RE: [syndication] revenue

["Alis Marsden" <alis@contentrelations.com>]

Alis wrote:

>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.
...http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/2252

Paola wrote:

>Ummm. Negative from me Alis and Mike.
...http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syndication/message/2256

I'm going to have to stick to my guns here :)

I think that we will see products and services from headline aggregators
that should be compared to the products and services offered by search
engines like Google.

I agree that headlines are content and that the publisher will always own
them.  I think the same could be said for metadata.

I'm sure that headline aggregators will do a lot of things.  Perhaps there
will be situations where it is logical for the publisher to pay the headline
aggregator and vica versa, but I also think we are going to have a lot of
situations where there is quids pro quo.

My gut feeling on the Moreover situation is that publishers like
Content-Wire shouldn't be paying them.  Perhaps it is time to ask them to
justify that?  - My gut feelings not being things we should base opinions on
and all that :)

I think Paola has highlighted another serious problem - the fact that small
online content providers are just not making the revenue they need to
sustain themselves.

However I don't see getting headline aggregators to pay to use publishers
headlines as a solution to that problem.

It is a problem that needs to be talked about though.  There may not be any
overnight solutions but we have got to start working on building a future
where small online publishers can sustain themselves.

Alis