8 Comments

Summary:

There’s been a lot of criticism of Readability for collecting money from readers who use its ad-stripping service. But its approach is actually better than some others — and that desire on the part of readers is something publishers need to figure out how to accommodate.

3047760160_f869b55dda_z

Updated: There’s been a minor furore brewing in the digital-content sphere over the past few days involving Readability, an app and web service that allows readers to save content from any website and read it later — without any of the advertising that most sites rely on for revenue. Not surprisingly, this idea doesn’t appeal to a lot of publishers, and John Gruber of Daring Fireball re-ignited the current firestorm of criticism with some comments about how the team behind Readability are “scumbags.” Whatever you think of Readability’s model, however, it is far from the only one providing this kind of service, and there is an argument to be made that its approach is actually better than some others. The bottom line for content creators is that users want to do this, and you need to figure out how to let them.

The latest wave of negative attention for Readability was triggered by AppAdvice, which noticed that when users shared an article that they had saved for later by posting it to Twitter or Facebook from the mobile app, the link included by Readability was to the saved version — the one stripped of all the ads and images and other content — instead of to the original at the publisher’s site. After AppAdvice flagged this issue and before Gruber made his “scumbags” comment, Readability then responded by changing the way it handles links in the mobile app, and admitted that its initial approach wasn’t fair to content creators (the web browser version includes a Readability bar that shows the original article in a frame, and allows users to click and see the stripped-down version).

Is collecting money for publishers a favor, or extortion?

Even after this change, however, the comments made by Gruber seemed to reverberate through the blogosphere, in part because they focused on another controversial aspect of Readability’s model: unlike other services such as Instapaper, which simply charges a standard fee for its service, Readability allows readers to donate money that is held for the creators of the content. Publishers can sign up and collect their share of this revenue (70 percent goes to publishers and Readability keeps 30 percent), but if they don’t sign up or register, then Readability just keeps the money. This model has drawn a lot of criticism from those who argue that it is effectively extortion:

Readability has its defenders, including Anil Dash — who is an advisor to the company, and argued in a blog post that the startup is trying to do what plenty of other services are trying to do: namely, to figure out a way for publishers and content creators to monetize their content in other ways apart from just lathering as many ads and other gimmicks onto their pages as possible. The fact that many users decide to strip out those ads and read articles through Readability or Instapaper, he says, shows that many publishers are actually shooting themselves in the foot by making their websites unreadable in an attempt to generate revenue (Readability’s own defence of its model is here).

The issue over Readability’s model is complicated somewhat by the tangled relationship between it and Instapaper, which was founded by former Tumblr developer Marco Arment. In 2010, the two companies formed a partnership in which Arment created a white-label version of Instapaper that Readability could use inside their iPhone app — but just as it was about to be released, Apple introduced its in-app subscription rules, which would have forced Readability to hand over 30 percent of any revenue they collected. The app was shelved, and Readability then went on to develop its own Instapaper-style app without Arment’s help, which caused some tension between the two — and between supporters of the two companies such as Dash and Gruber.

Readers want to do this — publishers need to figure out how

As Mike Davidson of Newsvine notes in a post on the issue, the bottom line is that services like Instapaper and Readability — and other similar apps such as Read It Later, or even Apple’s Safari browser, which has a “Reader” feature that strips out everything but text — are likely perfectly legal under current copyright laws, because users are saving copies of the content for their personal use (the news-aggregation app Zite got a cease-and-desist letter from some major content companies for a similar feature). Not only that, but Davidson makes a pretty persuasive argument that there is nothing wrong with Readability’s revenue model of keeping money for publishers.

The anger about the financial side of Readability seems to come from the opinion that the company is “keeping publishers’ money” unless they sign up, but I guess I look at it differently: I don’t think it is the publishers’ money. I think it is Readability’s money. Readability invests the time and resources into developing their service and they are the ones who physically get users to pay a subscription fee.

I think Davidson makes a good point — although it’s not one that most publishers are likely going to be that sympathetic to. But why is Readability’s model any worse than Instapaper’s or any other similar ad-stripping service? Marco Arment charges money for his apps and service, which take a publisher’s content and remove all of that advertising just the same way Readability does, and he keeps that revenue. Readability’s approach may feel like extortion to publishers who don’t like the idea of people altering their content or consuming it in other ways — but the reality is that this is happening all the time, whether the media industry likes it or not. It might be the Huffington Post aggregating your stories, or it might be Flipboard or Zite giving people a different way of seeing it, or it might be Instapaper.

At least Readability is trying to help publishers monetize that content in some way, by giving them a revenue share when they register with the service, as Clay Johnson points out. Is that an incentive to sign up? Sure it is. But at a time when content companies are trying everything they can to figure out how to monetize what they produce — whether it’s paywalls or apps or other subscription models — why not take advantage of a service that at least some readers have already shown they want, and are willing to pay for? Either that, or come up with your own version of Readability and compete.

Update: John Gruber has clarified his position in a new post, saying he doesn’t like the fact that Readability says 70 percent of a user’s monthly contribution goes to the content creators, since not all of that money is paid out — because the company only pays publishers who have registered. Gruber says the service should either make it clear not all of the money is paid to content owners, or it should split whatever it has among those who have registered. The way the company is doing it now “is misleading at best, and arguably dishonest,” he says.

Post and thumbnail images courtesy of Flickr users Zert Sonstige and Denise Chan

  1. If we take them at face value, then I think we should support attempts to diversify the business models of the Internet. It seems unlikely that being solely an advertisement delivery system will sustain it long term. If content starts to have value then regulating/controling of the ‘frictionless sharing’ of content and information might follow. At that point, protection of our information might be a by-product. I believe it is the freedom of information environment that largely creates our inability to control ours and thus, our privacy

    Share
    1. Yes, good point Patrick — thanks for the comment.

      Share
  2. Anil was wrong in dragging Instapaper into the conversation. Readability’s business model (personally, I think it’s still confused with itself) was criticized, and he goes on and on about how Readability is the lesser evil compared with Instapaper. I can’t help cringing whenever I see the two products sitting next to each other on the latest tech headline.

    It’s ridiculous that the comparisons were even started. Now a lot of people are just pitting one against the other. That’s honestly more foul than anything that was on the aforementioned DF post. Too many names and events being dragged into an issue that was only supposed to be about Readability. At one point, even Foxconn was mentioned. This whole thing has turned rubbish.

    Share
    1. Thanks, Anne — I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to compare the two. They both offer very similar features, they just have different ways of trying to monetize that. Appreciate the comment though.

      Share
  3. Roman Geyzer Tuesday, April 3, 2012

    As our consumption of content diversifies beyond desktop browsers and onto mobile and tablet devices, monetization of that content must evolve as well. Readability and related tools enable people to stay engaged with their favorite publishers, journalists and bloggers. The value behind this is extremely under-valued. It’s not just about CPM/CPC. It’s about the relationships that are created and nurtured. The money will follow.

    Share
  4. John Pettitt Tuesday, April 3, 2012

    We faced similar issues when we built Repost.Us (embedded articles are stripped of ads etc.) However because publishers have to opt-in to making their articles embedable we give them the choice of providing us with ad tags to include with the content when it’s embedded on another site or device. So publishers still get revenue, and we let them include analytics tags so they still get data. So it is possible to repurpose content and keep everybody happy.

    Share
  5. It’s off-topic and I apologize for even bringing it up, but what Readability changed on Friday was context-specific. Opening an rdd.me shortened URL on—and only on—a mobile device went directly to the Readability version. Now those links (on a mobile device) go to the original site, where the reader can use the Readability bookmarklet to re-format.

    Share
  6. TheContentMarketeer Wednesday, April 4, 2012

    Very interesting debate. This will really come down to publishers (and brands) ability to monetize their content in other forms besides ads in the long run. Readers will always prefer not to be advertised to, so if the content delivered is growing brand advocacy and cultivating customers than it somewhat bypasses the ads as well. Who wins in that case?

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post