JG etc.

I hate to say this and it goes against everything that I have written and wanted to think for the past few years, but full text feeds can REALLY hurt publishers.

The most important thing to a publisher is their content, and their content generally is what supports them in making their living. The problem with feeds and syndication is that advertisers, value not only the content, but also the brand behind that content. There is no brand behind a feed. Weird to say but oh so true. (The trenches of ad sales and trying to make a living for large independent publishers can really take the internet purist out of you.)

The famous quote from Zeldman now rings true on Madison Ave.

Q: If you offered an RSS feed, I could read your stuff without visiting your site.

A: If you stored your groceries on the sidewalk, we could eat your food without sitting across the table from you.

The problem with the average publisher that makes their money based on impressions and the brands that support these impressions, is that some very valuable readers are no longer stopping in for a visit. They are choosing to eat the groceries on the sidewalk.

Now I know the argument of syndication and the power that it can provide to increasing your site audience, loyalty, etc. and that is why I do believe in syndicating your feed. The only discrepancy here is that I think the best way to do it is with partial text feeds.

There, I said it.

The best Full Content Feed Revenue Model I’ve seen is John Gruber’s “Membership-Only RSS Feeds“, but this model is difficult to execute and wouldn’t work for most audiences or publishers.