viernes, 26 de octubre de 2012

Baekdal.com - Publishers, Beware of the iPad Mini - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Publishers, Beware of the iPad Mini - (by @baekdal)

    Yesterday, Apple announced the new iPad mini, and since it has the same screen resolution of the iPad 2 (and the same browser resolution of iPad 1,2,3,4) we have a bit of a problem as publishers. Here is the 10" iPad next to the new iPad mini, both showing the same app. As you can see, the difference in physical screen size makes quite an impact on the size of the text on the screen.

    Apple said that the reason why they didn't change the resolution, was that they wanted to make it easy for developers. It allows them to maintain the status quo, because no developer will have to redesign their apps for the smaller screen.

    While that might be true for many apps, it's not true for publishers who rely, to a large extend, on text. Because the screen is rendering the apps in the same resolution, the actual font size appear about 3pt smaller on the iPad mini.

    In other words, it's very likely that your font size will be too small to read in a comfortable way on the iPad Mini.

    This is not only true for publishers who have created dedicated apps for their newspaper and magazines. It's also true for web publications designed with a responsive design (like this one). Because the browser resolution is the same as on the 10" screen, every website designed to 'fit' will suddenly look like it was written with a 3px smaller font.

    There are two ways to solve this:

    1. You could detect the device (if possible) and create a specially designed template for the smaller iPad Mini. You will probably be able to do this within an app, but, at this point, we don't know if we can do same on the web.

    We have to check the iPad mini user agent (which isn't available yet), and hope that it identifies the iPad mini - instead of just an iPad.

    If it doesn't, we have a big problem, because there would then be no way for us to identify if our web publication is displayed on a 10" screen, or on the smaller 7.9". In other words, we would not have any way of adjusting the fonts to match.

    2. The other solution is to design all tablet experiences for the 7" tablet, and then just let it scale up to the 10" screens. This is far from optimal, but it's a lot better than an app that uses too small a font.

    There is also a third solution, which I wrote about in "Retina Displays are Tricky For Publishers", which is that we should abandon using pixels to define our formats. Pixels only works if our screens have the same dpi, but they don't. And as a result we get the mess that you see above.

    A much better solution is to design like we do in print, using centimeters (or inches). That way, we could say that 'this box' should be 10 centimeters wide and it would be 10 centimeters on all our devices, regardless of screen resolution, dpi, etc. Same thing with fonts. You would define the font size in how big it should be in centimeters, and that would then be the font size regardless of what device or screen people use.

    This would solve all our problems, but, alas, the people who make browsers are complete nincompoops. They have apparently never heard of the ruler.

    Here is a simple example. I took this picture earlier today of a box that I had defined to be 10 centimeters in width ... and as you can see, all the boxes are in different sizes:

    The actual size of a box defined as "width: 10cm"

    • Cinema Display: 10.1cm
    • Macbook Pro Retina: 8.7cm
    • iPad: 7.2cm
    • iPad Mini: 5.7cm (estimate)
    • Nexus 7: 5.9cm
    • iPhone: 5.9cm

    When I define something to be 10 centimeters, it should be 10 centimeters. What part of that does the browser manufacturers not understand?

    It's because of this tiny thing that we, as publishers, have so many problems optimizing our designs for mobile devices. All we need is to be able to define the physical size of a box, a font, or whatever, and everything would work beautifully.

    For now, we have to be content with creating the workarounds we need to make our apps and responsive web publications as beautiful as possible. Either by trying to detect the device and adjust the styles and templates accordingly, or just test every single device and implement whatever compromises that we need to make.

    And then we can all hope that soon the angry lady above will give Apple, Google and Microsoft a good whupping, and fix this problem. It's not a complicated issue to solve. All I want is to be able to say: "this should be xcm in size", and then that's the size it is ... regardless of what device it is on.

    It's not rocket science!

    Head over to my Google+ to discuss and comment on this problem.



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

martes, 23 de octubre de 2012

Baekdal.com (2 сообщения)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • It's a Mobile + Multi World - (by @baekdal)

    Earlier this week, three Googlers came out with a study looking how we use our tablets, and while the result is not surprising, it does once again illustrate just how massive the mobile trend is.

    First, when looking at what people use a tablet for, it's clear that we use it for pretty much everything, with email, games, and social networking taking up the top three spots.

    And when look at where we are using our tablets it is also clear that a tablet doesn't belong in any single place. Sure we our tablets a lot in the couch or in bed, but it's not limited to that.

    It's the same when we look at primary versus secondary activities. There is no single consumption mode anymore. We play a game or read a book while waiting. We watch TV while checking email. We check our social networks while eating.

    Arguable, this study is limited by its very small sample group (33 people), and as such we cannot make any conclusion other than the bigger multi-use trends. But it is still a very interesting study.

    And when then compare to another great (also by Google) looking our new multi-screen world, we see that not only do we use our devices in a multi-location world, we also use multiple devices throughout the day.

    You can see the full multi-screen study here (PDF, 46 pages, 115 MB)

    This is the future. Single-consumption mode is now a thing of the past, and you need to adjust for that.

    You can no longer make a product for just one device, one location, on time period, or one use. You have to be mobile + multi at all times. And mobile doesn't mean something you see on your smartphone.

    Mobile is a verb. It's not a thing, but an action. It's you as a person who are mobile, and we are mobile because we use different devices, in different locations, in different modes every day.

    If you limit your audience to a single consumption mode, you are working against their freedom to be mobile.

    I wrote much more about this in:

    In the years ahead, this trend will become even stronger, and soon it will be how we expect the world to work. It will expand to far more devices that what we have today. TV being one of them... but think of connected devices, across services and platforms.

    Head over to my Google+ post to comment and discuss this trend.



    Переслать  


  • Superman Quits His Job at The Daily Planet - (by @baekdal)

    This probably says more about the times we live in than most other things, but tomorrow Superman will quit his job at the Daily Planet... after disagreeing with the lack of value in today's papers.

    ... However, his still-strong feelings for Lois, combined with Daily Planet editor in chief Perry White getting on his case for not enough scoops on the Superman beat and his boss' boss Morgan Edge also giving him a hard time, leads to a Jerry Maguire-type moment where he quits in front of the whole staff and rails on how journalism has given way to entertainment ... in a not-so-mild-mannered fashion. (The Daily Planet has also been moving more toward the real world, too, with the newspaper becoming part of the multimedia corporation Galaxy Broadcasting.)
    Entertainment reporter Cat Grant also quits the Planet with him, and Lobdell says she'll be bringing "a whole other set of skills" to their next venture. It probably won't be at another media outlet in Metropolis, though.
    I don't think he's going to be filling out an application anywhere," the writer says. "He is more likely to start the next Huffington Post or the next Drudge Report than he is to go find someone else to get assignments or draw a paycheck from.

    via USA Today

    So what happens to the news industry when our heroes decide that they have had enough? See the trend here?

    Read also:



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

viernes, 19 de octubre de 2012

Baekdal.com (4 сообщения)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Newspapers Going Digital ... or are They? - (by @baekdal)

    The past 2 days have been fun. First the The Telegraph published the story that "The publisher of the Guardian and Observer newspapers is close to axing the print editions of the newspapers, despite the hopes of its editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger to keep them running for several years."

    The Guardian quickly said, "No!"

    But the truth is, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is that The Guardian isn't about to do any such thing.

    Then the Guardian wrote that "Newsweek to axe print edition. Eighty-year-old news magazine to go digital-only from the new year and will publish single worldwide edition."

    Which is actually true...
    here is the official announcement.

    Don't you just love it when the old media companies are fighting over who will go digital or not? :) ...and, more to the point, to observe the public's reaction to it all? Most saying something along the lines of "well, it was bound to happen at some point... wasn't it?"

    If this happened 10 years ago, the public would have been in a state of shock. But now it's expected.

    There are four reasons why print won't survive:

    1. Costs: Cost of distribution and cost of production.
    2. Time to market: In a connected world, it makes no sense to focus on a news product that doesn't deliver news when it happens.
    3. Convenience: While a printed newspaper is a very simple to use object. With digital you can stay in touch anytime, anywhere, on any device.
    4. Limitations of format: While text and images will always be a powerful way to communicate, we are not limited to columns of text and static images online.

    I'm reminded by HOT ROD Magazine. Back in July, David Freiburger, their Editor-in-chief posted a video about the future for the magazine:

    HOT ROD Magazine is a great magazine, and they are embracing the new digital formats in many very exciting ways. They just doing a great job.

    But... when it comes to print we see the same problem. In this video he talks about the rich history of the HOT ROD Magazine, and how they have expanded into the digital world.

    We are not just a print magazine. We got HOT ROD TV, HOT ROD Radio, huge events, apps, video shows on the MotorTrend channel on YouTube, all this stuff!
    And great things are happening with them, so I need to take all those opportunities from those brand extensions and fold them into the magazine to make the print product the best of all those things.

    Then he talks about how they captured a video about a drive, and how they will present that as a "rich experience" in the print magazine (where they can only do text and images... and thus no video).

    And then about making the first 'interactive print magazine', giving the example that when they do a survey on their website, they will print the result in the magazine. That's not interactive.

    There is no question that the print magazine is better than it was, because they can include information gathered from their digital channels. But the fact still remains that you cannot do any of these things in print. You have to do it in the digital world.

    So what they are doing is that they are trying to make us believe that the many limitations of print is actually a good thing. When, if they turned to digital only, they could do all of that and bring the videos, surveys and many other things directly with the content ... in an active and connected format.

    I understand why HOT ROD Magazine still focuses on print. For their target market, print is a very important format and will likely remain so for longer than most other magazines. But you should never protect the old at the expense of the new.

    Digital is not a 'brand extension'. It's the future. Instead of trying to convince people that the limitations of the old print world is actually the "best of all those things" (which it clearly isn't), HOT ROD Magazine should say:

    We are going to make our print magazine the best of what it can be. We are going to make it even more relevant by including many of the features we have from our other channels. But if you get our app or use our website, you get the best of both worlds. You get the best content, the most exciting stories, amazing pictures + videos, audio, radio, interactive guides, surveys, and you can follow us where you like, be a part of the experience, discuss topics with our team, see live updates from our road trips, and much more. HOT ROD Magazine is not about the format. It's about giving you the best stories, the best moments, and make you part of the best HOT ROD community.

    It's the same for the Guardian and Newsweek. It's not about the format. It's not about print versus digital. Print is going to disappear because it's more expensive, slower, inconvenient, and very limited. But you were never in the business of selling print in the first place. That just happened to be the best package you could use back in the disconnected world.

    Now we live in the connected world. So ask yourself:

    What is the best product than I can make today?

    Head over to Google+ to comment and discuss this article.



    Переслать  


  • 86% Thinks Journalists Are Misleading Them - (by @baekdal)

    The top question everyone is asking in the newspaper industry is, "Why won't people pay for news?"

    The answer, of course, is simple. You are not making a product worth paying for ...in a world of abundance where everyone is doing the same thing.

    After of years 'optimization' the news media have forgotten their readers. When newspapers optimize for page views, atomizes content, take popular clips from YouTube and present it as their own, writing deceptive headline to get one more click, focusing on finding scandals, and always finding the twist that gets more views... what's left is an angry reader.

    None of those tactics is in the interest of the reader. Instead, they are all designed to deceive the reader.

    Here in Denmark, Epinion, conducted a study looking at who people trust. Not surprisingly doctors, nurses, police and teachers scored the highest. While spin doctors, politicians, and journalists were the least trustworthy groups of all.

    More to the point:

    • 80% thinks journalists are too focused on sensational stories.
    • 70% thinks journalists are focusing too much on the negatives.
    • 86% thinks journalists are misleading them.

    (Via DR - in Danish)

    See the problem here?

    Why would anyone pay for this? It's not exactly the kind of product that is worth paying for.

    Worse is how most newspapers have reported this story. The journalists looked at this study and wrote articles focusing on how bad the spin doctors and politicians are... trying to divert the problem to somewhere else.

    Several journalists even put the blame on the politicians, saying that the reason journalist have a low trust score is because they are writing about the politicians. Others saying that it's because newspaper focus on change... and people don't trust change.

    In other words, instead of looking at their own industry, journalists are putting a spin on the story by saying that it's someone else's fault.

    When 86% thinks the journalists are misleading them, you don't try to fix this by using the tactics of spin doctors to point fingers at others.

    There is no reason why journalists should be dragged down by the politicians and their spin doctors. That makes no sense. It should be exactly the opposite. The worse the politicians get, the better people should see you... because your role is to protect the reader.

    You know, the reader? The one who doesn't want to pay for misleading stories, like when you are pointing fingers at others when it's really your own fault?

    As the GPS says: "You are heading in the wrong direction. Please turn around."

    There is a thing about trust. Trust has to be earned, and you earn it by proving that you can be trusted. It can never be someone else's fault, because you are still the one who has to prove it.

    ---

    Head over to my Google+ post to comment and discuss this article.



    Переслать  


  • Brands Versus Facebook Versus EdgeRank - (by @baekdal)

    Several readers have asked me to write about the drop in 'reach' on Facebook. What has happened is that Facebook has turned the dials on EdgeRank to force brands to spend even more on promoted posts for anyone not directly valuable to Facebook.

    Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus



    Переслать  


  • Why do you deceive people about privacy? - (by @baekdal)

    Lately, privacy has come under increased pressure, and we are now faced with a situation where people fear the internet because of the many ways people's privacy can be violated.

    What most people don't realize is that tracking is also what makes the internet so much better for us. Tracking is what allows you to read my post over at Google+, because without tracking Google would have no idea that you wanted to follow me.

    Same with advertising. If you are a single guy, would you want to be constantly bombarded with ads for diapers? No, of course not. Ads are annoying enough already... at least they should be relevant, right?

    But the advertising industry is shooting themselves in the foot. Instead of being honest about the advantages of positive tracking, they are still deeply focus on deception and trickery.

    How can you trust someone who are deliberately trying to deceive you every day?

    The latest story comes from Business Insider, "Apple Has Quietly Started Tracking iPhone Users Again, And It's Tricky To Opt Out"

    Apple has enabled IFA and IDFA tracking (which not a bad thing at all)... but in so doing, they have deliberately implemented it in a way that creates an untrustworthy relationship.

    For instance, in order to turn it off (if people so chooses), this is what you are faced with:

    1: iOS 6 comes in a default tracking on position. You have to affirmatively switch it off if you do not want advertisers to see what you're up to.
    2: The tracking control in iPhone's settings is NOT contained where you might expect it, under the 'Privacy' menu. Instead, it's found under 'General,' then 'About,' and then the 'Advertising' section of the Settings menu.
    3: The tracking control is titled 'Limit Ad Tracking,' and must be turned to ON, not OFF, in order to work. That's slightly confusing ... 'ON' means ads are off! ... so a large number of people will likely get this wrong.

    Every single step is designed to deceive. It's presence is not made known. The setting in deliberately placed in the least likely place people would ever look, and it's labeled to confuse people.

    Is this how we want to build trust? Is this how we want to let people know that we want to help them?

    Please stop deceiving our customers. IFA and IDFA is actually a pretty good thing. It's anonymous, but it still allows people to track for instance call to actions. Why the deception? Why not turn it into the positive thing that it is. A tool that we can use to create more relevance. And an honest choice.

    What do you think happens when ordinary people read Business Insiders article? All they see is the deception, which means that the next step is that they take out their iPhone, go into Settings => General => About => Advertising (which is listed at the very bottom of a long list), where they will turn it ON to turn it off.

    I just did it myself. Why? Because how can I trust this when then tried to deceive me?

    Let's focus on building trust. Let's be honest about what we do and why do it.

    Head over to my Google+ post to comment and discuss this article.



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

martes, 2 de octubre de 2012

Baekdal.com - Is There a Future for Traditional PR? - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Is There a Future for Traditional PR? - (by @baekdal)

    Editor's note: This article is written by Emily Davis. She is a digital marketer at Firehoop, responsible for developing and executing client marketing strategies (and very good at it too). But Emily is also the copy-editor of Baekdal Plus, and she has been helping me to improve the quality of Baekdal Plus both with her skills but also her refreshing insights.

    Public Relations (PR) is essentially about communicating, and communication as a discipline is undergoing a shift. One it cannot avoid. If you have read The Shift, you will know all about this change.

    With the social web, we can no longer simply broadcast our communications and with the mobile web, we can't dictate the format. Print is clearly in decline, although it is not obsolete. So, everything is changing and Communication Managers need to change with it.

    Letting go

    Today PR is less about channeling your message through the right media and more about making connections directly with your audience. Anyone can publish a 'press release' these days. You don't necessarily need a specialist agency.

    Your PR should focus on connecting people directly with your brand instead of connecting people with a faceless media channel.

    The role of PR is no longer about passive exposure. It's about the direct connection of brands with real people.

    We as brands, can't control how people think and feel about us anymore. But, we can help influence their feelings towards us and do as much as possible to ensure a great brand experience.

    However, the public are the ones who are really in control, not the brand or the PR agencies. Your PR must now focus on influence, or those that possess this influence.

    What I mean by this is that customers must have a positive emotional response to our brands for them to follow our journey and ultimately buy from us. So, who and what your brand is needs to be consistent and coherent. It needs to be explained in a way that is meaningful to customers, not just your board of Directors or your shareholders. With growing competition, brands need to be clearly understood so they stand out from the crowd and help customers decide if they want to buy from them. That's what will ultimately impress your shareholders.

    Whilst you can very easily broadcast messages about how you are 'Easy to work with', 'Friendly' and 'Forward thinking', unless you actually deliver on those messages then you will be found out. People will tell their friends (and even those that aren't their friends) over Foursquare, Facebook, Google Plus, Twitter...about their experience. If it's a negative one, remember that it will be searchable, and permanent. If it's an influencer, then it's even more difficult to recover from.

    So the hard bit...

    Make sure your brand messages are genuine, or that there's a plan for making it happen if they're only an aspiration. Then you can relinquish control.

    It's good to talk

    People will talk publicly and candidly about your brand on social media, forums and blogs - they won't hold back. We cannot (and should not) stop this. We can simply ensure our brands live up to their promises and that we hold our hands up when we let customers down (or change our strategy).

    As Ian Thomas (Director at New Tradition) pointed out in his excellent presentation, 'Individuals possess the same potential as organisations to publish content via a platform.' We don't need pots of money and we don't need complicated technology. He also noted that as human beings, we can't help but swap stories with each other.

    What stories are your customers telling about you?

    With the social web, it's a huge benefit that we can actually be privy to most of these stories, with the chance to interact, influence and be part of them. But how will you influence your audience?

    With traditional PR it was almost a case of 'speaking it into being'. Today, our audience is too savvy with their own tools, their own blogs and their own rights of access. You need to find the influential people in your industry and work with them to bring your story to your audience.

    When you've got that right, you can start to communicate why you are different and also why this is good. As Marty Neumeier (Director at Liquid Agency) puts it, you need to zag when everyone else zigs. Virgin Cola was different...but it wasn't good. The iPhone was different...AND it was good.

    Brand ambassadors

    Social media can be one useful tool for monitoring these conversations, influencing their outcome and affecting change. But if the internal culture is supportive, employees can also be part of those conversations.

    They can contribute to a positive public persona of the brand that is genuine and authentic. But we shouldn't try and control the use of social media by employees either. It's far better to embrace it as part of your brand culture and influence behaviour through useful guidelines than enforce a veto. This shift is not going to stop. You are simply delaying the inevitable if you try and clamp down on its use inside your office walls.

    One recent example was a BBC journalist who left and got a new job at rival TV channel, ITV. The very next day, she changed her Twitter ID from 'BBCLauraK' to 'ITVLauraK'. Now I'm pretty sure that the BBC's social media policy dictates that their journalists include 'BBC' in their Twitter IDs. Therefore this made it a company-owned account, hence the uproar when 'LauraK' changed the ownership and took it with her.

    Now, I don't believe a company can own someone's tweets. They don't own your conversations when you are in the bar. For the time you are employed by one company, you are automatically a brand ambassador - regardless of your role. Therefore you should conduct yourself appropriately at all times. That's just common sense.

    I don't believe in these 'Tweets are my own' or 'This is my personal opinion, not the opinion of my employer' caveats. Apparently under current UK case law (which will probably change) LinkedIn connections are actually owned by the company you work for (not you as an individual). That's crazy. And, I'm certain this will change.

    You are your own personal brand as well as an extension of the brand for which you work, you cannot separate the two. Social media can't make up for the fact that you have to engage your brain before you speak (or tweet).

    So remember, employees ARE your brand. They are the ones who are going to have to deliver on your messages. This is why it frustrates me when people think it's only Marketing and Communications teams who need to worry about the brand 'stuff'. It's just not true. As Thomas Baekdal explained, we are all in the same boat trying to get to the same place.

    So why then is Public Relations as a function, often isolated and separate from the rest of the Communications team? This leads to broadcast silos and even ill-informed or disgruntled employees. Messages need to be tailored for your audiences and not simply regurgitated press releases. That way your company vision can be understood internally, as well believed externally.

    Without this you can't be certain that you'll live up to those brand promises.

    Digital first

    All customer and internal communications should be digital first. This means that websites and intranets should be the source of the content. Other tactical channels should drive people there (social media, email marketing, flyers and so on). However, there is also a case for creating conversations where your audiences already are, without forcing them to go to your nicely branded website.

    But to do this without being perceived as disjointed or disorganised, create a communications plan which brings key parts of the business together. Get together in the same room because unless your Communications team are in the know, they can't tell your customers about it. So this is essential for collaboration and for capturing newsworthy content.

    Then, think about who is going to go out there and create that content? During this shift, a key element to success is finding the right people who have the ability to generate real content, not just rewrite a press release. Ask yourself:

    • How does your content inspire people?
    • How does it make them have that emotional response to your brand?
    • How does it make them understand more about you?

    A simple test is to put yourself in your customers' shoes and ask, 'Would I read this, link to it, share it, or remember it?'. If the answer is no, why are you posting it? Because there is very little point optimising your content for Google, if human customers don't care about it.

    If you haven't already seen it, take a look at the official DKNY twitter account. It's about life as a PR girl living in New York (mishaps and all). Now that's something I'll follow and it's the OFFICIAL account.

    The facilitators

    So PR isn't about telling people what YOU want them to hear anymore, it's about being confident in your brand so that you can be flexible enough to play with your key messages. You need to do so in a way that is interesting, useful and ultimately informs a decision to buy from you. You need to connect directly with your audience instead of thinking about your brand as an entity. No one will follow a thing unless it has human-like qualities. Allow your staff to connect directly with your customers. That's what will make them have a connection with your brand and want to buy from you...repeatedly.

    Often this lack of purpose creates an aura of uncertainty which in turn can cause your team to fumble and the message to be unclear. This is especially difficult when you have junior PR Execs or third party agencies working for you. So If your brand isn't defined enough in the first place, your team can only repeat the messages they are given (through no real fault of their own). Have some conviction or your customers won't believe in you either.

    In this new PR era, you cannot control the message, the format, where it ends up and who reads it. So, what can you control? You control your reaction, your flexibility and what decisions you make based on what you see and hear.

    As a Communication Managers we are the facilitators. We bring the right people into play at the right time, for the right cause - to surprise and delight our audience.

    Head over to G+ to comment and discuss this article.



    Переслать  






 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1