Feed.us has taken a shot at the content management market and one that strikes a distinctly different approach to solving the typical problems with light-weight publishing. Via the combination of software-as-a-service (SaaS), XML data transformation and flexible input and output APIs, Feed.us thinks they've carved a foothold in the market. If they've played the cards right, it could be one that's going to make life easier for a whole lot of folks.
Come along for the ride as we spent some time in the mind of Feed.us co-founder, Rick Stratton.Create their own "Content Delivery Platform" and build a business around it, of course.
According to co-founder Rick Stratton, Feed.us is "is a hosted content management system or a content delivery platform... [the] intention is to host the content and then provide a variety of APIs to deliver any content to any site or application hosted anywhere on any platform."
Rick was kind enough to sit down with us to banter a bit about this latest venture into the SaaS CMS arena: CMSWire: So let's start with the original company, I believe it was called 1871 Media... Why was that company started and why did you choose to sell it? Rick Stratton: It started in 2000 out of the dotcom failure. We had worked for a company that had like 3 dotcoms, including a CMS company. It ran out of money and we were able to buy the software that we created for very, very cheap. So we started selling that software to customers.
We started doing work for political campaigns and newspapers and that became our focus. Basically 1871 Media had a suite of publishing products: newsletters, website management, ads and ecommerce. We had about 150 clients. We did everything from hosting, site design to even writing.
We weren't great at site design, and didn't have the resources to make our software great. We always wanted to just do the software and let others create/control the website design. And hosting sites is a pain as well... when Godaddy sells it for $2 a month! So our goal was to find a way to just do a hosted publishing service.
Plus, with all the software we had created for 1871 Media, it had gotten old and bloated... 4-5 years old is like ancient. There's so much more cool new stuff in the last couple years. We wanted to start from scratch and make something that would work great for us.
One thing is that I have a network of like 50 sites. And I've always paid a person to put them together. Plus they've all had separate CMSes for each one. The big thing is making a product that works great for my network of sites. That's the other motivation. Making something that really works for us. There are, obviously, way too many CMS products out there. But there are very few hosted or "content delivery" versions out there.
I'm not the most technical person, but the basic [idea] is this. There's one locally hosted file. It's a PHP or ASP or ASP.Net or even Ruby on Rails file. And there's one directory with read/write access setup [on the customer's server].
It could be on the $2 GoDaddy windows hosting, or on a server in someone's basement.
But because of our background... we've built some dogs, performance wise. We've made MANY mistakes. Since 1998... Lots of mistakes and headaches...throwing servers at the problems.
Performance is crucial. CMSWire: Then more a culmination of best practices around web app development and deployment. RS: I don't like getting text messages and phone calls at 2am! CMSWire: What is your target market for this product and how do you plan to monetize it? RS: We've got 2 problems.
We just discussed the first: explaining why a hosted solution is a good solution. The second is market.
I believe making a great product is key for creating a customer base. But creating a product that works for a particular niche also helps create a customer base. Our main, initial customer base is freelance and small firm designers that are not programmers. The other initial target market is domainers (people who host a ton of websites).
But really, the larger market is the movement from enterprise CMS systems to blogs.
That's the movement I'd love to address. I'm not sure that a couple guys in the Midwest will be able to make a real dent. CMSWire: We have talked about potential markets. Can you talk about your revenue model? RS: Sure. Freemium I believe is the term. We want to offer a free, limited version. Then a full version around US$ 3000. Then a reseller of sorts version just under US$ 10,000. CMSWire: What does US$ 3000 buy me? RS: US$ 3000 buys you the full product that can manage as many sites as you want. Multiple users and tons of file storage. CMSWire: If i am GoDaddy, why do I buy the US$ 10,000 over the US$ 3000? RS: The reseller (needs a catchy name!) version allows you to customize the look/feel and the domain name of Feed.Us. Your end-user customers can log into your own solution. It won't be Feed.us to them. CMSWire: With the premium version, your staff gets involved and creates a customized version? RS: Exactly. With the wonders of CSS, Feed.us resellers can customize the whole thing: logo, colors, etc. CMSWire: I am assuming that these numbers are for a year of service/availability and support? RS: US$ 10,000 is the setup fee and then a yearly maintenance fee. CMSWire: So US$ 3000 gets you in the door and then approximately 15% per year for maintenance and support? RS: Exactly CMSWire: What about organizations who want to use Feed.us inside their corporate firewall? Could they setup an internal instance? RS: We've thought about that.
There's a way to get the content to an internal network, securely, using the cached based object. If folks wanted a server version to have inside their facility, like Google does with the search appliance, we could do that as well. If people actually wanted Feed.Us, we'd be happy to make it happen. CMSWire: How do you plan to scale Feed.us up after it becomes publicly available? Will you leverage something like Amazon Web Services or will you manage the hosting of the app yourself? RS: We've got Amazon S3 built in for file storage. File storage is the one issue we thought we'd have for scaling our application. But we've built it from the start to scale easily. CMSWire: If I am an experienced Wordpress, Movable Type or Drupal user; why should I consider Feed.us? RS: 2 reasons.
Maybe you like long installations and you enjoy the pain of upgrading some people love that!
I'm serious, it gets their geek on. But Feed.us, once you understand it, is like 30 minutes or even less to setup a new site.
People enjoy having servers around them and installing software. I can't argue [with that] but a new site on MT... typically days. Templates, and all that stuff...
The other reason is that we can handle all sorts of different types of content. We're not just for a blog -- calendars, product info, FAQs. You can customize the fields to work for your writers and editors. MT and WP are restrictive there. CMSWire: If 2008 is truly "the year of the mobile web", how does Feed.us fit into the picture? RS: Feed.us works great for making multiple versions of websites. So IMHO, publishers need to have mobile versions for the coming onslaught of iphone/android/blackberry surfers. Feed.Us makes it easy to create a separate mobile site and/or create shorter versions of articles. CMSWire: Why .Net for the underlying architecture? RS: We are much maligned about this choice. Via John Welborn:
.NET is a fully object oriented programming language, not just a scripting language. .Net's multiple language support allows us to work with a variety of developers. Also, the Visual Studio development environment is powerful and easy to use.
The negative? .NET's approach to web development is as if you're creating desktop applications, not web applications. Also, AJAX is implementation is more challenging with .Net.
CMSWire: Thanks so much for your time... this has been great. RS: Thanks for your time, I love talking about Feed.us!
Although Feed.us is still in private beta, feel free to head over and request an account. After your test drive, we would love to hear what you think of this approach to solving our old and dear content management issues.