Comments on: Are People Who Share Better to Have Around than Subscribers?

By: Philip Roestamadji

Philip Roestamadji — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:19:42 +0000

I would definitely agree that it is important to gain “subscribers” that double as “sharers” to help distribute your content. I, myself, have found that I tend to share when I feel strongly about the content presented, but simply subscribe when I enjoy the read. This also brings up the idea of getting subscribers to participate in the conversation as well as reading/sharing.
Compelling content is certainly important, but the reason to share seems even greater if there is an active discussion of that content. In my case, I have a lot of very compelling content I read everyday, but the content I find myself sharing tends to be post/articles/etc. with an active discussion to follow. This is because (1) I find even more compelling messages/arguments in the comments that add value to the original content, and (2) the discussion makes the content feel more relevant and maybe interesting enough that a friend or colleague might also be interested.
Of course, this is all my opinion, so I leave it at that.

By: Mark Goren

Mark Goren — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:55:30 +0000

Agree with all of you that you need both. No question about it. My central point, though, is that you’re better off with “subscribers” who are also “sharers” because those are the people who help you in so many other tangible ways.
For one, they help you get discovered as the “plant seeds” on your behalf. And, secondly, you have a better idea of just how much your message (content) has hit home when it’s shared.
Sorry for replying so late. And, Ann, it’s nice to be back!

By: Ann Handley

Ann Handley — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:32:22 +0000

Subscribers or sharers? My short answer would be, “Yes.”
You need both, in other words, and the cornerstone of both relationships is good content. As you say, “Don’t fool yourself by counting people if you’re not connecting with them.”
Nice post, Mark! (And great to see you back here!)

By: eskimon

eskimon — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 06:06:50 +0000

Seems obvious, but ’social media’ are defined the interactive element. It’s only social if it’s sharing; otherwise it’s just the same old ‘mass media’.

By: Shonali Burke, ABC

Shonali Burke, ABC — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 02:36:31 +0000

It’s a bit of the chicken and the egg, isn’t it? If you don’t have subscribers, folks are going to think “you aren’t worth it,” and you’re probably going to shut down. If you don’t have sharers, you’re not going to get more subscribers, in which case you might have to shut down… or at least, change the way you do business. IMHO, they’re both important, so you need to cultivate them both. The silver bullet, it seems, is when you have active enough sharers who encourage more subscribers… and the cycle continues.
Just my $0.02.