Being trashed for your international work in your own country always feels good. Being trashed for your marketing insights by a programmer feels even better. And having your work trashed by someone who hasn't even seen it (doing the trashin' based on your sales letter) makes you feel even better.

And it's even better to have your work trashed by someone falling under all three of the above criteria, while your work is praised by the leading international people in the industry.

After sending out the mailing for our RSS event in Slovenia, we received an immediate response basically claiming that what we're offering is rubish. And then yesterday, I found a full "review" of the book from that same person, naturally based only on the sales letter.

When something like this happens you naturally start wondering whether to dignify such an "attack" with a response or not. Unfortunatelly, sometimes you need to do it.

When I disagree with something I usually provide arguments for each of the problematic issues. In this case, it's just not worth it.

Instead, here's the link to the article and here are some of the more interesting statetements made (and some pointers from me:). I'll let you judge this for yourself.

"I see it as a tool. As a simple way to publish information. I don't see it as an "solution to all marketing problems that would ever be discovered or are present already"." Rok: Now, when did I ever say that?

"I don't see it as an "win back your customers and prospects, boost your search engine rankings, get hoards of new traffic and increase sales" solution. As Rok Hrastnik states. Though I wish it would be that simple.
The thing is - you still need to know the link to RSS XML file. Or use some providers of those links - whatever. You still need to be found. Shall we post link to our RSS feeds on billboards and jumbo ads?"
Rok: No need to really comment this, right?

"What is that magical thing that makes RSS so different? Why would it look more legit, more true than any other way of publishing the same information?"
Rok: I'm sorry, but when were we ever discussing RSS in this context?

"Also I don't see how spam could affect RSS which seems to cause a lot of concern to Hrastnik and others."
Rok: Spam feeds to "confuse" the search engines, aggregator "spam" etc.

"Also how can someone say something like "get hoards of new traffic and increase sales with RSS" when everyone can read that companies don't really use RSS yet. In fact, there are only few WORLDWIDE that use it to publish official corporate messages!"
Rok: This is where reading the book before trashing it would actually come quite handy:)

"Go through the references at Hrastnik's site - he mostly talks about companies publishing news, newsletters, whitepapers. These things don't make money. Or maybe they do if you got really stupid audience."
Rok: If these things don't make money, I wonder why then there are so many publishers still in business?

"Also I would like to see how audio, video and patching content is published through RSS."
Rok: This really deserves no reply ...

Now, I admit it ... my responses above are really below me, but sometimes you just can't force yourself to do "better", especially considering the opening statement for this post.

And, the questions posed in the article are really all valid and all deserve a full explanation, because as we already discovered, RSS is still poorly understood.

But, providing answers to relevant questions and even questioning is one thing, while providing replies to "attacks" such as this is something else. If all someone is interested in is trashing your work (without even taking a look at it), and not actually learning something new or at least running a civilized debate, there's really no other way to respond.

I now also finally understand a good friend of mine who never liked getting publicity in Slovenia for his international work. No wonder ...

[Update 2005-03-28]
OK, let's go for the last round of replies, as a response to the latest post on this issue.

"I could buy the book and read it. $50 isn't such a big deal. In fact, it's really not that much for this number of pages. And he even has 90-day money back guarantee. I know I could send it back if I didn't like it, but I don't actually do that. That is send back anything and request my money back. So I would prefer if he didn't have moneyback guarantee in the first place. Because it leaves me with doubts."

I guess that believing in your work so much that you offer a 90-day money back guarantee is actually saying your work is rubbish:)

Well this sounds like we (programmers, developers, IT in general) are some kind of special lower grade species...or his tone implicates "Who the hell does this programmer (duh!) think he is?" :)

Of course not. I know many programmers who are exceptionally marketing savvy and excellent, even brilliant marketers. I am happy to call some of them my mentors.

But in general, when marketing work is judged by someone with lacking marketing experience or comparingly marketing experience, then I don't take those comments too seriously.

I might of course be mistaken, but I have not heard anything about your marketing experience yet, and your "About me" page is not working.

"That's what you have written all over your website. Either prove RSS does all that (which I think is absurd and if that was the case everybody would just gone mad and RSS usage would go wild) or say that you just believe that. Saying "no need to really comment this" looks like avoiding the answer."

My dear Marko, there is no need to comment this, because you demonstrate a lack of understanding of the internet marketing mix. Your answer proves that.

Let's take another look at it:

"The thing is - you still need to know the link to RSS XML file. Or use some providers of those links - whatever. You still need to be found. Shall we post link to our RSS feeds on billboards and jumbo ads?"

The above proves that you failed to understand the sales letter (which is naturally written for marketers, so I'm not holding this against you) and that you then didn't take the time to study other internet marketing material.

If you did, we wouldn't be having this part of the conversation.

"A lot or most of these stuff is being financed through other means of generating cash..."

This "stuff" is all part of the marketing mix and contributes to the end result. Without this "stuff", marketing would not work (depending on the company and the industry of course).

Marketing is never an isolated event, but a combination of multiple elements working towards the same goal.

"Actually it does. RSS is a specially formatted XML file, text content, XML derivate. It does not hold binary data (not yet). It is however able to hold links to binary data using element. Check it out for yourself here. So what it all comes down to is providing links to content not the actual content itself."

The point is not in the mechanics, but in the final result from the end-user (or aggregator) point of view.

Podcasting, videocasting, appcasting etc. work because RSS does not hold binary data.

"All in all, I'm over with this debate. It is clearly that I want proofs, data, facts and correct usage of terminology, while he prefers marketing bluff."

If you wanted proof (no s), data and facts, you would have written a different article. The way you phrased it, it really deserved no reply. If you wanted a positive debate, you would have started it that way.

Instead, you started off as a critic, not someone wanting to learn something new.

And when criticism starts from people that do not even bother to research what they are criticising, they certainly do not deserve to be given answers.

Because, if you bothered to at least research what you are criticising, you would have found many answers to your questions on the website itself.