New rules for content subscription

unsub2Back in the day, people subscribed to magazines, newspapers and product catalogs–all printed versions of content for information, pleasure or commerce. As a kid I got on several dozen mail-order catalog mailing lists because I liked them, although the only ones I was truly loved were the ones with clever copy, Burts Bees and J. Peterman. In college I had a four-foot-high teetering tower of New York Times in my dorm room, because I could pick them up for free on campus.

Luckily, I’ve cut down on the clutter since. Starting with the rise of e-mail, you could receive electronic versions of  subscription-based material you used to have physically. This e-mail model followed the old one: you were on a list, kept in the hands of the company, and if you grew bored of what they wrote you, you’d have to unsubscribe and ask to be removed from their list. Often the process to unsubscribe was cumbersome and nosy and sometimes it wouldn’t even work.

With RSS, the rules of subscription have changed. If you like something and want to automatically get updates, you subscribe. But you can leave at any time without having to justify why. I have shifted nearly all my previous reading and clipping and saving habits online. No more piles of paper, just accessible-from-anywhere content on Google Reader, Diigo and Read it Later.

Twitter certainly comes into play here too. As Nancy Friedman writes in “Twitter’s Language Problem,” Twitter’s content model is open, unlike other mutual friending social networks:

Yes, Twitter can connect “friends, family, and co-workers,” but its most valuable function—the one that most Twitter users single out—is its ability to connect you with people you don’t know. In that it’s completely unlike other social-media platforms such as LinkedIn or Facebook, which require permission to connect and which even (in the case of LinkedIn) warn you not to connect with anyone you don’t know. Twitter sets no such barriers. If I’m amused by Paula Poundstone or eager to learn from Robert Scoble or curious about the Library of Congress, I can follow their tweets. They can then choose to follow mine, or not.

What this means for people who write for blogs and Twitter:

Unfortunately, you won’t always know why a follower leaves. And that’s OK. But it means you’ve got to add value overall and with each post or tweet you write. Posting too often, depending on what type of content you offer, is potentially grounds for losing subscribers or followers, as is posting irrelevant or annoying material.

I subscribe to more than 800 blogs and follower more than 200 Twitterers–which, relative to you may seem excessive or just a drop in the ocean. This is not the post where I’ll discuss systematic organization of content that you do want to follow, whether closely or skimming. That’s for another day. Rather, I am interested in the new model of subscription and grounds for the unfollow or unsubscribe.

So, what have been your experiences of subscription in this digital age? Who do you see following the old-school model to ill effect? What are the main reasons you unsubscribe or unfollow from something/someone? Please comment.

The image is of me unsubscribing from Facebook updates, which I used to scan via my Google Reader instead of Facebook, because now status updates have been integrated with TweetDeck. Yay!

Advertisements

2 responses to “New rules for content subscription

  1. My main one is over communication, I have a few people I follow on Twitter who obviously post a batch of 8-10 updates in one go… far too much to read.

    Also, self indulgence, so many Tweets are about Twitter or the person who is tweeting, there’s just no need for anyone else to hear them!

    Maybe that’s just me being cynical though 🙂

  2. Yes, I feel link the difference between someone who posts 8-10 tweets at a time and someone who posts 8-10 tweets per day is the difference between someone who just likes like to hear themselves speak and someone who considers what they’re going to say with some degree of forethought. I make an exception for when people are live-tweeting an event that I find interesting, e.g. the content strategy consortium a little while back.

    Truly, the ideal for Twitter is for a conversational feel. You talk some and then you listen some. And not just declaring, but responding.

    Filtering who you follow on Twitter with TweetDeck helps with the signal/noise ratio too. For me, people I only peripherally know who might talk too much but who I’m not ready to unfollow are relegated to a skim-only column. You’re in another column, though, don’t worry. One I read more diligently 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s