Disqus - Latest Comments for prostylus

Re: Five Benefits Your Ghost-Blogger Can Never Deliver

prostylus — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:13:06 -0000

Thanks for weighing in, Lisa.

Like they say, if the wheel ain't broke, don't reinvent it... Or something like that. ...You get the point.

Re: Five Benefits Your Ghost-Blogger Can Never Deliver

prostylus — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:11:22 -0000

I agree, Corey. It is all about the content. The question that a lot of businesses neglect to ask, however, is what package or medium enables their content to reach the target audience most effectively.

A blog is a very specialized - one might say highly individualized - type of package. Unlike static content like webcopy or newsletters, blogs blur the line between the content and its creator. In a sense, the blogger is part of his or her content. So, it's a mistake for businesses to assume a corporate blog is like any other vehicle for their marketing message.

Re: When Should Content Be Free?

prostylus — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:27:24 -0000

Thanks DD, I'm glad you found it helpful.

Re: Cult of the Obvious

prostylus — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:47:31 -0000

Like they say, "media" is the plural of mediocre.

Who can disagree with you, Stuart? Here's an obvious statement: social media is a good thing. Sure, and so is civilization. I like it that no competing tribe members invaded my territory this morning and beat my breakfast out of me.

But at the same time there's something unnatural at work in both civilization and social media. They're great in concept, but there's this intrinsic impulse to make them spread like cancer.

In the case of social media - specifically blogging, although this also applies to Twitter and Facebook followers - there's a tendency to believe that MORE equals VALID. More followers, more content, more frequently posted content... whatever. The unconscious assumption is that all it takes to be a thought leader is to put more skin in the game. But by this logic, the lead steer in a stampede qualifies as a thought leader, or the first lemming off the cliff.

This impulse to post something - anything - as frequently as possible goes against everything I know about writing - particularly writing about ideas as opposed to, say, news. Ideas take time to gestate, particularly new ideas that we haven't heard a million times. Writing can actually accelerate the gestation process, but very few bloggers dare to think out loud. Most are in a hurry to bring us the WISDOM. For every 100 blogs about self-promotion (or self-absorption) maybe one will actually aim for engagement.

My favorite blogs (and blog posts), however, are the ones that show some reflection. They' may be a reaction to ideas posted elsewhere, but they're not simply contradictory. Rather than simply agree or disagree, they advance the conversation, apply a personal perspective or raise new lines of inquiry. Those are the blogs (and blog posts) worth waiting for.

Re: When Should Content Be Free?

prostylus — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:29:18 -0000

Thanks Greg. As a copywriter, I'm basically a tactician. But I take a lot of my cues from the strategic thinking that you and Brian blog about.

Re: When Should Content Be Free?

prostylus — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:39:34 -0000

Thanks Kim, and glad to hear my perspective is substantiated by a real-world corollary. Sounds like a case study might help you make your case with your other clients. ; )

Meanwhile, I see a lot of black & white thinking in marketing these days: inbound vs outbound, social vs traditional media, registered vs free content. The either/or perspective makes inviting blog content. But in the real world, there are no bad marketing tools, only misapplied ones.

Re: Take the Higher Ground

prostylus — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:51:53 -0000

Point taken. Far be it for me to devalue the creative element. It's my bread and butter.

I've gotten in the habit of playing devil's advocate though. I don't want to remain complacent, and assume the traditional power of static messaging will never fade. In the age of social media, creative content developers like me had better be prepared to adapt to a landscape in which brands no longer control the message..

Re: Take the Higher Ground

prostylus — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:28:42 -0000

I agree with your underlying premise. In fact, you could argue that winning the higher ground doesn't merely help to win battles, it's what signals the battle is over. Rather than out-Google Google, Bing had to fight a different battle.

At the same time, the notion of brand positioning sounds out of place on a blog about social media. Now that customers can openly discuss a brand, there is no higher ground to control. Social media is the great flattener, and positioning is no longer a matter of finding the highest rooftop from which to shout your message.

Case in point, Audi can position itself as the leader in electrical drivetrains. But when electric cars hit the market, customers will be thinking with their wallets and the conversations will start.

I'm guessing hey won't be talking about which electric drivetrain is the best, but rather how long it will take for the fuel savings to amortize the higher upfront cost of these cars. In other words, Audi may have positioned itself as the leader of a market for which consumers aren't ready yet - and, depending on the price of oil, may not be ready for another 15 years.

I'm not suggesting that brands should lead from behind, but simply that the strategy of positioning has changed. It's becoming less about claiming higher ground, than finding the common ground between your business objectives and stated customer expectations.

Re: The Fearful Secret of Copywriting Success

prostylus — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:29:23 -0000

There's a fine line indeed between building relationships through open sharing, and leveraging those relationships to pay the bills. This topic is really a question of finding balance rather than selecting the right path. Like they say: in nature, there is no right or wrong, only consequences.

Thanks for sharing...

Re: Your Story is More Interesting than You

prostylus — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:24:12 -0000

Thanks, Jason. Your example of the engineering/design/test company illustrates my point exactly. Features are just details. People want to hear the benefits, the value.

Benefits comprise narrative. They imply a conflict (e.g. the current inadequate way of doing things), and resolution (e.g. how life could be better). That exactly mirrors my point that value = narrative.

And, again, you nail it with your point about the human touch - particularly in B2B. Consumers may buy brands. But the same doesn't always apply to business. Business decisions are based less on a feeling or experience (i.e. what consumer advertising aims for), than on risk and returns. A solid narrative or track record helps prime the pump for attracting new prospects, but it takes a real person to establish a connection, build trust and maintain the relationship.

Your perspective is always welcome here. Virtually any rule of solid business copy has its corollary in teleprospecting. They're two sides of the same coin.

Re: The Ethics, Or Lack Thereof, Of Ghost Blogging

prostylus — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:21:28 -0000

Exactly... I blogged at length recently to map out a new model for the "corporate blog" that repackages it as an "industry blog." The new model aims to build credibility and authority by informing and educating readers about the industry-at-large (e.g. trends in the supply= or value-chain, IP, government regulation, etc.). ...All from the company perspective, of course.

The "company voice," as you put it, can then be be legitimately delegated to one of the thousands of unemployed trade journalists out there who understand that sort of mission.

Bottom line: I think ghost-blogging is a symptom, not the disease. If a business feels it needs to hire a ghost-blogger to write for the CEO, it's a good bet the blog (and business) lacks a clear marketing strategy.

Re: The Ethics, Or Lack Thereof, Of Ghost Blogging

prostylus — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:30:01 -0000

I've buttered a lot of bread by ghostwriting articles, so I can't exactly speak against it. To my mind, the biggest ethical question there is whether or not the bylined author or speaker takes ownership of the content.

But I also recently blogged at length about ghost-blogging, and there's still a lot left to explore on the topic. For me - as a reader not a writer - the ethical differences between ghostwriting and ghost-blogging arise from the medium.

The value of static content (e.g. articles, speeches) is in the information or perspective of the by-lined author. I'm interested in whether the position they take has any merit or value. I'm not thinking about whether they wrote it.

Bloggers also take a position. But the position they take is an invitation to discussion. That's the difference.

Blogging is - or should be - a conversational medium. If I make a comment, I want to know that the by-lined author will read it, and that they'll be the one who responds. I want a relationship with them, not some middle-man toadie.

So, frankly, ghost-blogging has less to do with ethics as it does with effectiveness. Why have a blog if you don't intend to engage with your readers? Either take an active role, or fashion your blog to present a more anonymous authorship and delegate accordingly.

Re: Black Hat vs. White Hat Social Media and the Battle for Common Sense

prostylus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:07:02 -0000

Props to you, Rebecca. You just turned your blog back into a conversation about ideas... That took courage.

Re: Black Hat vs. White Hat Social Media and the Battle for Common Sense

prostylus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:43:19 -0000

I'm with Marc et al.

I admit I've used my blog to poke at ideas presented on other sites. Ruffling feathers can attract traffic.

But there's a huge gap between challenging someone's ideas, and attacking them personally. Calling someone clueless builds walls, not bridges. It promotes cliques, not communities.

Communities promote the growth of their members, whereas cliques attract like-minded people more interested in detracting from others than examining their own point of view.

Basic etiquette aside, personal attacks are a short path to making your blog irrelevant.

Re: http://www.prostylus.com/Blog/?p=120

prostylus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:45:03 -0000

Jay, Danny,

Oof, did I imply that I dislike interviews? I really meant to say I dislike fluff, and celebrity interviews are often just that.

Sample question: Where you always this amazing?

In fact, I LOVE a good interview. I just think it requires an interviewer who is as interesting and engaging as the interviewee.

And, yeah, I thought Jay delivered on both (and yes, Jay, I also went back and read some of your other interviews. In addition to the ones you recommended, I also liked Beth Harte.)

I particularly found Danny’s comments on blogging to be very affirming, namely that he spends 80% of his time commenting on other blogs, and 20% on his own. That’s a practice I had already intuited, which helps explains why I started the Friday Link Love feature on my blog. I wanted credit for some of my best thinking, which happens in the comments section of other blogs. (This week was a little different: I only commented on one of the blogs I mentioned in the post.)

That tactic led me to discover another one: pingbacks attract traffic, and often high caliber traffic. You two aren’t the only uber-media who responded to my post. Suddenly, the Link Love feature isn’t a toss-off. I’d better compose my Friday posts more thoughtfully in the future because clearly the people I link to will likely be reading me. Lesson learned.

So, I give you both a lot of props for finding (and demonstrating) very clever ways to spin conversations out of your content. That, to me, is really the whole point of a blog – whatever it’s ultimate purpose. It’s nice to be read. But it’s even better to elicit a response.

Thanks for commenting, and for modeling what blogging’s all about. Big fan here.

Re: http://www.prostylus.com/Blog/?p=120

prostylus — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:43:45 -0000

Well, Peter, now you know why I generally take more time when commenting on blogs.

You didn’t misunderstand at all where I was going with my comments. But please don’t assume, just because I’m willfully driving my wagon into a ditch, that I am myself. We all have off weeks when the words aren’t flowing, or the clients are slow to return calls, or the self-marketing doesn’t appear to be catching a spark.

So, yeah, probably not the best mindset from which to dash off a comment on your blog – or on mine…

That said, you score a very clear point by reminding me that good copy is defined by how well it makes the phones ring, increases traffic, etc. Under that definition, I agree, good copy is the supreme marketing tool - unless your clients begin to view you as their secret weapon.

Either way, thanks for the reality check.

Re: Has “Social Media” Worn Out Its Welcome?

prostylus — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 09:54:34 -0000

Interesting side note on WOM. From yesterday's NYT Media and Advertising section (http://bit.ly/4dUkIG):

A study released today titled, “Communications Industry Forecast,” from the private equity firm Veronis Suhler Stevenson, indicates that despite all the bad news swirling about the media industry, it is expected to be the third-fastest-growing economic sector over the next five years, according to The New York Times’ Stephanie Clifford. “Almost none of that growth is forecast to come from shrinking traditional media, however,” Clifford wrote. “Instead, it will be drawn from areas like word-of-mouth marketing and public relations (with a 9.2 percent compound annual growth rate from 2008 through 2013), branded entertainment (9.3 percent) and the Internet and mobile devices (10.2 percent).”

Re: Has “Social Media” Worn Out Its Welcome?

prostylus — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:16:47 -0000

I think I can sum up your post in one sentence: Social media makes a better adjective than noun.

Social media is a much more effective term when I know what noun it modifies. Are we talking social media platforms (Twitter, blog, online corporate-run community?), social media technologies (Drupal, APIs, etc.), social media strategies (open source, networking, customer engagement), social media networking?

When people argue semantics, it's usually because they didn't begin the conversation by defining the terms they're sharing. "Social media" compounds the problem because it isn't even a completed term. Give me a noun.

For the record, I share your basic view that social media always comes down to conversation and community. But even defined within those boundaries, the term contains some vast stretches of foggy territory.

Re: No Respect: The Freelance Writer and Social Media

prostylus — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:59:59 -0000

Sara, you're comment applies in the context of traditional media.

But I'm specifically talking about ghostwriters who represent clients in interactive forums, like blogs.

When you comment on someone's blog or you Tweet them, you'd like to assume that the same person you're addressing is the one who is reading and responding to you. The underlying point of social media is to build a relationship. No matter how well you coach your ghostblogger, he or she is still an invisible middleman between you and the people who think they're investing in a relationship with you.

So, my point is simply that hiring a ghostblogger is intrinsically more disingenuous than hiring a ghostwriter.

Re: Social Media Beachhead

prostylus — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:54:39 -0000

I can't deny that social marketing solutions make an increasingly well-baited hook for businesses, but I dispute whether they deserve a C-level position. (This isn't as off-topic as it sounds.)

Social media is a marketing path like, say, channel marketing. It has a legitimate place alongside other marketing pathways and tools. It may even be the tool on which hangs the rest of a business's marketing strategy. But that doesn't make SocMed more than one tactic among many. So, to your point, it can decisively win battles, but not the war.

The beachhead is a good metaphor for SocMed's value in RFPs, but don't forget: D-Day's success was followed by the failure of Operation Market Garden.

Re: The Story of Me

prostylus — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:28:39 -0000

"I help companies learn to be human at a distance for their business communications needs."

That line jumped out and hit me in the head (ow). I live on the other end of the state in the rural Berkshires where there are very, very few opportunities for freelance copywriters. So, building authentic human relationships at a distance has been key to my survival. Apparently, people now call this "social media."

I recognize you didn't necessarily intend that line to be a description of SocMed. But it's probably the best one-line summation I've ever seen.

Re: No Respect: The Freelance Writer and Social Media

prostylus — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:15:19 -0000

Chad, your point about disclosure intuits one tack I've considered taking for the second post on this topic. Plus, I liked how you illustrated your point with the idea of love letters. You could say the same thing about posting Comments on someone's blog. Nobody - at least no one I know - hires a ghostwriter to do that.

It's interesting how often I've seen speechwriting come up when the topic of authenticity is discussed. I don't have an issue with speechwriters, or with ghostwriters (like me) who create static materials like white papers. I don't think it's inauthentic to hire someone to ensure your message is as clear and compelling as possible - so long as you own it.

Re: No Respect: The Freelance Writer and Social Media

prostylus — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:06:34 -0000

Nadine, thanks for commenting. I acknowledge that a skillful ghostblogger can help solve the immediate logistical issues of generating content. He/she can also make the bylined author appear more articulate. But blogging is, by nature, an interactive medium, and its ultimate goal is about building relationships - starting right here in the Comments section. I would argue that a ghostblogger, by definition, contradicts that purpose.

Re: LinkedIn Strategy: I'm Sorry, Do I Know You?

prostylus — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:02:25 -0000

BC, if you could use some additional socmed perspective from rural Western Mass, feel free to tweet me at @prostylus.

Re: LinkedIn Strategy: I'm Sorry, Do I Know You?

prostylus — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:46:55 -0000

I’ve found I’ve become a lot more selective about adding new Linkedin connections the higher my own numbers go.

The question used to be how much potential professional value an invitation signified. But lately I’ve begun asking myself how well I’ll be able to actively maintain a new relationship.

If you can’t sustain professional relationships, it doesn’t matter whether you have one connection or 1,000.