Credibility through Adversity
An interesting thing I've noticed in following political blogs is how the right kind of adversity can also build one's reputation. People don't like arguers, but they respect opponents. In fact, opponents are often preferred to run of the mill supporters, because they provide both motivation and material. Mentioning a blog discussed yesterday, Megan McArdle recently started bringing up another blogger named Kathy G. Kathy never posted on Megan's blog, she instead posted a long rebuttal to a post of Megan's on her own blog. She attacked Megan's ideas, was a little snide, and in general didn't deliver a particularly damning point.
Megan not only countered, but has since referenced her blog again, and not really in any sort of critical light. It was really interesting to see this, because it flies in the face of how one might think to build up links. Kathy posted nothing on Megan's page, not even in the comments section (several people do this to advertise their own links, and seldom get promoted to one of the main posts).
(I'll warn you in advance, this is all speculation of mine. However, think about it in terms of what might make the most gripping reading for people who flip and scan information. I don't have it all hammered out, but I think there's something to it).
I think the key to all of this is here in Seth's blog: drama. Kathy started an intellectual debate with Megan, but didn't resort to outright ad hominem attacks (though there was a bit of a veiled ad hominem attack). This raises the tension at the blog, creating some (but not too much) drama. So Megan, in this new "storyline", if you will, is interacting with this other blogger, and in a sense welcoming her into the community she's a part of. Kathy's arguments were completely spurious or vicious, so they could be dealt with. That gets her blog introduced. Now, this other blog is out there, and Megan is interacting with it, probably knowing Kathy will be a future sounding board for her ideas.
How is this useful? I would suggest that to build an audience, you do so by saying things that are attention grabbing. If you have a good argument against something you've read on another blog, voice it! Comment in the comments section, and if you have a readership, give an even longer rebuttal on your blog. Certainly don't be mean or a name caller, but give a thought to be useful opposition. It might be the best thing you can offer a blog you've run across.
Comments
Excellent suggestion, Aaron that I didn't think of.
"How is this useful? I would suggest that to build an audience, you do so by saying things that are attention grabbing. If you have a good argument against something you've read on another blog, voice it! "
Sue
Excellent point. Creating drama on one's blog makes it more likely that readers will return to "watch" the debate unfold. Polarizing people is one the best strategies to get a following.
Yann
Success Coach
Very interesting
Focus Your Energy
Matthew Shields
Attention grabbing seems to work well in the blogging world. This post shows me how much I have yet to learn.
Jenn
Wardrobe Planning Expert
Perfect.
Mortgage guy
Tim
Steve Chambers, Sales Trainer
Dr Peter
All the best,
April BraswellRomance Coach, Online Dating Coach
Scott A Bell
They really do run in different blog circles, so I would say no. Also, Kathy's argument wasn't as solid as Megan typically writes, so I don't know that she'd get much benefit from creating a fake blogger. I don't think Megan's credibility was increased, I think it was Kathy's.
Tim,
Great, succinct point! You need heat, but not so much that people lose the flavor.
Scott,
Definitely, although I think you always want to keep everyone interested in what you're saying next.
Aaron
Without tension, the release just doesn't mean anything. A little drama goes a long way.
Sheridan
Back around again I go...
Sue