Comments on: Instapaper, Readability and monetizing other people’s content

By: TheContentMarketeer

TheContentMarketeer — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:53:15 +0000

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?

By: maxfenton

maxfenton — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:31:29 +0000

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.

By: John Pettitt

John Pettitt — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:23:59 +0000

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.

By: Roman Geyzer

Roman Geyzer — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 21:05:21 +0000

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.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:52:43 +0000

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.

By: Mathew Ingram

Mathew Ingram — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 19:48:33 +0000

Yes, good point Patrick — thanks for the comment.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:28:21 +0000

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.

By: Patrick Tucker

Patrick Tucker — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:10:53 +0000

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