Comments on: Feeds Are About Privacy, Not Just Technology http://www.contentious.com/2006/02/17/feeds-privacy/ Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:36:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Amy Gahran http://www.contentious.com/2006/02/17/feeds-privacy/#comment-60411 Amy Gahran Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:33:11 +0000 #comment-60411 David wrote: <i>"A podcast isnâ��t *necessarily* about relationship marketing. (Even if it is, I donâ��t see how the registration requirement necessarily harms the relationship beyond repair at its beginning.)"</i> Well, personally, I view a podcast as always being about a relationship, since listeners must subscribe to get it. That subscription connotes a direct, voluntary connection -- which is a kind of relationship in itself, and which can mark the starting point of a more active relationship if both sides choose to develop it. The registration requirement is a problem because it creates an obstacle to subscribing -- even worse, before any value has been offered to the would-be podcast listener. And worst of all, this is an invasive obstacle that requires disclosure of information many of us would not reveal at the beginning of a relationship. In short, it's a pushy, greedy, ham-handed approach -- one that ignores the social dynamics inherent in feed-based media. At the very least it will hurt feed subscribership. I'd hope the Nature Conservancy checks out its site stats for the percentage of people who exit after hitting that subscriber page, without providing their contact info. I'll bet it would be at least 50%. Beyond that (but harder to calculate) is the % of visitors who subscribe using fake information -- a total waste to the Nature Conservancy. IMHO, of course. - Amy Gahran David wrote: “A podcast isnâ��t *necessarily* about relationship marketing. (Even if it is, I donâ��t see how the registration requirement necessarily harms the relationship beyond repair at its beginning.)”

Well, personally, I view a podcast as always being about a relationship, since listeners must subscribe to get it. That subscription connotes a direct, voluntary connection — which is a kind of relationship in itself, and which can mark the starting point of a more active relationship if both sides choose to develop it.

The registration requirement is a problem because it creates an obstacle to subscribing — even worse, before any value has been offered to the would-be podcast listener. And worst of all, this is an invasive obstacle that requires disclosure of information many of us would not reveal at the beginning of a relationship.

In short, it’s a pushy, greedy, ham-handed approach — one that ignores the social dynamics inherent in feed-based media. At the very least it will hurt feed subscribership.

I’d hope the Nature Conservancy checks out its site stats for the percentage of people who exit after hitting that subscriber page, without providing their contact info. I’ll bet it would be at least 50%. Beyond that (but harder to calculate) is the % of visitors who subscribe using fake information — a total waste to the Nature Conservancy.

IMHO, of course.

- Amy Gahran

]]> By: Gary Bourgeault http://www.contentious.com/2006/02/17/feeds-privacy/#comment-59937 Gary Bourgeault Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:24:16 +0000 #comment-59937 I like what you had to say about privacy. I also think of it in terms of customization. For example, people are using all sorts of devices for their various needs. They expect companies they deal with to offer them a variety of ways that they can receive the message they have to give; not make them go through one medium. To me they should have given you an option. Then if you wanted to be on their list you had the choice: not them dictating to you. I like what you had to say about privacy. I also
think of it in terms of customization. For example,
people are using all sorts of devices for their
various needs. They expect companies they deal
with to offer them a variety of ways that they
can receive the message they have to give; not
make them go through one medium.

To me they should have given you an option. Then if
you wanted to be on their list you had the choice:
not them dictating to you.

]]> By: David Brazeal http://www.contentious.com/2006/02/17/feeds-privacy/#comment-59699 David Brazeal Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:41:06 +0000 #comment-59699 Amy, you say, "Someone who wants to subscribe to your feed doesnâ��t want to give you their e-mail address. Therefore, itâ��s counterproductive to require identifying or contact information before granting access to the feed URL." To which I wonder -- how do you know? Why should that be a rule of this new arena? Maybe the Nature Conservancy has determined that maximum listenership is not its goal. Maybe, instead, it has determined that gathering registration information is its most important goal, and the podcast will help it do that. A podcast isn't *necessarily* about relationship marketing. (Even if it is, I don't see how the registration requirement necessarily harms the relationship beyond repair at its beginning.) Amy, you say, “Someone who wants to subscribe to your feed doesnâ��t want to give you their e-mail address. Therefore, itâ��s counterproductive to require identifying or contact information before granting access to the feed URL.”

To which I wonder — how do you know? Why should that be a rule of this new arena? Maybe the Nature Conservancy has determined that maximum listenership is not its goal. Maybe, instead, it has determined that gathering registration information is its most important goal, and the podcast will help it do that.

A podcast isn’t *necessarily* about relationship marketing. (Even if it is, I don’t see how the registration requirement necessarily harms the relationship beyond repair at its beginning.)

]]>