How Far We Can Go With RSS Advertising

Some time ago Robin Good posted a comment to my article RSS Advertising is Here, Whether You Like it Or Not, raising some interesting questions.

Please see the original article and Robin's comments just below it to make more sense of this:)

"So my friend Rok where do you stand?"

Personally, I don't mind ads in RSS feeds, and I also don't think that as long as they are not overobtrusive end-users won't mind them as well, although more hard-core RSS users might have a problem with them. But the majority ... I don't think so.

Just take a look at the reactions towards Google AdSense ads in RSS, and to the responses Pheedo has been getting from their ventures in this space. Not surprisingly, these initiatives are not generating much negative feedback.

Of course, more testing will need to be done, but end-users in my opinion will accept ads in feeds, as long as the content is valuable enough to them.

"Where is the borderline then?"

It depends on three factors:

a] The perceived content value and uniqueness. The more valuable and unique the content, the more acceptable various ad formats in feeds are going to be.

b] The general direction the market goes in to. When RSS ads start appearing in more and more feeds, market acceptance towards feeds that carry them will grow.

c] The ad obtrusiveness. Text ads won't be a problem. Graphic ads might be more difficult, but as long as they remain civil, end-users will eventually accept them. Multimedia ads might be a problem, but on the long-term even those might become accepted with high-ranking publishers from point a] above.

"And how can you say when you are mistreating user trust in subscribing to your feed?"

There is no general rule. Eventually it will depend on the end-user, or end-user groups, and what they are used to.

Well, certainly, frequently pushing ads in the form of content items to subscribers that thought they were subscribing to a rich content feed, is mistreating user trust.

At least at this time, rich-media advertising as well falls under this category.

"Is RSS ads the only way to monetize content?"

Of course not, but it depends on your business model and your economy of scales.

Traditional publishers (and the same goes for their internet initiatives) cannot survive or be profitable without ad sales. Even with RSS that is not about to change, especially due to brand advertisers with their enormeous budgets.

For a small-business publisher, way to monetization might be in paid-subscription feeds.

For marketers monetization might come through indirectly increased sales of their products and increased online visibility.

But there is no general rule.

"And when you say RSS ads, are these text ads only or color banners too? Why?"

We need to ask ourselves one thing: are end-users using RSS because it's ad free or because it's more convenient and easy to use? Will RSS usage growth come from the first or the second?

Although it might be a combination of both, I'm quite certain most end-users will adopt RSS because of its ease of use.

Given this scenario, graphic banners should not be a problem, as my experience shows that as long as ads are civil, end-users do not mind them, at least not the greatest majority of them.

I'll also venture on to say that probably we will eventually start seeing some testing done with rich-media ads in feeds, especially since these have become a huge hit with brand advertisers within the past year, proving that they have great affect on key brand metrics and greatly improve campaign results in conjunction with TV, print and outdoor advertising.

What will happen from there on?

Publishers with a loyal following actually might get away with doing this, as end-users get more acustomed to it.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of rich-media ads in feeds, but from how well I know the corporate online ad industry that just might happen, especially since rich-media ad impressions can reach an even more than 30 times greater price than standard banner ads.

It's impossible to predict the future, but history does tend to repeat itself.

Of course, someone like Dave Winer can continue rallying RSS publishers against ads in feeds, but 'the big guys' won't listen. What they will listen to are ad dollars, and these are coming.

And the sad truth may be that eventually these publishers (large media) might 'own' most of the RSS readership space.

"What about positioning inside the RSS feed? Do you think that makes a difference? Why?"

If you're talking about full content item ads, I think I already answer to that above.

Looking forward to more questions and opinions:)

I certainly understand and respect your opinion.

However, I cannot agree with the statement that ads, if end-users don't want them, mean disrespect.

It all depends on the business model of course, but if the model is ad driven and the content sales driven model cannot replace it, than seeing the ads is "a price" the end-users "pay" for receiving the content.

If you were to ask the majority of internet users what they prefer: ads in feeds or to pay for that content, the majority would say ads in feeds.

No one really wants advertising, but no one really wants to pay for content either (if it can be avoided; BTW - take the word "no one" with some reserve, because there are always some that will do anything to get rid of ads) ... and the later is, in most instances, much stronger.

We have already seen this happen in the web media landscape. Even though rich-media ads are obstrusive, they are still not obtrusive enough for people to get ad blocking software. And, in affect, although obtrusive, they work both in terms of brand metrics and in terms of interaction.
[and of course, much of it depends on how much obtrusive the ad is and how interesting to the recipient it is]

Pop-up ads on the other side were too obtrusive and people started blocking them in large enough numbers + the brand affect for the publishers was too negative.

In the end, you may of course say that users don't want ads and that no one should place them within their content. But then, how will they survive or be profitable enough so satisfy share holders? Especially in a time where most information is a commodity.

Posted by: Rok Hrastnik at May 27, 2005 8:35 AM

To be honest, I found the original article insulting because it was clear that despite what he said, he doesn't respect the end-user. If people say they don't want ads, respecting them means listening to, and obeying their wishes, not saying, "Get used to it." What was most insulting was his notion that ads somehow "completed" an experience; not for me!

I notice in your piece, you continually speculate what the end-user will *tolerate* as the price of their feed. That alone shows me how the end-user really feels; they don't *want* ads.

The bottom line is that if the feed provider insists on ads, (some? most?) people will find a software solution to those ads, be it in the RSS reader or some other means.

Posted by: DDA at May 27, 2005 4:42 AM

RSS advertising is not a good idea fall stop. I will certainly think twice about subscribing to a feed with ads. RSS should be kept as a means ofupdating the user about changes or new news in your blog or website. Or again as a means of syndication.

Of course I respect the publisher choice whether or not to monetise their feeds, but I have to ask, is it really worth it?

At the end of the day it is the subscriber who will have the last say.

Posted by: Allan Burns at May 27, 2005 10:27 AM

Again, I have to say it depends on the business model.

If you're primarily ad supported, you may not have much of a choice, especially if you're publishing in full-text.

Presume what happens if end-users instead of browsing through sites limit themselves to only consuming that content via full-text RSS feeds. For primarily ad supported publishers, not putting ads in such feeds will not be an option or they face the risk of large loss of revenue.

Yes, subscribers have the last say at the end of the day: but will they rather pay for content (to such an extent to replace or even exceed ad revenues) or decide to live with the advertising?

Posted by: Rok Hrastnik at May 27, 2005 12:12 PM