How Often to Post to be a “Problogger.” My response to Problogger

May 18, 2013 — 1 Comment

skitched-20130518-213134

Those that have been reading this blog for a long time know that I speak with some level of experience: I founded the first blog about blogs early 03 (although I could argue 02…but lets be fair and not go there.)

I’m only bringing up the history because what I want to say is going to end in some level of argument. Darren Rowse, Jeremy Wright, Dave Winer and others can vouch for the fact that I was around in the old days, back when blogs couldn’t make money, and there was a massive outcry when some blogs did.

Enough of this though because I wanted to bring up a comment on Problogger I made where I disagreed with Darren Rowse.

Darren and I have disagreed about much more in our life, so I will make this clear that it’s not personal, I respect and love what Darren has done, and always appreciate the bloke.

But that doesn’t mean that I don’t disagree on this post:

How Many Posts Should a Blogger Post? [Pros and Cons of Daily Posting]

Let me say that the title, and the premise is bullocks up front. I have no doubt that Darren can run a site and make a fortune every day. Hell, I’ve seen his stats back when.

The problem now is that’s not a reality for anyone trying to make money now.

Here’s my comment on the site, judge as you will:

Darren,
going to agree to disagree with you on this one because if you want to become a serious “problogger” one post a day doesn’t cut it… let alone less than that.

Having written for major sites (including some of my previously owned ones) there is a direct correlation between quantity and traffic. The more posts the more choice you provide the reader, and the more Google spiders the site and you have the ability to get search traffic.

By no means am I suggesting you post rubbish simply for the sake of volume, but take for example my current project: I’m 8-15 posts a day on average, and the traffic suffers when I post less.

Different blogs, different horses I will concede, but likewise there’s a reason blogs like Mashable or Lifehacker have anywhere from 15-50 posts a day… it drives traffic and there is a proven correlation between posts and volume of traffic…and from your b5media days you’d know that ;)

This bullshit reality that you can run a blog and post 2-3 times a week and get rich…it’s not true, unless you are a genius, and lets face it most of us aren’t.

Posting once a day is a start but the same criteria applies: unless you are so bloody shit hot that people love you, you’ve got no chance at all.

As per my post to Problogger.net I’m not arguing for quantity over quality but I am stating the obvious: the more you post, the more traffic you get. The more quality quantity, even better.

The reality is if you want to ramp up a good site in the 9-12 mth period I’ve described here (to crack even, and 4aus.com is exceeding that) and on other sites you need to post and post and post, end of story.

Aside from a couple of hope pushers (ie who are selling books, courses etc etc as their primary income..) no one makes serious money from blogs unless they provide the volume.

In my past I’ve always employed writers. In the last year I haven’t been able to but I still do 6-18 posts a day.

You can get rich from blogging; I’m close again (for the 4th or 5th time post selling sites) but it means hard work, and very few people EVER make living money (500-2k ok, f/t no) posting at 1 or less a day, let alone decent money (2k +.)

Blogging gives what you put into it. The more you blog, the more you can make, end of story.

And I’ve been doing this for 10 years, officially this month :)

  • http://twitter.com/problogger Darren Rowse

    I understand what you’re saying – however a lot of blogs come to mind that post

    daily or less and still make a full time living from blogging.

    Of course some of them are big names who have either been at it for 10 years or who have brought profile to their blogging from other arenas – but then there are others.

    Here’s a few off the top of my head – all of which blog full time (or close to it):

    http://planningwithkids.com/ – 4-5 posts a week
    http://zenpencils.com/ – 2-3 posts a month
    http://www.hairromance.com – 4-5 posts per week
    http://www.bikeexif.com/ – 5-6 posts per week
    http://thestonesoup.com/ – 1-2 posts per week
    http://www.sarahwilson.com.au/ – 6-7 posts per week
    http://www.stylingyou.com.au 5-6 posts per week
    http://www.woogsworld.com/ 5-6 posts per week
    http://thedesignfiles.net/ – 7 post per week
    http://www.ladymelbourne.com.au/ – 3-4 posts per week
    http://simplemom.net/ – 5-7 posts a week

    Most are Aussies and while none are new bloggers they’ve all been blogging at about the same rate that they do now for as long as I’ve been following them.

    I guess what I’d say (and perhaps should have said in the post) was that I think it partly depends upon the niche and partly depends upon the way that you monetize the site.

    The above list has a variety of niches (fashion, beauty, design, personal, cartoons, parenting) and they monetize in a variety of ways (selling virtual or physical products, sponsored posts, selling ads directly to advertisers, paid memberships). Interestingly from what I can see none of the above rely upon ad network ads.

    The hope with my post wasn’t to argue you don’t have to write much to have success – in fact I outlined some good reasons for writing more content than less – rather I was hoping to highlight that there was no one way to run a successful blog and ultimately it comes down to how much quality content you as a blogger are able to sustain over the long haul.

    Each to their own I guess. I’ve found my traffic has gone up on ProBlogger since dropping back from the peak of what we were doing (18 posts per week) down to the 5 we do per week now. It’s enabled us to increase the quality (and in some cases length) and in doing so we’ve seen higher traffic and engagement.

    It wouldn’t work for all blogs but I’ve heard a few bloggers reporting the same thing of late.