Comments for 3 Questions about Ads in RSS

3 Questions about Ads in RSS

2005-05-01T23:11:29Z

Dave Winer has posted a comment by Jason Calacanis about adverts in RSS feeds. In a nutshell, Dave doesn't want ads in RSS feeds and Jason does. I found this comment from Dave to be very curious:

"BTW, what exactly is wrong with the way the BBC and NY Times do it? They write good one or two sentence summaries and link to the full story from the feed, and the ad is there, not in the feed. Jason, think about it -- RSS itself is an advertising medium, if you use it correctly."

Now I'm a big admirer of Dave Winer, even though he's frequently controversial and a lot of people dis him. He's done great things for RSS and he deserves a lot of respect and kudos for that, so I'll always try to stick up for him. But in this case I have to take issue with his stance on ads in RSS feeds. (btw I have been posting about this issue all week on Silicon Valley Watcher).

I left the following comment on Dave's RSS-focused blog and I want to repeat it here. It's my reply to Dave and all the other people up in arms over ads in RSS feeds...

Richard's 2 Cents

I can't quite believe what I'm reading: you prefer excerpted RSS feeds to full-content?? Obviously this means you don't think RSS is a first-class content citizen, as HTML is - why else would anyone not put their full content into an RSS feed?

So you've pretty much answered the first 2 of the 3 questions I posted in response to your last post. But what I want to know is your answer to the third... ;-) (and I don't want to hear the 'I'll pay you by donation' argument from people, because clearly that doesn't scale unless you're Jason Kottke).

1) Which is better: an excerpted RSS feed (where you have to click through to read the whole post), or a full-text RSS feed with some ads?

Personally I'd prefer the latter.

2) Really, what *is* the difference between advertising in an RSS feed and advertising on a webpage? RSS is becoming the new HTML - why fight it?

3) What's wrong with Writers wanting to get paid for their work (just as software developers want to get paid for their work)?

Comment from Dave Winer on 2005-05-01

2005-05-02T01:01:49Z

What the NYT and BBC does works for them, and also works for me, as a reader. I didn't say I prefer or don't prefer full text, or whether or not RSS is first-class. Too much inference.

I mention it just to illustrate that professionals have alternatives to putting ads in feeds, or charging for them.

Comment from Randy Charles Morin on 2005-05-01

2005-05-02T01:05:24Z

I think the question is "Is there room in this world for ad supported RSS feeds?" This doesn't mean all RSS feeds will be ad supported, but some will. No matter who doesn't like it.

Comment from Richard MacManus on 2005-05-01

2005-05-02T06:00:42Z

Yes I do like to infer... the analyst in me ;-)

I guess my Question 1 isn't an either/or. As one commenter noted in Dave's post, a publisher could choose to offer *both* - so for whoever doesn't want ads in their RSS feed, they can select the excerpted feed.

*My main point* is that I think of RSS as a first-class citizen of content publishing on the Web, as is HTML. Anyone who's been reading my 'Design for Data' series of posts will understand where I'm coming from. Basically I'm suggesting that RSS is just like HTML in terms of being a means to deliver and serve content via the Web. There are differences between the two, of course. But essentially they're two of the principal means of publishing and viewing content on the (Read/Write) Web.

So, my argument goes, if ads are acceptable in HTML webpages, why aren't they acceptable in RSS?

Comment from Andrew on 2005-05-02

2005-05-02T14:56:46Z

Is RSS/Atom just a container for some HTML that has been broken into "post"-sized pieces? Or is it the beginning of the semantic web? If the former, then advertisements are no problem and the argument that "just like HTML ads" works fine. If the latter, then it is obvious that RSS reader devices/applications can and should allow the user to do whatever transformation they want to the feed including removal of advertisements - redistributing a feed with adverts removed is another form of a "remix" of that feed, right? And if the advertisement has semantic markup indicating that it is an advertisement, then "remixing" the feed such that the advertisement is not there becomes child's play - and advertisers rarely want people to be able to ignore their advertisements.

For the sake of the advancement of the semantic web, RSS advertisements should be realized as pointless, ASAP. Otherwise all RSS winds up being is something not that much better than HTML - HTML with timestamps, enclosures, and multiple "posts" per "page"(/feed). Is that the future you want?

Comment from Richard MacManus on 2005-05-02

2005-05-02T18:53:26Z

Andrew, I agree that people are free to remix RSS feeds - provided it complies with copyright of course. I wonder whether big blog publishers will legally challenge RSS Aggregators if they start stripping ads? It's an interesting question...

I don't agree with this statement you made: "For the sake of the advancement of the semantic web, RSS advertisements should be realized as pointless."

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion?? Ads would just be tacked onto each post.