He’s giving it away! Hurray!
Notes:
This discussion post is inspired by the many conversations I’ve had recently about the near obsession people have with getting high volumes of traffic to their blogs.
Whether by using sophisticated software, strategies, secrets and/or giving everything away for free, I’m wondering about the relative merits of this ‘do whatever it takes’ traffic-mania.
What’s your opinion? What’s your experience been? What lessons have you learned?
Let’s discuss this in the comments below.
Your thoughts…
Should we all be doing whatever it takes to build high volumes of traffic to our blog? Why?
More RADSMARTS
Stay inspired, motivated and right up-to-date by subscribing to RADSMARTS
Share your opinion by commenting on another ILLUSTRATED discussion
Get a 1-minute business boost by watching BLACK CHAIR Business Mentoring TV
19 Responses to this post
May 14, 2010 at 8:27 am |
Your illustration says it all. A picture really does paint a thousand words.
May 14, 2010 at 9:32 am |
I *know* we have lots to discuss on this one, Catherine!
Thank you for kicking us off.
Best, Robin
May 14, 2010 at 8:44 am |
A subject dear to my heart
and it’s great you’ve asked the question Robin.
Traffic is vital because it gives you an audience. But there is a dichotomy regarding the approach we (isca) use and the approach on here. What do I mean? We specialise in publishing content to be read. Therefore, it’s far more broadcast (even though it will, at times, generate considerable discussion) and so, we need to reach as large an audience/readership as possible. The sky’s the limit.
I’ve mentioned social capital in earlier discussions. Traffic is social capital. I know this doesn’t fit into some people’s view of social because in real terms it’s broadcast. However, from a business perspective, social capital/traffic is life-blood for two main reasons.
1. It allows negotiation with partners/advertisers/clients/sponsors i.e. it gives us something to sell. I wouldn’t go into any commercial situation whether with isca or representing any other company and try and negotiate a contract on the basis of ‘we had a really good discussion online.’ I’d need to have numbers. You know how big a fan I am on the numbers game!
2. Content may be king, context is important too – but the bottom line is that the greater the audience – the higher the conversion rate. If, say, we forecast that 2% of traffic would convert. It’s a lot healthier and desirable to have traffic in the tens of thousands as opposed to the hundreds. But, it’s all relative.
We can get all philosophical about these things. But my own view, and my ruthless online business strategy, is that without an audience, we don’t have a product. We can analyse this to death, however we all know the value of a spreadsheet and the balance books.
I feel so passionately about this from both a media and a business point of view.
Best wishes,
Luke
May 14, 2010 at 9:46 am |
This is top-shelf, real business input, Luke. Thank you.
It’s very useful to see your welding of a bottom-line business based strategy to your online presence.
Thank you for this transparency.
Pursuant to building shared understanding for readers, some questions arise:
a) From a net profit perspective, approximately what ratio of return comes from your point 1. Online partner negotiation compared to 2. Online conversion?
b) What role do your off-line activities play in the generation of your online traffic e.g. PR;
c) 2% conversion seems high. Is this because you have a clearly defined audience that respond well to online purchase?
You’re a good man Luke, and a highly valued member of this community.
Best, Robin
May 14, 2010 at 10:11 am |
It’s the early hours in the UK so I’m feeling a tad mischievous and the finger’s hovering over the invoice button
You’re most welcome re. the input and I hope it adds value. As I’ve said before, this is a very safe and mature platform for business discussion. I value that enormously. I love and admire the way Radsmarts stays focused on the commercial aspects of all our various business activities. It’s singularly THE most useful platform I’ve come across.
I will reply fully in the morning.
Best, Luke.
May 14, 2010 at 2:24 pm |
LOL!!! I typed in the RADSMARTS url to fuel my thinking about improvements to my own online strategy … having just explained to a colleague how busy I’ve been this week yet not invoicing the level I want – therefore the paradox – if I’m so busy what have I been doing if not invoicing …
and then, I see your illustration. I want to print it out and stick it to my computer to remind me that there is a balance.
I agree with Luke’s position – without an audience you don’t have clients … the trick, as he eluded too with that cheeky suggestion of raising an invoice, is to know when to say to the client – “you know what, it’s time for you to pay for this.”
*My* strategy is about driving high quality, highly targetted audiences to my sites … not about volume as such … though I know that as the tribe expands my ability to generate sales will increase (purely a numbers game).
For me it’s about creating a collaborative, supportive tribe – readers who want to hear what I have to say, will pass on my information to their tribe and fit closely to my target market.
It’s also then being very clear with that tribe *how* they can give you money. My lesson has been people love reading my blogs and enjoy my interactions, insights and thoughts on social media platforms … but I don’t give them (at least in the past) enough *reasons* for them to buy from me. So my correction is being generous in sharing those opportunities. I previously held back thinking people don’t want to be sold to … actually, they want to know *how* to work with me.
In summary – no, we shouldn’t be doing whatever it takes to get high volumes of traffic. We should be doing whatever it takes to reach, connect and engage with our target market … and giving them opportunities to buy.
May 15, 2010 at 8:43 pm |
Thank you, Cat. I appreciate your input here.
From a commercial perspective, there seems to be two audiences (generalizing to keep things simple
):
a) off-line: those who find and do business with you through conventional word-of -outh recommendation and/or respond to traditional awareness raising and demand generation activities;
b) on-line: those who connect with you on-line – via social media, blogging etc.
Have you analyzed the difference in cost of client acquisition between the two broad groups?
What makes me a tad nervous is the ever increasing workload involved in building and ‘curating’ an expanding online audience given the extraordinarily skinny conversion rates (Luke’s 2% aside – wow!
).
The risk is that the numbers may never make sense – and that one may become exhausted and broke way before the project could ever truly payback for all of the sweat-equity, time and resources invested.
Polemic?
Party-pooper?
Let’s discuss.
Best, Robin
May 16, 2010 at 8:18 pm |
You raise a very good point about the different cost of acquiring an ‘online’ vs ‘offline’ client Robin.
For me, as an advisor in a crowded market of ‘advisors’, ‘broadcasting’ my opinions, theories and therefore hinting at my approaches to solving client problems is a far more ‘efficient’ way to connect with my audience than meeting individuals one-on-one for the tried-and-true ‘coffee-conversation’. Yes, that one-on-one conversation still needs to happen for a genuine prospect … but by the time we get to it they’re asking ‘how do I work with you?’, not putting me through some kind of audition.
I like Linda’s analogy of the movie trailer to movie – and your build Robin to the ‘share-market’. Of course though there will still be tyre-kickers in the share-market … which is fine – they’re not taking up my time by reading my ‘free’ content.
The people I focus on when creating my ‘share-market’ is the people I *want* to work with … I know that if I write for them … and give them opportunities to subsequently buy … they more likely than not will ‘sometime’ … and will also refer others ‘just like them’ (which means more people that I want to work with).
The kicker for me then is to strategically decide where to invest in this ‘share-market’ and how much time I invest. The share market that you have created here Robin not only meets my criteria of like-minded people but it challenges my thinking … so my investment is returned with profile building but far more valuably, intellectual and professional development.
So no Robin … not polemic … just probing and strategic
C
May 14, 2010 at 4:32 pm |
Great topic Robin which I am very passionate about, thanks for posing the question.
My input as a person obsessed with BUILDING traffic to my clients websites to give them the maximum ADVANTAGE over their competitors.
I am constantly searching for methods if bringing more visitors to a website for 1 reason BUILDING google search ranking. The more channels I connect to a website to funnel visitors to the website the more attention google pays to the website and improves its ADVANTAGE over its competitors. Sure there are a percentage of visitors that don’t convert but when a great clients want to find ‘a WordPress specialist’ all the work building ranking pays off.
I got off the phone to write this email after quoting for a decent project with a potentially brilliant client who found me via google.
Need I say more.
May 14, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
Tony
Absolutely love seeing those powerful share words in use!!!
I would also say that building traffic to your website/blog etc provides endless opportunities to network and learn – I have had the opportunity to meet and work with some amazing people over the last few years just by getting involved and have increased my knowledge in the area of social media by reading posts, subscribing to feeds and searching for “experts” in my fields of interest
May 15, 2010 at 12:36 am |
If one believes the 1000 fan theory, giving away your information/product is great for creating the ruckus (as in your cartoon above) so that people flock to see what all the commotion is about ~ But in the end they’ll only convert to $’s if
a) there really is a benefit in it for them – Why can’t they do without you/your product? and
b) (unlike your cartoon) they’re given the opportunity to convert and buy whilst inspired and hot under the collar with what your unique offering can do for them –
A blog I think should be a bit like a trailer – a teaser that gets you on side, but poses more questions than it answers – They have to then pay for the whole movie to find out how it ends
May 15, 2010 at 8:29 pm |
Thank you for joining this discussion Linda. You add a richness to it.
On-line there seems to have emerged a majority pay-no-money economy. Call it a ‘share-market’. We share content for views; e-mail addresses for e-books; follows for follows etc.
Certainly, there are people making money-based transactions online. But the real question for me is, why should we believe that people who are attracted to our sites by our ‘free’(i.e. pay-no-money) offerings will *ever* convert to fee.
Surely these free-seekers are just participating in the share-market outlined above.
What do you and the other readers think?
Best, Robin
May 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm |
Having just been listening to Seth Godin, its all about being a Linchpin
http://mt6.make-tracks.com/site/article/booked-for-lunch-webinar-with-seth-godin-watch-it-now
May 15, 2010 at 7:52 pm |
Hello everyone,
that’s an interesting discussion here, and I’d like to contribute a few thoughts.
There’s nothing wrong about free. Free is great. Except it is no guarantee for continuous traffic on your site, right? Most sites are free, so basically you have to put in more value in order to retain visitors’ interest. More in than out – source of conflict.
What is also great is having the opportunity to support something without having to, and that leads us to donation based funding, which is nice and good, but of course no reliable business model. Nevertheless it’d be interesting to see how people feel about the value of something they have obtained for free, meaning if Robin set up a donation box on his successful share words post, how much would people give for their result deliberately? It worked out well for Radiohead — but is that an exception or an example we’re still resisting to believe in?
And, something that came to me just a few minutes ago, the critical factor is not money any more, it’s time. The time difference between something being absolutely novel and becoming common is getting shorter, and sometimes success and failure depend on how fast you can implement the latest knowledge to get an advantage over your competition. The keyword here is, I believe, sometimes. I think what’s really important is to be such an expert in your field that you can estimate whether the implementation makes sense at all — or not. Here’s another reason: From a client’s point of view, the choice of what you can put to use for your business is so vast, how do you know what to combine with what to get the best results for a given budget? You don’t have the time to read through all the free advice, you need someone who’s already done that and give you the full range of options in 10 minutes, right?
I think that’s something Robin does quite well — remind people to focus on what they’re good at, because that’s what makes them the most money. And that’s what real professionals not only know intellectually but embrace emotionally, so they have no problem spending money on you to help them advance. Amateurs do it the other way round.
But I’m getting a little off track here.
So back to the original question, is obsessing about traffic sensible? If traffic turns a stranger into an occasional visitor, an occasional visitor into a regular one, and a regular visitor into a fan that either buys your product or recommends you to one of their peers, then yes. But doing something for free is no guarantee for traffic/success, because most of the stuff out there is free. The point is, how remarkable is what you are doing? Is it worth spreading? Do people feel like they should tell a friend? These are the questions to ask first, I believe.
I’d love to have *your* opinions on this.
Best,
Erik
May 15, 2010 at 8:14 pm |
Nice, meaty inputs from you, Erik. Thank you.
‘Free’ is such an interesting word. From a commercial perspective, I would argue that there is no ‘free’. For example, nothing on this site is given away for free.
It’s true that no money has changed hands. So we have zero-cash transactions taking place – but they are far from free.
People come and invest their time, ideas & thoughts in exchange for one or more of many things:
* the chance to express an opinion;
* the opportunity to debate an idea/issue;
* the exposure to different thoughts and ideas;
* the understanding of context i.e. blogging strategy & tactics;
* the gathering of content (points, pictures etc);
* the chance to connect with other people with aligned interests;
etc
It’s what I call a share-market.
The pursuit of quantity and/or quality traffic only makes sense to the extent that it serves your online/offline strategy.
So the real question is: what’s your strategy?
Thank you for progressing this important discussion, Erik.
Best, Robin
May 16, 2010 at 8:31 pm |
I like Luke’s (from Isca Media) point. Its a great way of looking at it, “Traffic is social capital.” So true. Its not about doing whatever it takes to drive traffic. I get scared by that as it suggests compromising reputation and integirty. In their recent paper “The Million Follower Fallacy” the authors talk about influence (I’ll be blogging about this next week) but its a good read which is related to your question especially around the number of followers etc! Catch the white paper here:
http://an.kaist.ac.kr/~mycha/docs/icwsm2010_cha.pdf
May 21, 2010 at 8:31 pm |
Thank you, Ann. Another very useful contribution you bring to the table.
Best, Robin
May 19, 2010 at 10:35 pm |
You’ve got to have traffic or you’re dead in the water. If you can’t see your stats going up month by month then you’re doing something wrong. If they never go up you should stop. If you get a traffic spike you need to know why so you can repeat it. If you get a traffic slump you have to try to find out what happened so you can avoid it. Checking twice a day is enough though. If I could limit it to that I’d be happy. Stat checking’s so addictive it’s not funny. It’s that external approval I need when I shouldn’t!
This site looks better with your art and FB, YouTube, Twitter things. Nice to give people the choice of reading, watching or interacting:)
May 21, 2010 at 8:33 pm |
Thank you, Annabel. Well, I’ve got to keep up with your blog and its exciting new look and feel.
Enjoy your stats!
Best, Robin
Trackbacks