggregators will honor them (Eg. Yahoo! Publisher Network, Google Adsense).

What is meant by this statement? Honour in terms of paying out click charges?

]]> By: polvero http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/comment-page-1/#comment-14335 polvero Thu, 23 Feb 2006 01:58:27 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2006/02/22/full-feeds-financially-fruitful-for-now/#comment-14335 I can remember back when my boss told me his reasons against RSS entirely. The idea was that if someone can get content from your site without actually having to visit the site, it would mess up the ad model and in fact they would receive less traffic and the user would be missing out on all the other things the site had to offer. This brings up the question of whether or not you're putting up good content to begin with... Anyway, that's all side track. Offering Full RSS feeds vs limitted summaries only becomes an issue if you're relying heavily on ads as a source of revenue. Even if you decide to put ads within your feeds, not all aggregators will honor them (Eg. Yahoo! Publisher Network, Google Adsense). With feeds becoming more popular, we may need to rethink how pay-per-click is actually going to work in the future. I can remember back when my boss told me his reasons against RSS entirely. The idea was that if someone can get content from your site without actually having to visit the site, it would mess up the ad model and in fact they would receive less traffic and the user would be missing out on all the other things the site had to offer.

This brings up the question of whether or not you’re putting up good content to begin with…

Anyway, that’s all side track. Offering Full RSS feeds vs limitted summaries only becomes an issue if you’re relying heavily on ads as a source of revenue. Even if you decide to put ads within your feeds, not all aggregators will honor them (Eg. Yahoo! Publisher Network, Google Adsense).

With feeds becoming more popular, we may need to rethink how pay-per-click is actually going to work in the future.

]]>