« Google mulls RSS support | Main | The New Net Architects, Part V - Nick Bradbury »

Wednesday, June 09, 2004


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

take out the middle man altogether. stick these paid feeds in a "paid feeds" channel group and allow it to be checked or unchecked along with the other preinstalled feeds upon installation. you could even make it one of the pre-checked ones and i wouldn't complain. that would keep more of the cash coming your way and, in theory, more cool features coming in feeddemon and topstyle.

I agree with Brad: Paid feeds are fine, as long as they're clearly identified. Just like Google's sponsored links and text ads.

I realize Nick might get paid less for paid feeds segregated in this way, but it'd still be some revenue, and as a user, I wouldn't consider it adware.

I agree. If you're upfront about it, and it's easy for users to decide whether to load them, what's the big deal? It's not as if feeds are going to remain ad-free forever.

And more importantly, at least you're not bundling an AOL install. :)

I agree with the others, as long as you are honest with me (a paying user) about feeds that paid to be in FeedDemon I don't mind. Infact I feel the more feeds in FeedDemon the better as it is great, without the healthy selection of feeds built in I would probably have uninstalled FeedDemon as I didn't want to have to go and find loads of feeds.

I do like your idea though, it is very clever and will work very well I am sure. If it means more money for you I say go for it. I can kinda see your adware angle on things but I wouldn't have classified it as true adware (like adverts in the program, etc).

I forgot to add that just because a feed is paid for doesn't mean it lacks value to me as a user.

A separate "Paid Feeds" group is a nice idea - but I wonder how many people would actually choose to install it? Plus, most of the companies who contact me about paid inclusion want a separate group all to themselves (ex: "Company YYZ Feeds").

"Plus, most of the companies who contact me about paid inclusion want a separate group all to themselves (ex: 'Company YYZ Feeds')."

I still wouldn't object, if it was clearly marked as a paid placement, e.g. "[Sponsored Channel] Company XYZ." If I like it and keep it, I can edit that out of the channel properties.

Perhaps a "Getting Started" ('recommended'?) feed pack that consumers can optionally download, that includes any paid feeds... it's probably worth less in advertiser terms because it's an opt-in mechanism, but allows the best of both worlds.

The affiliate idea is good if that's the model that company wants, but it's an aggregator, designed to pull content from many sources - why be exclusive to one, even at first?

As a paying user i don't mind paid feeds, but like everyone said i feel they would need to be marked. Though saying that I also agree with Jack, how many people would install a paid feed group?

I dont know how easy this is, but why not have an extra option which would install "paid feeds" seperately within the current known groups?

I'd welcome any additional feeds if they were marked 'paid' or whatever. I imagine many users would be happy to see more feeds in the default install, and very few would uncheck it at install. Maybe they'd delete them later on if they weren't useful, but thats that. I don't like this idea of afilliate builds, though. I'd be much happier with a paid feed channel group or groups, and I'd actually encourage it.

You could stuff the thing with paid feeds as far as I am concerned. You don't even have to mark them as such. If it's good, I may not even notice that it's a paid feed. If it's not to my liking, I'm gonna delete it, the same as I would with unpaid feeds.

What if you don't include them with the shipping FD, but have a list of paid feed links that is linked from your blog? or from some other page on your site? FD users can come there to look over your list and subscribe to the onees they want.

The comments to this entry are closed.