Full vs. Partial RSS Feeds: We Go Full and Pray

The first post of Stephen Levitt's Freakonomics blog on NYTimes.com reportedly got 120 reader comments, of which 100 were demands for full RSS feeds.  What a coincidence!  In our first two weeks, this was the single most popular "suggestion" we got, too.  In our case, it got so bad that frustrated readers started flaming us in discussion groups, vowing never to visit our site again.

At first, Managing Editor Peter Kafka and I were firmly in the NYT's camp.  As a reader, I did not find it particularly offensive or inconvenient to be asked to make a single mouse click to read a story that had been pushed to me for free.  As a publisher, I had trouble understanding how we were supposed to survive if we not only gave our content away but didn't even ask anyone to visit the site (RSS feed monetization, I had been told, would amount to chicken feed).  So, for a week or so, Peter and I shook our heads at what we assumed was just the ever-present fringe audience who believes that EVERYTHING in life (and especially online) should be free.

After reading several impassioned arguments mixed in with the flame-mail, however, we reconsidered.  Perhaps we were just dinosaurs--thinking and behaving like the traditional media execs we love to poke fun at, the ones who resist rather than embrace change.  And, so, skeptical but open-minded, we started publishing full feeds.

Some full-feed proponents say that they actually increase long-term site traffic because readers begin to know and love you and, eventually, visit your site to participate firsthand (by commenting, etc.--see below)  If this is true, great, but it sounds like a load of wishful hooey to me.  Others say full feeds reduce traffic but increase revenue, which also sounds dreamy.  The best arguments we heard were that 1) partial feeds aren't available to those who read feeds offline, and 2) active bloggers, the folks most likely to link to stories, overwhelmingly use RSS feeds--so by publishing full feeds you make it that much more likely that they'll link to your stories.

The few days following the move to full were by far the biggest we've had, but I still think our traffic probably suffers among those using RSS feeds.  We had some major links into several of our stories on those days, which could have been helped by the change.   Either way, our readers are very pleased--and, right now, that is far more important to me.  Over the longer term, my hope is that, now that feeds are creeping their way into the mainstream, we will gradually figure out how to monetize them.

In the meantime, thanks again to our readers for the suggestions and help.  After the jump, some readers make the case for full feeds:

There is some evidence from e.g. Matt Haughey that full feeds may
reduce site *traffic* but not materially impact site *revenue* if your
advertising is all PPC/PPA.  The theory being that overwhelmingly the
largest ad clickers are infrequent (i.e. non-subscribing readers), who
landed on your site from a search or link.  Habitual readers start to
block out the ads anyway.  Apologies if this is recapping someone
else's theory, my list-following's been a bit lax over the last few.
 
---

I would also add the anecdote of PaidContent to this conversation
because I place AlleyInsider in the exact same category in my RSS
reader (due to frequency of articles and the fact that most posts and
business-critical). PaidContent and its family of sites eventually switched 
to full feeds and placed ads in its feed. If there's a success story in this
business-blog world, they certainly have to be mentioned, and perhaps
followed.

---

For what its worth: Last night, I went to AlleyInsider for probably the third or fourth
time, and decided that it was the type of blog that should be in my
reader -- a place I'll not go to even weekly, but that I'd like to see
the headlines of in case there's something that piques my interest.

---

Most of the bloggers who read your content are likely doing so through syndicated feeds. I think you'll find that a link from a couple of bloggers is worth more than displaying an ad to
 them - especially if it's PPC but even if it's on a per-impression
 basis. If five bloggers each link to you and send five of their readers,
 you make out in the long run.   I wrote about this in the past:
 http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/archive/2005/12/16/RSS-let-us-control-the-conversation-and-we-ll-reward-you-with-our-loyalty.aspx
 . I'd also note that your content is not available in offline scenarios
 when you publish a partial feed (i.e., no internet connection means no
 clickthrough).  [Both great points]