In a recent post at CenterNetworks Allen Stern outlined the concept of ad-free RSS full feeds for $1 per month. It’s an interesting concept which sparked some lively discussion, however, who would pay for something they can get for free?

Three tired model for web site content distribution and monetization

Allen’s post didn’t just outline the reasons for charging for an RSS feed, he actually proposed a three tiered distribution model for bloggers:

1. Web site with ads
2. Partial feed with no ads
3. Full feed with no ads for $1/month

The first two options are already implemented by most bloggers around the net, and the way they help monetize a blog are clear. But how does that third tier fit into the model?

1. Web site with ads: Come to a site, read the content, see the ads and hopefully one of those ads interests the visitor.
2. Partial feed with no ads: See the latest post in an RSS reader and read part of the post. Hopefully the partial post is enticing enough to make the reader come and visit the site. Then tier number 1 (see above) takes over.
3. Full feed with no ads for $1/month: Readers get the entire post in their favorite RSS reader — with no ads. Readers pay for the convenience of the latest post coming to them through their RSS reader, the content isn’t disrupted with ads, and the content developer doesn’t lose out on a money making opportunity because they are getting paid to deliver their content in this manner.

Each tier makes reasonable sense. We know that tiers one and two are being used today but what about tier three? The final tier sounds reasonable but I don’t see it working for a long time because the value just isn’t there.

Why “pay-for-ad-free-full-feeds” won’t work

Free content is the de facto standard around the net. To break free of that standard the content has to be of significantly higher value then the rest of the content freely available on the web. If not, then paying for content has to provide a significant value you can’t get any other way (e.g. ease of use, convenience, etc).

Stripping ads and making an entire post available to an RSS reader is simply not enough benefit to justify any price. Why? First, partial feeds are tricky. If readers only get a partial feed from a site, then they eventually respond in one of two ways:

1. Get frustrated with the partial feed and give up on the feed and the web site
2. Get frustrated with the partial feed and simply go straight to the web site for the latest information

In one case the site owner loses, but in the other case they win. Whether a site owner wins or loses with partial feeds depends, in my opinion, entirely on the quality of their content: Good content wins, bad content loses.

If offering a full feed isn’t enough of a value, then stripping ads must certainly offer some value to the reader. Right? Wrong. Like partial feeds, advertisements in the content is tricky business. If the site owner isn’t careful with their ad placement, then they can easily annoy and distract their readers. When thoughtfully placed, however, an advertisement won’t distract or annoy the reader. Thus a reader won’t see any need to strip an ad from a feed.

In short, not everyone is doing partial feeds (it’s tricky business) and thoughtful ad placement doesn’t need to be stripped. So, where is the value in paying for an ad-free full feed?

When could “pay-for-ad-feed-full-feeds work”?

I like the three tiered idea presented by Allen, and despite what I just said, I do believe it could work but not in our current state of content consumption.

Consider a portable e-reader like the Amazon Kindle or Sony eReader. If people were in the habit of loading up their devices with web site content (similar to creating a custom newspaper to-go), then heading out the door into “connectionless” environments for their morning commute. Then suddenly partial feeds become highly annoying because no one wants to read part of an article and then wait till they are back at their computer to read the rest of it. And would readers think differently about ads on portable devices? Perhaps. Imagine a 2 page article suddenly becoming 4 pages long once the ads get added. Since the battery life on these portable readers is rated in page turns and not time, users become very “aware” of excessive or unnecessary page turns.

I’m not convinced that even in this situation pay-for-ad-free-full-feeds would work; however, it does offer a better scenario in which to motivate people to pay for an ad-free full feed. As for now, however, we’re simply not there — there is no compelling reason to pay for a feed. But if the day ever comes that another device or other option for reading feeds becomes popular, then this third tier might actually have a chance — only time will tell.

Share, Bookmark, or Email this post

If you liked this post, subscribe to TechTraction's RSS feed or TechTraction's email feed

Filed under: Blogging Related