Comments on: Seth Godin wiffs one (or, How Not to Write a Blog Post)

By: How NOT to Write a Blog Post (Part 2 of 2) — The Disciplined Marketer

How NOT to Write a Blog Post (Part 2 of 2) — The Disciplined Marketer — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:47:46 +0000

[...] feed. Thanks for visiting!If you didn’t read the first post in this two-part series, called Seth Godin Wiffs One go check it [...]

By: The Flurry around Seth’s “Ads, Tip Jar” Meme

The Flurry around Seth’s “Ads, Tip Jar” Meme — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:46:32 +0000

[...] Seth Godin wiffs one. (from: The Disciplined [...]

By: Malcolm Auld

Malcolm Auld — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 01:02:37 +0000

Hey Landon

Like your attitude, but your second point about online ads is slightly incorrect. The term “impressions” refers to the number of times an ad is displayed and has no reflection whatsoever on the number of times it is viewed. The only gurantee an ad is viewed is if it is clicked-on. This is one of the great fallacies of media sales – that just because an ad is displayed it is viewed/read/heard by all thepunters who are consuming the media in which an ad appears.

If you believed media planners we’d all live to 150 and spend 24 hours a day consuming every piece of advertising in all media we come close too.

Keep up the good work.

By: 10 Questions: Crime Edition « Jame’s @ Work

10 Questions: Crime Edition « Jame’s @ Work — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:09:49 +0000

[...] Does Seth Goodin’s post on rewarding your content creators make sense, is he off-base, or is it a mix of [...]

By: Landon Ray

Landon Ray — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:23:14 +0000

Golly, Ken.. looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning…

At any rate, thanks for your thoughts.

Of course the “stingingly clever and penetratingly well written” part was meant to be funny. The ‘absolutely correct’ part, I’ll defend.

Seth did eventually clarify some, but in his original post he didn’t say ‘click on ads that interest you’. He said, ‘click something to say thanks’ and suggested it would be good if content consumers would make it a habit.

He even says, “You don’t have to buy anything (though it’s fine if you do). You just have to honor the writer by giving them a click.”

If that’s not asking for a disinterested click, I don’t know what is.

But, I also argue that EVEN IF we all agreed on this new ‘tipping’ protocol, it wouldn’t change a thing for anyone in the long run. (Seth’s eventual argument to the contrary is weak, but I’m not gonna get any deeper into this conversation.)

You’re right that it’s tempting to pick apart what others say, assuming the worst interpretation. In fact, that’s close to one of the reasons I’ll share next week on why bloggers shouldn’t write posts like this.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

(And for the record, yes, you are opted-in to our list. Am happy to remove you. Done.)

By: Ken Rosen

Ken Rosen — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:01:09 +0000

Hi. Landon.
I’m not sure why I got an unsolicited email recommending I read the post you “shouldn’t have written,” but I’ll presume it was legitimate based on signup at some point and I’m here, having already read Seth’s clarification. The most amusing part of your message is the part you added later: “despite being stingingly clever, penetratingly well written, and absolutely correct.” I cannot agree with “absolutely correct” and won’t comment on the other adjectives. To me, the problem with this post is you argue (and accuse of fraud!) based on your incorrect assumption of what the writer meant…or could have meant…without attempting to clarify. You took the weakest interpretation (blind, disinterested clicking/fraud) and explained how it wouldn’t work. But you miss or ignore the strongest interpretations, such as believing posters we trust will pick their sponsors carefully enough to justify a moment of our time. This argument with the weakest (often false) interpretation happens all the time on the web, of course, so no reason to beat yourself up about it. However, it seems worth avoiding.