A VC« Like A Comic Strip? | Main | Why I Love Last.fm »
How Often To Post?
I've gotten great feedback on my How To Blog Your Way To Fame And Fortune post. I appreciate all the comments.
There is one point that generated a few comments - is posting at least once a day a good thing?
I wrote in that piece that I always post at least once a day. And the comments I got suggested that I should rethink that. One said, if you read the blog in a feed, why does posting every day matter? Another suggested that the volume of posts makes the blog harder to read and takes away from the best posts. And there is always the point that you should only write if you have something to say.
So here's my take on it. A blog is a conversation. It needs to be current and fresh. I hate going to a blog and seeing the same post at the top I saw last time. I want to be rewarded for the visit with something new.
In addition if I gave up the discipline of writing every day, there's a chance I'd never write again. Its a habit, a hobby, and its therapy of a sort. I don't feel complete if I haven't written at least once a day. My blog is like a public diary. I am writing as much for myself as anyone else, probably way more for myself to be honest.
I also think posting every day leads to a larger audience. I don't really know because I've never tried it any other way. But evidence suggests that the more posts per day on a blog, the more traffic it gets. Of course its not clear what is cause and what is effect. Maybe more traffic encourages more posts.
I don't think that everyone who blogs needs to blog every day. But I do. It works for me in many ways. And so I'll keep doing it
December 1, 2006 Random Posts | Comments (26)
Comments
I like a post everyday. I've slipped a bit myself, but will return shortly to that frequency as I move my blogging operation to my home.
Posted by: Tony Alva | Dec 1, 2006 9:59:24 AM
The same holds true for podcasting.
It's about brand building and staying in you audience's attention space.
http://foneshow.blogspot.com/2006/11/do-show-every-day-no-matter-how-short.html
Posted by: Erik Schwartz | Dec 1, 2006 10:00:42 AM
Human are creatures of habit, and blogs are habit forming. Just like the morning paper. I may not read it all some days, or some days not at all, but I am reassured everyday it shows up on my doorstep with new content. That's why i pay for it.
Fred, I say post ever day! Think of all those junkies out there that need a fix. :)
Have a nice day!
mike
Posted by: mcsteen | Dec 1, 2006 10:02:25 AM
Techcruch and Gigaom have made an error. I dropped them both. I simply cant keep up with the volume these days - and certainly have no time to immerse in the conversation - which is the main reason i used to read them. Posting frequency to me has two key requirements.
1. Categortize - so i know that i can skip certain parts of a posters topic universe that i am not interested in
2. Converse - i am less interested in a one way news notification service - far more interested in a topic or piece of news of interest that gets thoroughly discussed.
It seems like tech crunch and gigaom took a vibrant and conversant audience and are turning it back in to a one way flow of traffic.
Posted by: mark slater | Dec 1, 2006 10:25:18 AM
Another worthwhile related topic to discuss is: what about having multiple authors? There are several other very well-read blogs featuring multiple authors. 2 are mentioned in a previous comment here, both are really great.
But there's a big trade-off w/ this model: the reader gets a much greater volume and variety of news, especially useful if the blog's topic is comprehensive. But you lose that home-cooked feel, and the most sticky marketing feature of all: a personal connection. The beauty of a 1-author blog is that when you look at the blog, you adjust your mental channel to the personality you've come to know of that person, much like when you recognize a person in real life, phone or email, and start listening.
The multiple author blogs give you much-needed volume but lack that personal connection because they can't really deliver a consistent voice and personality-- you don't even know who the author is if you're reading in a feedreader.
Posted by: Ken Berger | Dec 1, 2006 11:15:05 AM
Posting once or twice a day is a perfect amount, IMHO. Like Mark already said, I can't keep up with the super high volume sites and always end up unsubscribing from them. I figure if there's anything really good on them I'll come across them elsewhere (like delicious popular).
Posted by: Michael | Dec 1, 2006 11:28:05 AM
As a reader, I look forward to knowing there will be a post every day. The blogs that have 10 posts per day make it difficult to follow. But a single blogger doing a few a day is perfect.
Keep up the great work Fred!
Posted by: Greg Harris | Dec 1, 2006 11:38:49 AM
I've always taken the "post when you've got something to say" approach. It makes me a bit inconsistent but I try to get something up at least every couple of days wherever possible.
"also think posting every day leads to a larger audience. I don't really know because I've never tried it any other way. But evidence suggests that the more posts per day on a blog, the more traffic it gets."
Actually I've noticed recently that in addition to the obvious new post = new traffic, it seems that new posts also somehow translate into more referred visitors to older posts (i.e. via search results). Probably just coincidence but who knows...
Posted by: Ryan Coleman | Dec 1, 2006 12:20:53 PM
Fred, I think your blog is great because you hit a few sweet spots:
- personal connection; it's just one guy, the voice is cohesive, i feel like you'll probably read this comment.
- corollary: the number of posts isn't overwhelming
- most importantly: ALL of your posts are good, and they are regular. you trim the fat. there is no "filler."
Posted by: EthanB | Dec 1, 2006 1:05:37 PM
I have to disagree that GigaOM and TechCrunch are harder to follow because they post more than once a day. They've got very good analysis and insight to push out.
The biggest difference for me is the "hey, check this out" posts with little conversational value add v. true personal or professional statements. Many bloggers lack the right level of insight and inquisitiveness in combination. I've noticed my favorite blogs have frequency (not necessarily daily) and analysis beyond the obvious.
Posted by: CoryS | Dec 1, 2006 1:21:16 PM
I completely agree with the "aaaaaaaah, too much" approach.
I put 2 post max limit on my blog, and even then I've started up a digest feed that gives a summary every 2 weeks or so for the people who just want to "check in".
If I'm getting 10 posts a day from one feed I just know I'm not going to read it anymore.
I also break things down into four major categories so people who only like certain aspects of what I write about can grab those feeds only.
Posted by: engtech | Dec 1, 2006 2:33:10 PM
I look forward to your posts daily Fred, like the commentor that likes his newspaper. It's because they are quality.
Posting short frequent posts allows me to skip the music posts if I don't have time, or the business ones. I think Social Media is finding it's spot in broad and not deep communication, on average. If you really want to know or learn something, read a book.
Posting frequenlty also keeps people from sampling other blogs, which I imagine retains your audience better. I check in when I can so the amount of exploring I do goes down as I add a few key blogs to my 'daily rounds' list. Tech Crunch and Tech Dirt both got put on my 'When I can' list because of too much volume.
I imagine there's something about the Attention Economy where it's easier to get someone's attention briefly and frequently rather than for a long period of time infrequenlty.
eeek, gotta get back to work.
Posted by: Lloyd Fassett | Dec 1, 2006 2:41:06 PM
I also like your >1 posts per day. I think it is especially effective in your case, since you post on a wide range of topics.
And I agree that if you as the author don't stick to the regimen of the daily post, we'd see the posts get fewer and farther between as time progressed.
However, there are certain blogs I read, that I prefer not to see post more often than once every few days. This would include corporatey-corporate blogs, and focused blogs where each post is more of an well-thought out essay or article than just an informal post. Guy Kawasaki's for example..
Posted by: Daryn | Dec 1, 2006 3:34:02 PM
I think posting frequency (as well as whether or not you want you blog included in aggregation platforms) should be driven by your goals. Max traffic? Making connections? Achieving catharsis? Generating ad revenues? It is hard for me to see how a "one size fits all" solution works. What everyone is saying is great - for them. And I really like hearing people's different views and getting a sense of what makes them tick.
I would love to post every day, but I don't feel I have something substantive to say every day, therefore I don't post every day. And when I post, they tend to be long (too long, I've been told by some), but they reflect what I really want to say. And that is what's important - to me. I love A VC - but it's not me. It's Fred. And that's why it's great.
Information Arbitrage is me. I've been told by people who know me that they can "hear me" when they read my blog. You know, edgy, sarcastic and pedantic all at the same time! And that is the kind of conversation I am looking for. Connecting without having to speak - to lots of people at once. And having fun in the process. That is why I love blogging.
Posted by: Roger | Dec 1, 2006 4:01:41 PM
GigaOM and TechCrunch are businesses. They should be posting multiple posts per day to provider their readers a reason to come back to the blog (thus, serve more adverts and make more money0. Personal blogs like yours, Fred, and mine, and anyone else's are really up to the reader. If you're writing much longer posts, I tend to think one would release a few per week as more time has gone into them and you want people to digest them. Just my 2 cents.
Posted by: Darren Herman | Dec 1, 2006 11:45:28 PM
I post every day because I like working on my blog every day. It rounds out my writing life and helps keep my writing skills sharp.
The conversation aspect is key. I've noticed that when a blog I frequent becomes dormant, I miss reading it. I ask myself, "Hey! What about us? The readers?"
That leads me to believe that posting consistency is important. Readers generally like to know what they can expect, and I think they also are testing (subconsciously?) if the blogger is really committed to producing a quality blog. Blogging is a two-way street.
Back to the recent "authenticity" discussion, I most enjoy the blogs that have a unique, authentic voice. "Blog fakers" tend to be boring because they spend their energies trying to imitate those they think are successful instead of having something substantial/interesting to say themselves.
Posted by: KG | Dec 1, 2006 11:47:42 PM
I feel if you have a passionate interest in personal development and world peace then the message in this website takes it to the highest ultimate advancement and understanding. Soul-purpose and sole-purspose is to change the world. Can you help spread the message?
http://www.worldwidenlightenment.com/
Posted by: Divine | Dec 2, 2006 6:28:16 AM
Fred,
I post about 4 to 5 days a week. Not because that's my rule; but because that's how often I have something to say. I think rules of blogging regarding posts are nonsense; post when you have something to say. Some days we might create three posts, sometimes none. But if the content meets our needs it likely also will meet our readers' needs. It's all good.
Posted by: Lewis Green | Dec 2, 2006 10:12:36 AM
I post every day. Developing a routine works best for me. If the juices are running & i write a lot of posts, i store them as drafts and let them loose when i have bloggers block.
Also agree w/ mark slater & others about overposting. Quality is a concern. Also, since I use RSS, if 1 dont check it in a few days and there are 100 posts from techcrunch I pass and reload. One or 2 posts a day is what we try to get out. Yeah, some days we go over but we dont make it a practise. Too much ice cream gives you a stomach ache.
Ultimately, it's a personal thing.
Posted by: jf.sellsius | Dec 2, 2006 2:38:43 PM
Awesome couple of posts and comments. They have helped me get clearer on why I blog and how to post. Mine is one of Europe's top VC blogs (although there aren't many of us....)
Posted by: Nic Brisbourne | Dec 2, 2006 3:14:46 PM
It seems to me it depends on why you blog. Conversation leaders do need to blog frequently in order to stay fresh, and there's definitely a relationship between post frequency and organic traffic generation (though i agree with others that above a certain volume threshold, blogs become less interesting).
But, like a lot of people, I only post when I have something to say, and time to say it. I think it makes my posts more considered, and since I don't blog to generate an audience - only to give people who care what I have to say a place to find it, and as an outlet for public expression of rants/raves/ideas - this works just fine for me.
Posted by: Greg Cohn | Dec 2, 2006 3:23:08 PM
i know its probably taboo to mention mainstream media in this context, but what the heck, I'm not sure why "blogs" will/should be any different:
NYTimes, WSJ and most major primarily-print media purveyors seem to have adopted a "print plus" schedule: 1 major multi-item posting (usually at crack of dawn) then a few minor postings throughout the day plus big breaking news on demand.
Personally I like this format a lot and hang on sites like these a lot, particularly WSJ and NYT
As 24/7 TV streamers, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC and that ilk seem to feel that they have to keep posting continuously during the day and so -- just like cable news -- the postings and content can feel a bit forced and undercooked. (Zero times X still equals zero not matter how big X becomes.)
Bloomberg terminals especially, and financial and weather and other such data services generally, post continuously because realtime data is available 24/7
The GigaOm's of the world seem to be struggling between their heartfelt desire to stay "outsiders" and not simply adopt or be co-opted by the conventions of mainstream media, and their head-felt need to be successful and so acknowledge that just because certain practices are conventional or mainstream doesn't mean they are not wise or practical
As for the more-or-less perpetually-non-mainstream side of the "blogosphere," (a term I find ridiculous in the current world of GigaOm and Huffington Posts, which are MSM if ever I saw it), that is, the universe of small or tint mostly personal publications, well, i'd argue such blogs are really souped-up versions of keeping a diary (albeit one you dont mind others reading) and i dont think any earnest diarest ever gave a hoot about quantity, only about quality, of entry...
Posted by: Steve | Dec 2, 2006 5:03:42 PM
I agree with the comment that the type of blog can determine the frequency of posts.
I think in the case of A VC, multiple posts work particularly well. But in the case of blogs that are more ruminations on a particular industry, or more essay format...or as Daryn refers to them, corporatey corporate blogs (heh!), I think posts should sometimes be limited to once daily for maximum impact.
I think for ours, we look to comment on issues and actions affecting our industry, Wall St., or public companies overall. It is a goal of ours to post more, however I think 2-3 posts weekly works in our particular case.
Thanks for discussing Fred.
Posted by: Paul | Dec 3, 2006 11:29:03 AM
bravo for posting once a day :)
Tim.
Posted by: Timothy Li | Dec 4, 2006 8:47:44 AM
Hi Fred, you are so right about posting everyday. Especially if you are new to blogging, like me. I am also maintaining a 2nd blog for my thesis on blog marketing and it is hard to post everyday on both. I am now posting almost everyday, but the posts are much shorter. What do you think, are short posts ok?
Posted by: Rhea de Bies | Dec 6, 2006 11:39:06 AM
Main RSS Feed of All Posts
VC and Technology Posts Only
