Good Riddance Seth Godin

For months, I read in numerous sources that Seth Godin's blog is the shiznit. I started reading his book "IdeaVirus," and that clenched it for me. I visited his site, found his blog and subscribed via RSS. After nearly one year's worth of reading his tripe and after far more deliberation than it deserved, I've deleted my subscription to Seth's blog.

Why? Well, the reasons are numerous, but mostly I grew tired of allowing his usually myopic, reactionary and hackneyed postings to stir up negative emotions of audacity within me. I gave him permission to market his thoughts to me for too long. It was high time that I cut the ties.

Why did I continue to read? Well, he's not always so off-base. Sometimes he has great things to say, relevant things and astute observations. Mostly, I stuck around because I wanted to have common ground with the rest of the online marketing "tribe." Speaking of "tribes"...

Most of you Seth fans already know about his latest book, "Tribes." Hopefully not too many of you bought it and got the free copy instead. It irritates me that Seth would try to coin a term that was already coined when he first published "IdeaVirus." In his latest book, he's tried to positioned himself as the visionary behind the concept of online tribes. But fact is, his book is really only based on observations of activity that has existed for over a decade.

In "IdeaVirus," Seth thought he cleverly coined the term "hives." Now, he might argue that hives and tribes aren't the same thing, but at their core, they are. He was hoping that the term "hives" would catch on, but he neglected to think about the negative connotations associated with that term - lack of individuality and the association with a rash, to name two.

With the term "hive" never truly taking off, Seth must have made some conscious decision to capitalize on the term that organically surfaced: "tribes." My hope is that you will not be one of the thousands taken in by his latest opus. If you read "IdeaVirus," you should already know that articulation is not one of Seth's strong suits.

Some other reasons I've unsubscribed to his blog include the following:

• Seth doesn't allow comments on his blog. He is guilty of violating his own maxim of permission marketing. He markets AT us, not with us.
• Seth believes nobody cares about you. Sure, he had a point that there needs to be some commonalities, that a person has to feel a vested interest in knowing you. But he was dead wrong when he said that nobody cares about you. Just go visit YouTube, go read blogs with enabled comments, go join Twitter. You'll find that people do indeed care about you, more than you might even be comfortable with.
• Seth is reactionary. If he receives service he deems subpar or an inconvenience to him, he bags on the business without considering the bigger corporate policies at work. Seth is a something-for-nothing kind of guy who is always surprised and appalled when people don't drop everything to serve only him. It's painfully obvious Seth has never worked an entry-level service job. I have, and based on his tales, he is the worst kind of customer - one who takes out his frustrations on the help, who's main concern is following SOP so that they can keep their jobs. Don't beat down the employees for following their employer's rules, Seth. You just look like a jerk when you do.
  

Today in the US, millions of people are casting their votes for candidates and measures that matter to them. Today, I cast my vote of discontent with Seth Godin and expel him from the office of online marketing guru. His knowledge has been shown to be wane, and I welcome my newly acquired liberation from the tyranny that is the facade known as Seth Godin.

Join me, won't you? If you subscribe to Seth's blog and find it equally as irritating, unsubscribe and let your voice be heard.

Note: In case you hadn't figured it out already, this will be the last time you will have to read any Seth-related rants.

Is It Typical to Earn $2,000 Per Article?

The June issue of Writer's Digest featured a workshop article on marketing reprints. There's no doubt that you can reap financial benefits by recycling past articles, but the numbers they quoted seemed a bit outlandish.

Although I'm sure it happens for a lucky few, I firmly believe that it is highly unlikely that you are going to receive $2000 dollars for an article... especially in today's market.

With the closure of more and more print publications, the WD article sets up an unrealistic expectation for those reading it. With continued cuts at papers like The New York Times due to ever-declining subscriptions, the odds that you'll earn two grand for a story about fitness is beyond unlikely, it's a pipe dream.

I'm sure some well-established writers continue to make some nice bread for their contributions. But the fact is, the most your likely to get paid for 750-1000 words is about $100. A lucky few may rake in as much as $500, but it's a rare case when such good fortune will come your way.

From most all the lists I have received, the more typical payscale is much more disparaging for anyone hoping to pay their bills for their writing skills. Time and time again, I receive notifications that offer to pay $5-15 for 750 words.

I don't mean to discourage any aspiring writers out there. I just hope you realize that magazines like WD, although a great source of information on writing, are well behind the curve in terms of the market.

Perhaps, they aren't as behind as I would think. Maybe they are trying to remain cheery and optimistic in these dark times. If that's the case, my hats off to WD. If not, by all means, hire some writers who have a better handle on the state of the market.

I realize this article lays on the gloom and doom rather thick, and it offers no real solutions. If you know of a few great paying markets, I'd love to hear about them. Share them below in the comments.

Google Docs Can Now Generate & Track Polls

Google is continuously developing collaboration tools that are housed online. Google Docs, although limited in their functionality, are a terrific way to work from a distance.

You can use Google Docs to create word documents, spreadsheets, and PowerPoint presentations. All offer stripped down versions of their Microsoft counterparts. You can export and import all files. You can even turn a Doc into a presentation with a click of the mouse. You can share all your docs with team members and choose who gets to edit the material and who can just sit by and watch in on your development.

Now, Google has created a way for you to create and track polls. Whether you send them out by email or embed them in your site, all answers will be sent directly to your spreadsheet, updating it with the latest results. Below is my test poll:


Please help me test out how well the latest and greatest from the folks at Google works and take some time to answer the poll. In hindsight, I realized that I didn't include "none" or "GMail" as options. My apologies.

----------->
After posting this, I noticed these issues with this poll...

Issue #1:
No way to customize text colors. These polls are not especially suited to blogs with dark color schemes.

Issue #2:
I chose to have visitors choose multiple answers, but the poll you see above only allows single responses.

Issue #3:
Post polling message shows up in scroll box? This is ugly, ugly, ugly. I prefer the Blogger sidebar polls over these, as the poll then shows the current results.

Conclusion...
Google, you need to add some elegant touches to this before you roll it out en force.

Why Do Alexa Rankings Even Matter?

Google admitted somewhat recently that PageRank does not necessarily affect a page's search ranking. After all the hype about the importance of PageRank, and after Google adjusted their algorithm causing many highly ranked pages to drop down a notch or two, most of the gurus came out and told us PageRank doesn't matter... focus on keeping a high Alexa ranking instead.

Now, Alexa has announced that they are changing their ranking system, too. Instead of basing a page's ranking via those who have the Alexa toolbar installed on their web browser, they are expanding to include every user on the net (or something similar). Why? Well, most of the people who install and use the Alexa toolbar were programmers and site owners. I had no idea!

This change has caused me to think about the legitimacy of Alexa rankings. After all, if it was only the programmers and online marketers who used the toolbar, how are the rankings an accurate reflection of a site's popularity?

I don't know why Alexa chose to switch their ranking system, but I'm glad they did. In making the switch, they have stepped into the Web 2.0 era and handed control back to the people, those who use and populate the internet in greater numbers than the programmers and marketers.

Beware of FREE!

Here's a quick warning about that favorite word in marketing: FREE!

Sure, we all know the saying - "There's no such thing as a free lunch." Yet, simply paying for shipping and handling on a high priced item that you won in a contest, like a laptop, is definitely close enough to count as "free." But what about offers that aren't as free as the promoter would have you believe?

Let's use the lunch metaphor. Say you read copy that says something along the lines of "Have a Free Lunch on Us!" Like most of us, thanks to the cliche, you are understandably skeptical of such an offer. What the heck, you think; your interest is piqued so you click on the link to find out the details. That's when you see it...

A page opens with lengthy copy that says that in accepting these "free" meal vouchers, you are expected to not only write a review of a set word count but you must also have the review written by a specified deadline. On top of that, you must sign off and agree to re-pay the dollar amount of the food voucher you receive if you do not meet the deadline. How is this a free lunch?

On top of the obvious, that this is not a "free" lunch but a form of contractual barter, the amount of the food vouchers will barely cover the cost of the meal, if that. Also, tips and alcohol beverages are not included, so you end up covering those costs out of your own pocket and essentially end up paying to write your restaurant review.

Does such an arrangement border on false advertising? Or is this acceptable practice?

I don't think it's okay at all. It's deceptive and probably deserves some attention from the Better Business Bureau. If it's not free, call it by its true name, whatever that might be.