There has been some recent talk about how newspaper web sites are rushing into the RSS business following the launch of CNET's NewsBurst and moves by the LA Times. (Reuter's story here)
I see strong similarities between this move and the rush for many newspapers to launch a branded ISP service in the mid 90's. Just like the RSS integration, the newspapers partner or bundle a branded version of another service.
From 1996 till 1999 I helped start-up a local ISP that grew quite large and was eventually bought up by a well-known national ISP after a series of mergers. When we were looking to build our subscriber base, the newspapers were a prime target. We had two paper's in our market, one large, one small.
In the 90's the newspapers' fear was this new thing called the 'internet' would cause local readers to suddenly realize they could go elsewhere for news. Worse yet, web versions of the papers were causing decreased circulation, specifically lower sales at rack locations. Why would the 100+ staff of a large office need to buy a copy of the paper at the rack when they could just go inside and read it online?
The big hook for a newspaper branded ISP? Browser customization. The papers would make the default home page of the browser their site. The primary links and booksmarks provided in the browser could also be customized. The majority of users don't know or never change their default home page. With an ISP offering, the newspaper could funnel a user's daily internet experience thru their brand.
The problem was it never really took off. With the branded packages, it seemed everybody was an ISP. The newspapers also faced the issue of tech-support and perception, 'why would I choose a newspaper as my ISP over an established ISP?' Papers were also overly concerned with the commission they would receive on each new subscriber. What's more important to a paper, the revenue they generate by the 25 cents per paper sold, or the advertising dollars generated by having a high circulation?
With RSS integration you have the same issues. Newspapers are realizing that users are going elsewhere for news and the standard AP feed of 'other news' is not cutting it. So why not get in early, and once again attempt to control the eyeballs.
I don't see many of the early adopters using the LA Times or any other papers' RSS reader, we'll stick with our NetNewsWire or Bloglines. But we're not who the papers are after, they want the other 97% of net users. For many net users their first introduction to RSS will be via a newspapers 'new subscription service' (RSS to the rest of us). I assume that many of the papers will make some mention of RSS, but for the most part they will come up with a catchy name for their news readers. Users will not even know they are using RSS. Ask a tech novice what ISP they use and you may get a blank stare, ask them what online service they use and you'll get an answer.
The papers will offer pre-selected options or other recommendations. Just like the browser home page, guess how many novice users will change those options? Will a paper owned by the New York Times group 'feature' feeds from other NYT paper's and publications?
Are the recommended RSS feeds paying a fee to be listed? Who gets the advertising revenue? Does all of it go the paper? This sounds like a good topic for a follow-up post. More soon.
As the next year shakes out it will be interesting to see how many papers roll-out an RSS service. Now fast-forward to 2006 or 2007, how many still have the service?
