A couple of days ago, I noted that the UK’s Guardian went full-feed with its RSS options. Essentially, it became the first newspaper to do more than send “syndicated teasers.”
We’ve gone from “advertiser-supported ink-on-pulp” to “advertiser-supported pixels-on-screen” to “where-are-the-ads-we-paid-for on a feed”?
Why would any company sever the connection from the ads to the audience? Well, The Guardian didn’t, and I will explain why.
Two Streams of Revenue
Print publications have essentially two ways to make money. They make you pay for the content, or they make you swim through ads to get to the content. Most go with a combination of the two. Consumer Reports long held fast to the subscription-only business model, while Nickel-trader and other hyper-local publications could get by on FREE! distribution, because essentially the content was nothing but ads.
In the second model, a larger circulation is crucial, as is the measurement of that circulation. Your ad rates are built on not just the eyeballs you reach, but the ones you prove you reach.
You are the Paperboy
Now imagine being paid to drop newspapers off every morning on your neighbors’ doorsteps. You are the paperboy. And even worse, your only compensation is a free copy of the newspaper!
Such a business model would never last, because there is a tremendous amount of labor involved in the distribution. Add in the costs of the paper, and you’d probably end up with some type of hybrid monetization that will keep the paperboys happy.
But what if the paperboy never had to lift a finger? Or, more precisely, had to do no more than lift the finger far enough off the mouse to click the “share this” or “email to a friend” icons?
The RSS Sweet Spot
The Guardian’s decision makes perfect sense, especially in light of the Forrester research that some contend spells a peak to RSS adoption. “RSS will never be more than a niche technology,” they say. And that’s just how the Guardian wants it. Supposedly, RSS adoption peaks at 11%. If it continued to trend up, then most of the content consumers would be getting it for free. Heck, we ALL could get it for free, and with no ads. If everyone were as geeky and trendy as the 350+ who subscribe to the Occam’s RazR RSS feed, then there would be no incentive to give away the content for free.
Instead, they are counting on the RSS user to have the following characteristics:
- Wants to be informed
- Is tech savvy
- Is more likely to be connected
- Is more likely to have a huge network
- Is more likely to be a peer influencer
So, do you give the free newspapers to the guy who will hoard it for himself? Or to the one whose choices of technology and habit poise him as one likely to drop them off at all the porches in the neighborhood?
Even better - when he does share a story he read for free in the RSS reader, the people he sends the piece to are going to the website, where all those ads are. By linking to the story he read for free, he drives more traffic to the ads he did not see.
None of this happens if RSS adoption goes much beyond where it is now.
Technorati Tags: Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, journalism, marketing, RSS, syndication, The Guardian, publishing
I heard, in intricate detail, about the costumes everyone would be wearing. And how much easier it would be to go straight from work to Friday night Halloween parties without having to go home to change.
