The Reader Appreciation Project

Should you jump into affiliate marketing?

5 Reasons Not To Avoid Affiliate Marketing

Read more…

Is your blogging avoiding these 2 deadly trends?

5 Things Your Blog Should Avoid

Read more…

Do you ask customers for sensitive information?

6 Sensitive Things Customers Hesitate to Divulge to You

Read more…

Are you abusing the concept of appreciation?

5 ways to abuse appreciation through blogging

Read more…

Are your new blog readers better than old ones?

What do many banks, airline companies and your blog have in common?

Read more…

Do you subscribe to The Wall Street Journal?

Wall Street Journal Business Model Assumptions on Mashable

In one part, the article talks about the paid subscription model that WSJ has where it charges customers for access to many of its news articles. The article says the following:

From mashable.com:
More dangerously, other sites have avoided linking to the WSJ’s articles because it’s highly likely that their readers won’t be able to access those stories. In fact, a study published earlier this week showed that although the WSJ had more than double the number of print subscribers as The New York Times in 2009, it was not one of the most-linked-to news outlets on blogs, Twitter (Twitter) or YouTube (YouTube). Thus the company has lost, and continues to lose out on, both potential subscriber and page view-generated ad revenue.

The last highlighted sentence in that quote is a big assumption based on several fallacies. Here are a few reasons why you should realize this assumption and avoid similar kind of assumption on your blogs and writings:

• The Wall Street Journal focuses efficiently on a specific paying-customer client market. It makes money through an increasing subscriber base. Therefore, logically, we cannot assume that WSJ is losing money by not focusing on other specific client markets like Twitter or Facebook. WSJ has chosen a specific focus as part of its business model, the same way Mashable has chosen the free-content-with-advertisements focused client base as part of its business model instead of a subscription-based content model.
• WSJ does not need to depend on an incoming number of links because WSJ makes money mainly through paying customers. Thus, incoming links is of little use to WSJ. This fact is either misunderstood or ignored by Lauren in her article. In reality, it is companies like Mashable and TechCrunch that depend on incoming Twitter and Facebook links.
• Lauren does not list any sources that suggest The Wall Street Journal is losing revenue because of not being linked to from Twitter, Facebook or YouTube due to its existing business model. Thus, the above quoted final judgment about WSJ business model is simply an assumption based on a personal preference of what businesses should be like.
• The very fact that WSJ focuses on its own content and custom business model, instead of traditional online model of getting backlinks and advertising traffic, is what makes WSJ successful online compared to many other newspapers. The article incorrectly depicts this fact as a shortcoming, instead of an advantage.

Avoid fallacies when observing other business and website models

The article serves as a very important short guide for learning how different kinds of mainly offline businesses in the newspaper industry can make money in the online world. At the same time, however, the article falls victim to one of the biggest assumptions and pitfalls in any business: assuming that if one model works somewhere, it must be copied and made the standard everywhere else. Contrary to what the article says, The Wall Street Journal does not need to focus on getting incoming links from Twitter or Facebook, which is what Mashable does.

What is your opinion on this? Do you think the newspaper industry, or The Wall Street Journal, should focus on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube more? Do you think Lauren is correct in assuming that The Wall Street Journal is losing out on potential clients and should focus on getting more backlinks and attention from Twitter, FaceBook and YouTube?

Please share in the comments below. Thank you for reading.

It happens to many people. It probably happened to you too. Someone online has gotten upset over something you said or did through one of your online profiles like your blog or MySpace. Such a person may be disagreeing with you constantly over something, and also exhibiting a lot of anger. They may not be stalking you, but they also may not willing to ignore the things you say or do. How do you deal with someone who constantly disagrees with you or wants to argue and fight with you online constantly?

I have discussed the idea of giving up in winning arguments as a way to end fierce disputes. In such cases, while you may be completely right, you have to realize whether winning an argument will result in the same benefits and peace as would simply ignoring or losing that argument. So how do you deal with a reader who is constantly upset? Today I will tell you 10 ways through which you can try to deal with someone online who is constantly upset over your public online presence and writings. Read more…

While shopping at my local grocery store, I noticed that my store now offers financial services. Within the advertisement is a quotation: “What a great idea!”

When I first saw the advertisement, I just mumbled to myself some expletives and continued my shopping. The quotation reminded me of Sony when they made up a quote from a fake critic. The key word here is fabricated quotes.

Another example of this is at a chain restaurant. The restaurant is hiring, and on the advertisement is the quote, “A great place to work.” I was half expecting an asterisk with some small print adding, “…for some people.”

I suppose the addition of these quotations is just a decent attempt at self-marketing. Adding in these quotes perhaps is trying to reproduce the word-of-mouth effect that works so well. The problem is, I don’t know the people behind the quotes, so I could care less who said what.

The beauty about a blog is that there is usually a decent person behind it. And from this blog, we can get a feel for who you are, what you like, and whether we can trust you.

It’s one thing to have a nameless recommendation, it’s another to have a recommendation from a trusted friend.

I’ll conclude with a quote from Liz Strauss’s transcript from WordCamp:

So if you go to a website, or you’ve got a product, bring your experience to it.

I want to know how you felt using it. I may not feel the same way, but if I’ve been reading you, I can extrapolate from your experience whether I like it or not.

If you’re a friend of mine, I can extrapolate from your taste in music whether I like it or not.

So blog your experience. It makes you more real.

I quit!

Ok, not really. But how many times have you told yourself that when it comes to blogging?

If you’ve been in the blogging game long enough, you probably know quite a few bloggers who have quit.

Some quit because:

• Subscribers weren’t growing
• Traffic wasn’t increasing
• No money was coming in
• Their page rank took a hit or was too low
• Their site was blacklisted by Google
• They received too many negative comments
• They didn’t receive enough comments
• They were burnt out
• They were too busy (school, work)
• They had personal obligations (child, spouse, parents)
• And more…

Within the past two weeks I’ve read a few posts that I consider rather thought-provoking. One was about a blogger’s responsibility to the readers, and the other was about blogging pains. Both expressed confusion for what the future held for their blog and their readership. And believe me, I share the same thoughts constantly.

And confusion over the future, or lack of purpose, is intimidating. Even Lorelle VanFossen says it’s a good reason to stop blogging:

Stop blogging if you don’t have a purpose: Honestly, you don’t have to blog if you don’t want to, and if you don’t know what to blog about, don’t. If your blog has no purpose, stop blogging.

You can probably relate to Lorelle’s quote. It’s hard to find purpose on a blog. And it’s demoralizing when a purpose can’t be found.

While at WordCamp, one phrase from Liz Strauss was a huge motivator. The phrase? “They come for you.”

You are the one unique value on your blog.

The information is everywhere. But you are the one who molds it, shapes it, and brings your experience to it.

As Liz puts it, readers come to a blog to read your stuff. And if it’s a multi-author blog such as this one, readers come for your writing, and perhaps others’.

Because, as Liz puts it, “Information — straight, clear information — is all over the Internet. But you aren’t.”

Conclusion

People will quit blogging. It’s a fact of life. Some blogs have just run their course.

But for those questioning why they should keep going, perhaps it’s for those readers that are coming just for you.

I’ve thought about quitting many times. But it’s often the readers that keep me going.

I was in a local restaurant this week when I made a small observation. My Diet Coke was going on empty, and a person who wasn’t my waiter came up and asked, “What are you having, Sir?”

“A Diet Coke, please.”

“Sure. I’ll be right back.”

The guy brought a new Diet Coke back, and my waiter also returned and exclaimed, “Oh, you already got your Diet Coke. Wow.”

Working Individually Harms the Customer

The waiter that I had at the restaurant was relatively new. And unfortunately my drink went past the empty mark, and a fellow team-member came to assist.

However, what if nobody came to help? I, as a customer, would have been dissatisfied with the service.

What if the staff was okay with my dissatisfaction? After all, I wouldn’t be leaving the other waiter the tip.

The individual mentality only works in the short-term. Long-term, I’m a customer of that particular establishment. If I receive one bad experience, it doesn’t reflect badly upon that particular waiter — it reflects badly upon the establishment as a whole.

So if a waiter interjects and helps out another waiter, the customer will be satisfied. The customer’s chances of returning are high (long-term). And quite possibly, that first waiter could have the returning customer, who can now leave that valuable tip.

The Team Environment in the Blogosphere

Multi-author blogs are not so different when it comes to the restaurant mentality. Authors are in charge of their own section, and in charge of their own readers (customers).

If readers want to leave a tip, it’s through comments, ad-clicks, and links.

With a team environment, however, an author sees the entire blog’s readers as their readers. A reader who comments on one post might as well be commenting on their post. A reader who is dissatisfied with one author might as well be dissatisfied with all authors. And a reader who expresses love for the site, also expresses love for the individual authors.

I’ve been apart of multi-author blogs where each author worked in his or her own sandbox. I didn’t like it.

Now I’m apart of a few blogs were the authors are in constant contact. We make decisions together. We coordinate posts and schedules. And we answer the reader questions, even when they aren’t on our own post.

We work as a team. And I’m grateful to be apart of something like that.

Conclusion

With multi-author blogs, it’s easy for each author to work in his or her sandbox. However, a team environment is much more beneficial for both the authors and the readers.

An author’s article and comments represent the site as a whole. And if other authors jump in to assist, the reader and the site are the beneficiaries.