Paid placement and custom FeedDemon installs

One question I get asked practically every day is, "Can we pay you to have our feed included in FeedDemon?" The idea sounds like a money-maker (it most likely is), but I've never accepted these offers because I just wasn't comfortable with the idea. In my mind, paid feed placement turns FeedDemon into a cleverly disguised piece of adware - a road I definitely don't want to take.

Of course, I'm also not wild about turning down these offers - after all, I do this for a living. So I came up with a partial solution: enable FeedDemon affiliates to create their own FeedDemon installs pre-configured with their feeds and branded with their name. This way, feed producers can put exactly what they want into the install, and people who download FeedDemon from an affiliate's site know what they're getting. What's more, affiliates earn a percentage of the sales they generate, and I benefit from (hopefully) increased sales and exposure.

Right now this is only being offered to affiliates who have generated a decent number of sales, and the folks at FeedBurner are the first to take advantage of it. If you think you might be interested in this, the first step is to sign up to be an affiliate, then after you've generated a few sales drop me an email asking about custom installs.

Note: If you're already an affiliate, these custom installs are not the same as the EST builds offered by the current system. EST builds contain your affiliate tracking code, but unlike the new custom installs, they can't include your feeds, nor can they be branded with your company name.

Comments

[brad]

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.

[Steve Williams]

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.

[Jack Brewster]

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. :)

[Morgan Pugh]

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).

[Jack Brewster]

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

[Nick Bradbury]

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").

[Steve Williams]

"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.

[TristanK]

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?

[andy jarrett]

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?

[Trevor]

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.

[Alex]

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.

[Jeff Wilkinson]

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.