[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [syndication] Moreover Terms and Conditions for free use
Hi,
Alis Marsden wrote:
if the aggregator makes a revenue out of content supplied by a third
party, the content provider, is it fair to do so without a revenue
share model?
Yes, I do think it is fair for aggregators like Moreover to make
revenue out of third party headlines and not share that revenue with
the third party in question.
I've been strugling to make exactly this point. You did better with your
reply than any of my attempts! I just hope this won't turn into
one of those long flame wars ;-)
I think aggregators are going to sell intelligent news headline
products and services that are made up from the headlines of hundreds
or thousands of different content providers and customised by the
aggregators technologies to suit the individual needs of their
clients.
moreover has made a business of just that. Although they seem to
be moving out of the content distribution arena and focusing on the
entreprise more lucrative business software area.
We will be adding support for such "intelligent" headlines and
advanced services (like notification) over the next few weeks.
Websites don't ask metadata aggregators like Google for a share of the
advertising revenue they make by providing a search engine, so why
should they expect headline aggregators to share their revenue?
plus the fact that companies like Google and Altavista actually
license out the content of their databases (which is filled with your data).
If publishers choose to work with headline aggregators, they should
benefit in terms of traffic, but I don't think it is fair to expect
headline aggregators to have to pay publishers to use their headlines.
exactly. Syndicators offer better, easier access to the publisher's
content, via portals, specialized search, viral distribution (email,
blogging), content syndication. Many many sites actually pay to get
their content promoted, not the other way around.
I can understand paying to actual content, but we do only headlines
and always link to content on your site.
However I do think aggregators need to justify the charges they make
to publishers. Unless the aggregator is making a special effort to
drive traffic to the publishers website, perhaps by providing a free
news portal with preferential exposure for paying publishers, I don't
see why a publisher should have to pay them.
we don't charge publisher at this time. "featured" publishers
might come later, but there has been no demand for that yet.
After all, we only have about 1800, not the many-hundred thousand
Yahoo has...
The main point is that we have to find a balance: our portal would be
worthless without other sites' content; however, we provide a service
which adds value to that content. Salon.com publishes stories
in it's RSS feed that are only available for paying customers. But
they still want the world to find out about those stories and come
and buy subscription on their site.
Mike Krus
--
NewsIsFree http://www.newsisfree.com/
We serve 20000+ news feeds each day, for free. Please support us
http://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=donations%40newsisfree.com
Jabber: mkrus@jabber.com ICQ: 30900412