Monetization.

What does it mean anyway?

Is the only form of monetization making ad bucks from ads? If so, then there really is no hope for any marketing channel ... such as direct mail, telemarketing etc etc.

In an otherwise very sane article about blogs Rich Ord makes the mistake of misspresenting marketing monetization only for ad sales or direct sales.

"RSS has become mainstream and is probably here to stay in some form but it is hardly a blip on the radar screen of internet triumphs. The reason is because RSS is neither a marketing or advertising medium. There is no money being made and no business leads generated via RSS.

So keeping in touch with your customers isn't monetizing a channel?

Bringing your content to your prospects isn't monetizing a channel?

Using a channel to generate business prospects to make a sale to later isn't monetizing the channel?

Bringing product information directly to your customers isn't monetizing a channel?

Getting more people to your website isn't monetizing a channel?

Getting more of your existing visitors to visit again isn't monetizing a channel?

Let's not all just forget that marketing monetization isn't just about generating direct revenues, but about developing customer relationships and bringing customers closer to the purchase.

And do I really have to remind everyone of the new data posted last week by MarketingSherpa? Here it goes again ...

W. Atlee Burpee & Co (the garden seed people) saw their RSS strategy help them increase November sales by four times ... just from a trial RSS feed featuring a "seed of the day".

Just as chance would have it, my friend Sharon Housely also just got her article on RSS monetization posted at WebProNews. A great article, but again failing to distinguish the third RSS monetization "feature": monetizing RSS by using it to improve your marketing.

At the same time, another discussion about monetizing RSS is going on between Robert Scoble of Microsoft and the Blog Herald.

Robert is pushing for full-text RSS feeds, while the Blog Herald seems threatened by full-text RSS feeds due to the possible loss of on-site advertising revenues.

The thing is, both of them have a point. It's not really a matter of whether full-text feeds are better than summary feeds period.

It's a matter of your marketing strategy and your market position.

Robert says that full-text feeds attract journalists and other influencers who will link to you and bring traffic to your site, which you will then monetize with ad exposures directly on the site.

It's a good point, but valid only if you're expecting journalists and other influencers to bring traffic your way. In many cases your business just doesn't support this assumption and you will get more ad dollars by using RSS to get people to your site and expose them to your advertising there.

But yet again in other cases you might not even worry about selling ad space in your feeds but rather use RSS to boost your own marketing. In that case full-text RSS feeds just might be the way to go.

As I said, there's no recipe that will work for everyone. Not in full-text VS summary feeds, not in RSS monetization and not in marketing in general.