Comments on: Growing Our Blogs: What Works & What Doesn’t?

By: infonote

infonote — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 21:23:55 +0000

The aim of a blog/website is to satisfy needs.
If you meet the user’s need, it is irrelevant if you get comments.
If the content meets the demand of the user, there will be viral marketing and links.
That is how successful companies started. By meeting a need.
E.g. Google, Apple

By: Ellen Weber

Ellen Weber — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:10:04 +0000

To pick up on Valeria’s and lewis’ interesting comments, I think we do and should change who we are daily – impacted by others and by ideas.
I agree that the purpose of any blog is to grow relationships, to share and to learn, and in ways that grow the brand, yet the kind of partnerships people look for are those that partnerships genuinely share a blog voice. We have to step out of comfort zones to visit one another’s site – but when we do we leave a mark there and take away parts that change us.
I also believe that we should change who we are as leaders in business, and that a genuine tone can us to become more authentically ourselves because we have gone past our comfort zones to meet readers where they are.
Did you know the opposite of change is called Hebbian learner? And it actually shrinks the brain they have discovered – I digress. Great site!

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 18:39:38 +0000

Thanks Valeria. Growing brand may result in growing customers but I don’t anticipate doing that directly through a blog. The purpose of my blog is to grow relationships, to share and to learn, which will grow the brand, which can lead to referrals, leads and partnerships.
I agree that we can tell a lot about others through their blog voice. I also believe that we should not change who we are to grow a business, as being something we are not or establishing a tone that isn’t true will ultimately hurt or brand more than help it, even if being ourselves (authenticity) means fewer readers.

By: Ryan Turner

Ryan Turner — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:28:42 +0000

Greetings Lewis,
I truly believe the questions you ask can be taken from a range of perspectives simultaneously, but motives play a big part.
The big one item for me, though, is that silence is relative: it may mean that you’re actually answering more questions than raising. If this is true, is there a need to seek “closure” some how relative to the information presented, or is there joy simply knowing that this is a significant source of information for folks, around which a large and growing community of professionals rely, refer, and feel they have to be “in the know” in order to be legitimate, connected, and effective? Strictly rhetorical, of course…
Is the real issue that the things you’re seeking to know better, in other words, have more bearing on you– content producer– than your immediate readership (or other audiences you might not realize), because it’s ambiguous (e.g. what the reader wants, or how they’re using it, etc.)?
If you wish more interaction, you may wish to adjust style such that you’re presenting enough “context” but not all the answers– enough space to ensure that. But who’s to say that’s what’s actually *needed*?
Other interesting observation: where there’s more peer interaction and less of a “classroom” style, civil and formal(read “stiff”) don’t have to stand synonmous with the other. The range of content can be more expansive.
Having the “host”/editor/moderator infuse their natural style and personality (read participating) vs. interjecting their opinion so heavily seems to make a difference if it’s a professional-oriented space. If it’s rant-oriented area, eh, everyone loves to rubberneck at a train wreck/slow meltdown, no? Who would have room to participate anyway?
[Simply a comment from a longtime reader, first time responder...]

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:51:01 +0000

Ellen,
Thank you for returning and adding more thoughts. Great contribution to the conversation.

By: Valeria Maltoni

Valeria Maltoni — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:49:38 +0000

Lewis:
You want to grow your brand through the blog — so you acquire customers? Who are your customers? What do you want them to do next? Do peers enter that strategy? Where do they fit? As possible partners/referrals? We often mix things up and want one medium to do too many things for us.
The secret to CK’s success is her ability to project openness — as in kindness, availability to help, and ability to think “with” you. That makes me, the reader, comfortable entering a comment. When I’m a guest at CK’s blog it is very clear to me what she does and what the conversation is about.
Toby is amazing at communicating responsiveness. As in “we’re in this together”. Her content matches her promise.
I haven’t met any of you in person and I can say for sure that there are verbal and visual clues to behavior and those exist in our blogs as well.
How do *you* invite readers to jump from the fence and enter the conversation with you? As with every integrated approach, it’s probably never one thing. But the first thing you need to decide is who you’re after and what you want them to do.

By: Ellen Weber

Ellen Weber — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:41:59 +0000

Must be a great post – because I am still thinking about it – and about the mind-bending ideas here that often get taken for granted.
For instance, I am really one who cares far less about numbers than about the kind of community that shows up and jumps in. Take this line-up say – and you get a ton of insights to step to, and good writers to boot. My site gets about 500 hits a day for which I am humbled (even though others get lots more). Nevertheless – the people I have come to know and exchange ideas with in the blogoshere make this work worth it and more!
Guess we are mostly saying the same thing – because when a person takes time to drop by and say a few few – it makes my day. They are also the blogs I get back to faster and join into their community more. Just another two – bits your post prompted. Thanks Lewis and all!

By: Ellen Weber

Ellen Weber — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:44:16 +0000

Cool research will support you on that one, Lewis, to show why lecturers love lectures and why listeners hate 'em:-) http://www.brainbasedbusiness.com/2006/10/lectures_work_against_the_brai.html

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:23:56 +0000

Robyn,
Thank you so much for the information. And, I agree, lectures do work against the brain. But for the lecturer, they can be so much fun. Ah, how we love to fool ourselves.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 12:46:17 +0000

Drew,
I think you are right twice:
1) think all the comments already made are valid ones. Look at this thread — you asked a question. You didn’t really present your opinion. And you generated a lot of comments.
2) CK is lots cuter than I.
Toby and Ellen,
Tone and objectivity do seem to matter. Thank you for your feedback.