Slashdot Mirror
The Future of RSS is Not Blogs
notepage writes "Blogs vaulted RSS into the limelight but are unlikely to be the force that sustains RSS as a communication medium. The biggest opportunities for RSS are not in the blogosphere but as a corporate communication channel. Even now, businesses that were initially reluctantly evaluating RSS are beginning to realize the power and benefit of the RSS information avenue. The inherent capacity for consumers to select the content they wish to receive will be the driving mechanism for keeping advertisements to a minimum and content quality consistent."
Wow -
I guess it's true, pop will eat itself. Remember when "push" internet was all the rage? Well, we all knew it wasn't really "push" at all, more like a periodic polling of "channels" of information. For a while there, Internet Explorer had a "channel subscription" feature. And there were all sorts of silly little news-ticker applets you could download and install, and then configure to pull various topics to you.
Hey wow look! It's a brand new wheel! It's round like the old one, and goes round and round like the old one.
RSS is purely one-way communication. It's like that locked newsboard in the cafeteria and quite unlike the refrigerator with magnets.
RSS will work for announcements - which is what it's being used for. Mainly news, notifications and other random communication. Or more correctly content distribution via a pull model. You can rest assured that RSS along will not create a community like the blogosphere. It needed readers and commentors to make it work. See slashdot for example - I read it purely for the comments (like that old playboy T Shirt).
Stuff like RssTorrents or Yahoo maps using GeoRss. Face it people, RSS could be the usenet of the modern world - but there's a catch - you can't post !!.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
The inherent capacity for consumers to select the content they wish to receive will be the driving mechanism for keeping advertisements to a minimum and content quality consistent.
Except that this is the opposite of what most media-driven corporations are about. They want you to see ALL the ads, to the point where they want to make it illegal to skip over them.
Typically, they don't care so much about the QUALITY of the content, but its CONSISTENCY. Any decent webfarm can do that.
Look at Coca-Cola or Pepsi or Sony. They want to bombard you with ads, over and over again, forever. They're not going to allow you to select only the ads with the hot chicks, or turn ads off after 9pm.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So, the author (who sells RSS software) suggests that companies create PR/advertising feeds and that people will sign up for them? Interesting. Not very different from email lists except that customers could actually unsubscribe. Great for the customers, and legit opt-in businesses stop looking like spammers. I don't think I'll be signing up for them, but I'm sure someone will want to subscribe to Best Buy's marketing list.
But that's totally different than most blogs. Blogs are about self-publishing for people that don't create full websites. They're not for advertising a business unless the business can't afford a cheap webmaster.
Blogs as content sources and RSS as advertising feeds have totally different purposes. One won't replace the other, because they don't do the same thing.
And RSS won't help content publishers (like many bloggers and newspapers) because it circumvents advertising. Great for the customer, bad for the revenue stream. Unless you build so much trust and traffic through RSS that you get more traffic to your website. But how do you advertise the RSS feed to people that don't visit your website?
Personally, I don't see RSS being that revolutionary. But then I'm not selling it.
End rambling.
Let's see--it's an article on how RSS is the future of business communication, hosted on a site that sells business RSS services, written by the site's owner, and submitted to Slashdot by the author.
Then fed to me via Slashdot's RSS feed.
Yep, that's the future of advertising via RSS if I ever saw it.
I'd rather have targeted ads than scattershot, as well. The biggest consideration, however, is how much information I'm giving up in order to be "targeted". Something as simple as a "thumbs up/down" on ads or (more likely usable) content might provide a good model.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Mozilla Thunderbird has RSS capabilities. You can receive and browse them as if they were e-mail messages.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
And not only on other websites, but also on other devices.
I think this too will be eventually be spoiled by "RSS Spam," with only a couple of news/information sites left after the dust clears.
Of course this may be a viable communication tool for intra-corporate communication, being able to broadcast company "news" or other communications to employee/client computers, cellphones, blackberries, what-have-you.
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
Speaking of RSS, I just made a voice RSS Browser yesterday. The source code is available to download and the program will let you turn just about any RSS feed into an IVR in less than a minute. http://www.pbxfreeware.org/
I agree. But it won't last.
With email spam, a business has your email address (think large opt-in companies rather than viagra selling spam worms). They can potentially use your email address to find out more about you - where you live, what you earn, and other demographic information. That lets them target ads to you. You get ads more likely to make you act the way they want you to.
With RSS feeds, they know nothing about you (except an IP address at best). They can't target you. They don't know who they are. If you don't come back to the feed because you drop your subscription, they don't know why... Actually, they don't even know that. They don't know what the turnover is. They have no way of gauging the effectiveness of the feed. They can tell how often it's accessed, but there's little to no accurate way they can tell what drives sales.
You can do that with email, just as you can with physical mail. You send one version to half of your accounts, and another version to the other half. Watch your sales and see who buys more.
Does anyone think big business will buy in to a model with no feedback for the long term?
That's correct for any responsibly run business. Unfortunately that isn't all of them, but there are some.
I'm on the board of a non-profit community theatre and we haven't advertised in years, but we know we need to. The problem is that every penny counts and we can't afford to spend money on advertising to people who aren't interested. We can only afford to advertise if the advertisement is actually going to bring in enough additional money in ticket sales to cover the cost of the ad. (On average at least, obviously you can't predict the exact response to an ad down to the dollar.)
Sure, if a company has a multi-million or multi-billion dollar advertising budget and only loose controls on how the money is spent then self-satisfied advertising execs can generate crap ads that just piss people off. But overall companies hate wasting money, so it just comes down to control and feedback. I'm sure the advertising and marketing people love controlling a large budget with no accountability, but the top level management of the company would love to have accountability and prevent the advertising and marketing people from spending any dime that doesn't generate revenue. The problem is there isn't much ability for top management to do that.
Bear with me a second. There's already a movement underway to create "structured blogging" (which really needs a better name), and Microsoft already has a similar concept, where you attempt to state up front what is in an RSS item. So say that you're watching new movie releases at your local cinema, then you would be able to tell that each item might have title, stars, description, rating, and show times. It's really not hard to make that leap, it's the same argument people make now for the "Semantic Web" (and hopefully will be adopted quicker as we learn our lessons :)).
Great, so now I'm in a position to have a piece of software on my machine that is watching that feed for new movie releases. It sees that a new Shakespeare movie is opening this weekend, so it alerts me on my cell phone to this fact and asks for permission to go ahead and buy the tickets. Or maybe, if I have a properly enabled phone, it sends me a link where I can do it for myself. Like I said, this isn't going to happen tomorrow, but there's nothing technically stopping it.
Or how about a froogle watcher that keeps track of the average price on item X, and then knows that when it spots somebody offering more than 30% off that price, it goes ahead and buys it (again, or alerts me so I can do it). Even better, it spots it cheap, buys it and then immediately puts it up on ebay at a profit for automatic flipping.
Or a weather agent that sees, at 3am, that the hurricane has changed direction and is now headed straight for my hometown, so when I wake up at 7am there's a message waiting for me that maybe I should cancel my golf game.
Or a traffic monitoring agent that sees a truck has rolled over on Rt93 south, and tells my alarm clock to wake me up half an hour earlier so that I can take the backroads.
Is there anything special about RSS that enables any of what I just said? Nah, not really. It's more about the notion of polling information feeds and being able to automatically act on them. There's nothing new under the sun there. The question has always been one of technological adoption. You can't create the perfect technology and then tell the world "Why won't you use it!?! Use it now!" It has to prove itself, and grow over time. So if it takes going from blogs to RSS to Structured RSS to Smart Agents, I can wait.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
There are two reasons why i'm not short sighted.
1. It's not like the whole thing is going to be shoved back into a closet even if all the commercial ventures flounder. The only thing we lose is the annoying advertising, and the annoying newbies who pollute the net with their spyware-driven spam - that they cannot remove.
2. Having fiber to my door does nothing good for me when all these idiots are filling that bandwidth with spam and scripted ssh login attempts.
With the demise of dial-up ISPs and ultimately AOL, this is the first opportunity to undo the muddying of the Internet.
I can't help wondering if spyware and spam aren't good things inasmuch as they are forces directly working against the commercialization of the net. I've roundly cursed both in the past. They do have an effect though: they decrease user comfort with security, and irritate the crap out of people. Same thing that annoying web ads do, actually. So much so that laymen withdraw from the net. This can't have positive consequences for advertisers or commercial ventures.
It will be quite sweet if they turn out to be the forces that ultimately restore the Internet to its proper function.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.