Since BloodhoundBlog isn’t about blogging for its owner’s business — the following doesn’t apply. In fact, Greg seems to abhor even the suggestion this blog might be construed as financially beneficial to him. He wants Bloodhound to be the best place to go when you want real estate information or expertise. His mission is to inform and educate — period. I’m sure there are other blogs who also exist only to distribute valuable information to their readers. This isn’t aimed at them either.
Let’s begin with what everyone who knows me realizes pretty quickly — I’m not a tech guy, and surely not a blogging expert. However, after blogging for a year now, I’ve noticed a few things in the so called blogging world. Wanna be a blogging expert? Just call yourself one. No kiddin’, that’s just about all you need to do.
In my first few months these so-called experts would write blogging commandments as if they’d found them on the third tablet Moses lost on his way down the mountain. You would have thought the 11th commandment was for blogging experts only — hidden in a secret place known only to them. At first I took them seriously. My mistake. My audience started to ask me what was up. What was up? I was listening to the experts, that’s what.
Kris Berg’s post on this subject was spectacularly on point. She then followed it up with the perfect satirical application of what she learned from the experts in San Francisco.
Since I’m not in the house side of the business my subjects are……..different. They’re like a full dinner. They involve, at least much of the time, some relatively complex principles and concepts. They can’t be half a small bowl of broth. Uh, usually it’s the principles adding up that make a concept. Duh. Yet, I was constantly feeling like I was being criticized by the experts because my posts were too long. They said I needed to be short and snappy. As Kris quoted the experts: “Readers are scanners…….five paragraphs……max.”
Here’s some exaggerated examples of what they wished I would adhere to. I’ll use the ‘be brief — folks have the attention span of a gnat’ approach.
There’s a week of posts right there! π
Frankly, the thing most of these experts have in common is the seeming distain they have for those who read blogs. Real estate blog readers are, in most cases, thirsty for knowledge. Each post simply can’t explain everything concerning whatever the topic, but it can produce excellent questions — which the knowledgeable blogger can then answer well. Many times a reader’s comment has inspired another post. It’s their questions and comments that tell me not only what interests them, but what they they want to know. It also tells me what they don’t know to ask. One of the foundational principles on which I base my posts is my readers getting answers to questions they didn’t know to ask. Now that’s gratifying.
When they can come to someone’s blog and find crucial information on topics of importance to them as readers — especially information they didn’t know they didn’t know? That’s knocking it out of the park.
Fast forward to the recent real estate convention put on by Inman called Real Estate Connect. Based on what I’ve heard from those who attended (I didn’t) the impression I got was there must have been two Real Estate Connects. One for techies and one for help in blogging in general. They had panels populated by, you guessed it, experts on blogging.
Before continuing, without exception, the folks attending have told me only very good things about some of the new hi-tech stuff they learned there. Of course, Greg will have a totally different view than those with whom I spoke. π Also, everyone I’ve asked about their experience there, said that overall it was good, and that they felt their money was well spent.
Here is where the expertise of these guys, uh, apparently goes over my head — and I’m only half kidding. Let’s take the topic of Search Engine Optimization — SEO.
First hand reports about Connect from three different people, two of whom I know personally, the other by phone, emails, and blogging. All three are nationally known real estate bloggers I respect. They pretty much agreed they were getting a lot of the same old blogging info they’d been reading for the last year. But their perceptions alone wasn’t what got my attention.
There were two real estate pros there who made declarations of fact, about the results of their real estate blogs, one an agent and one a mortgage broker. (One I verified with my own baby blues, and the other I simply believed, as I know him personally and trust him implicitly.) They weren’t called liars, but they were given short shrift by not only the experts, but from some in the audience. What did they have the audacity to say out loud and in the presence of this august panel?
The mortgage guy said he’d generated 1,000 leads in the last 12 months. The agent said she’d been receiving 2,000 hits daily on her blog. Are you kiddin’ me? I don’t know about you, but if somebody said they’d caused 1,000 leads to come their way, or 2,000 daily blog hits, they wouldn’t get out of the room without at least giving me a hint as to HOW.
Yet they were glossed over like a six-year-old’s cheap birthday cake. It makes a suspicious person think it’s possible some of the experts couldn’t match those results. Ya think? π
As you might have intuited by now, I’m a little sensitive when it comes to SEO and all the reasons why it’s the best thing since sliced bread. In fact, I’ll say it right now and right here: If there’s anything more overrated in real estate blogging than SEO, I wouldn’t know what it would be. Of course, bloggers can’t ignore it’s place in the big picture. But it’s simply not the be all end all.
The guy with a thousand leads in the last year? He’s a loan broker, right? If those leads are weaker than weak, and he only ends up turning 7.5% of those leads into loans, he’s done 75 loans with folks coming to him because of his blog. If the average loan amount was $300K and he only made a quarter point on his side, and a point on the back side (from the lender) he’s made $281,250. I’m guessing at his batting average here. I don’t know what conversion rate he enjoyed.
Do you think he went up to bat a thousand times and got less than 75 base hits? What’s that saying about a blind squirrel?
Even if he only converted 25 of those thousand leads, he still made nearly $100K extra income that year. Ah, show of hands — who wants to sign up for those results?
And I’ll bet it’s at least an even bet the condescending experts who quietly shuffled him off to Buffalo as quickly as they could, have much better blog rankings and far more impressive authority than he does — and his are fairly impressive. I say that because it’s what I run into regularly myself.
My blog? I’m so far down in the rankings, and so relatively low in authority it used to get me down a bit at times. Then I had an epiphany. I felt foolish as it dawned on me. One day my blogging advisor asked me a simple question about my own blog.
She asked me how much I’d made this year as a result of BawldGuy Talking. I literally broke into laughter, as I knew she was playing with me, as she is wont to do. (This is because she can, as my brain couldn’t kick-start hers.) Her point was elegantly simple.
We in the real estate business — brokers, agents, and those who offer services to us and our clients, blog for one thing and one thing only. Despite their sometimes intentionally distracting objections — they’re blogging for business — new and profitable business. Period. And that’s a good thing.
So, to the experts who dissed my two fellow bloggers, (Unintentionally?) I ask them, with respect, a few short questions.
It’s my contention 99% of other well known real estate bloggers have both higher authority than I do, and enjoy literally 2-10 times, (if not more) daily hits than I do. I say this with confidence because I’ve researched this. Apparently everyone does this better than I do. π And I’ll bet it results in consistent new business for them, or most of them would’ve stopped blogging long ago. Cuz the dirty little secret real estate bloggers won’t tell you is — blogging ain’t for sissies.
That said, I’ve decided to try out a new blogging term. Let’s see if it has any legs.
What do ya think of measuring the success of a real estate blog by its $EO? You know, SEO that a banker understands?
It’s how I measure mine, and it’s why I’m still blogging. I love what I do immensely. It’s almost drug-like in its hold on me. Blogging allows me to meet and help folks all over the country — an experience new to me, as I’ve always been 100% local until just a few years ago. Going to Phoenix, Denver, Boise, and soon hopefully Kansas City, Austin, and Panama would not have happened nearly so quickly without my blog. It’s not debatable.
Taking folks from where they are today, to a retirement they hadn’t thought possible is a high I won’t soon give up. Blogging feeds that addictive need by providing so many more fixes. π I live for the moment a new client realizes how his/her life is about to change. One moment like that every few days, and I’m good to go.
Real estate pros from all parts of the country, offering all the different but related services, might want to think about focusing on $EO a little more than SEO — you might just find your banker is happier to see you coming. Which means you were able to help a whole lot more people in the process.
David A Podgursky MBA says:
Blogging is self serving whether for the writer who wants to say they are a Blog Titan, an Industry Expert or just the new Bohemian cool… or whether they are there for the clicks, views, leads, calls, emails and ultimately $$$$
your points about the loan guy and realtor who might be discerned as somehow related (?? if they are who I think you’re talking about ??) are obviously knocking the cover off the ball…
instead of the quizzical looks of the techno-3L33T, they should be getting the pats on the backs by the Real Estate Blog Titans who aren’t writing to fill a manuscript but to show how interactive marketing is the wave of the future in lead generation.
August 8, 2007 — 7:15 pm
TJ Bell says:
“My blog? I’m so far down in the rankings, and so relatively low in authority it used to get me down a bit at times.”
As someone whose illustrious 4 month real estate career consists of 1 home sold and 24 profile views on my blog, that made me smile.
Thanks for the information and inspiration.
August 8, 2007 — 7:19 pm
Todd Carpenter says:
I was at the show, and in the room for 90% of the panels. I don’t remember any RE Agent on the panels saying they had 2000 hits a day. Mary McKnight of RSS Pieces said that it would be possible, or easy, or something to that effect for an agent to do so. I think that’s where the 2000 number is coming from. I disagree with her. My 2.5 year old mortgage blog is very highly ranked, has a national audience, and I can count the times on one hand were it got 2000 page views in one day. Most of the time, it’s less than half of that. Most local RE agents should be ecstatic to receive 100 page views a day. That’s a huge number when you think about it. Imagine making a sales or courtesy call to 100 people in one day.
I don’t know which Banker said they had 1000 leads either. Brian Brady said something to the effect of getting a very large number of leads that weren’t particularly useful, after chasing the long tail of hard money borrowers. Maybe that’s where it came. If so, I think it was more like saying “I’ve heard that story a thousand times”. Not intended to mean 1000 exactly.
Blogging is still so new that there simply isn’t a large difference between an expert and a competent blogger. I certainly didn’t go with the expectation that my brain would have dilate to absorb the vast wealth of knowledge waiting for me. I did learn a few things though.
Frankly, I wish more, critical bloggers had shown up, or at least spoken up. I stood in front of the crowd and politely called BS on just how effective social networking tools like FaceBook and MyBlogLog are. I don’t remember anyone else asking any particularly critical questions.
I plan on being at Connect NY this winter. My hope is that more people show up and speak up. A seminar like this deserves more back and forth between the crowd and the panel.
August 8, 2007 — 7:54 pm
Jeff Brown says:
David – I don’t know what you mean by ‘related’, but they operate 100+ miles apart. The mortgage guy, (I think) met the agent and does many of her clients purchase loans. They both are completely independent of each other.
I know I’m showing even more ignorance on the tech side, but what the heck is techno-3L33T?
August 8, 2007 — 8:02 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Todd – Ask Kevin Boer who was personally taken to a private setting at Connect by these two people. They then took the agent’s laptop whereupon she showed Kevin the website records.
And, as a correction to my post: the mortgage guy didn’t do 75 loans.
He did 90. π
I’d love to hear from Kevin.
August 8, 2007 — 8:06 pm
Lani Anglin says:
Sidenote: the word “lead” is MASSIVELY abused. Many people selling services claim to offer hundreds of leads per day. When asked what a lead is, they consider it a page hit. It sucks when a “lead” is the same person 73.4 times. Others define “lead” as a “unique visitor” and the most accurate define a “lead” as an interested party that has registered or requested information. Plus I hate the word “lead.” But we’ve already hashed that out.
Jeff- you make a GREAT point about people claiming expertise. Like you, I claim no great superiority in blogging. I’ll stroke my own ego as often as possible, but I cannot possibly claim to be the expert. The guys/gals that claim to be experts (that clearly are not) remind me of short guys in big huge monster trucks with 28″ rims if you know what I mean…
August 8, 2007 — 8:18 pm
Patrick Hake says:
I think your interpretation of how real estate bloggers lose focus on the bottom line can be applied to pretty much any real estate marketing plan.
So often, agents are focused on statistics that mean nothing and goals that distract them from being more profitable.
It reminds me of conversations I have had with agents who are more worried about winning an office prize for listings or reaching “Presidents Club” than they are with making more profit.
I did not attend Real Estate Connect, but I am sure that it is like most other real estate conventions. A room full of Realtors looking for vendors to solve their problems and do their work.
The beauty of blogging is that it requires consistent effort and discipline to succeed. This requirement for actual work will eliminate about 95% of the agents out their from ever succeeding in blogging. They will write for a week, maybe write again a few months later and then quit. This same process will occur with cold calling, door knocking, holding seminars, networking or any other prospecting method.
August 8, 2007 — 8:25 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Patrick – What you said is so absolutely on target – I refuse to add anything.
About Real Estate Connect – as I said in the post, every single person I asked said their money wasn’t wasted, and for the most part they went away knowing much more than when they arrived. And that’s what Inman’s goal was, I’m sure.
August 8, 2007 — 8:35 pm
Todd Carpenter says:
Jeff, I’m not saying that there’s not a RE Agent getting 2000 hits a day on her blog, or a Banker getting 1000 leads a year. Just that I don’t remember anyone proclaiming that to the crowd, and then scoffed at by the “experts”.
However, 2000 hits a day is a huge number for an RE Agent. I’m saying right here and now that if that agent wants to step forward, I will gladly give her opportunity through an interview to share with the rest of us how she did it.
August 8, 2007 — 8:38 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Todd – I didn’t take it that way at all. π
I’ll ask both of them if they wish to come forward.
By the way Todd, the other day the agent received over 3,400 hits. π
If you ever do get her over to your place for an interview, it’s my guess you’ll be pretty popular for a few days. π Good luck!
August 8, 2007 — 8:47 pm
Jeff Brown says:
I repeat what I wondered about in the post.
If you were at a baseball camp and a guy said he’s getting his kids to hit over .500 in three weeks of training with him, would you scoff, or at least try to find out what he’s doing? Wouldn’t you look for the dads of these boys? Try to get the real scoop?
It’s a mystery to me why the audience didn’t want to grill the agent who made the assertion in the first place. I would have asked the panelists why they were avoiding her claim. Why didn’t they hold her up as a great example of successful blogging?
Isn’t what she accomplished a good, excuse me, great thing?
Isn’t a lender who does 90 loans in 12 months as a direct result of blog leads doing something right?
What real estate bloggers out there don’t wish they were getting that man deals a year from blogging?
And for those RE bloggers who say they aren’t blogging for business? Don’t embarrass yourselves by putting that thought on the internet for everyone to see. Unless of course, you’re agenda is the same as Greg’s – which is to educate and inform.
August 8, 2007 — 8:59 pm
Jeff Brown says:
As usual Lani, I have nothing to add. (he says, quivering in the corner, happy as he can be he doesn’t own a huge truck) π
The key for the lender in the post is – HE CLOSED 90 $^@*&&^% DEALS!
Being redundant, I’ll as again: By show of hands, how many bloggers would be willing to wade through a thousand leads to do an EXTRA 90 transactions?
In a low priced market, ($200k median) the average agent would collect over half a million bucks.
On your mark, get set, Start wading!
August 8, 2007 — 9:16 pm
Brian Brady says:
I proclaimed to have 1000 inquiries in the past year, 800 of which were unqualified borrowers. My conversion ratio was a little better than Jeff guessed, if you base it on the 200 qualified applicants. It was somewhat below the 7.5% of the 1000 that Jeff guessed. Today, I receive 4-8 inquiries a day, via telephone and e-mail from my blog. 20% of those inquiries are valid borrowers, 80% are useless.
(That proclamation was made on an article I write on realestateweblogging101.com.) That strategy I shared with the public was referred to as “puking” on the internet by an online marketing expert.
My claims were doubted in the 3-4 hours after my session by more than one person. Yes, it was stunning to have my credibility questioned. At the end of the day, I decided to not respond, publicly.
Mary McKnight was bragging about her star blogger, Laurie Manny, of http://www.longbeachrealestatehome.com . Laurie’s results are nothing short of astounding. As a contributor to that weblog, I can share with anyone (as I have shared with Jeff) the veracity of Mary’s claim. In fact, LBREH broke 3300 hits this weekend.
Since learning how to write with keyword-rich content, my home blog has skyrocketed from 150-200 hits/day to over 500 hits (four days running, now). I have cracked the front page of Google search for three cities for a search phrase that I thought never possible to crack.
What is even more astounding is that people won’t open their minds to the possibilities of the power of online marketing. They prefer to doubt factual evidence and scoff at our efforts as “sleazy” and “entrapping the consumer”. One would think they’d be asking “How do I get me some?”
Jeff, I salute you. You have the courage and curiosity to wonder, “how can I get me some?”. It took me 9 months to get where you are.
August 8, 2007 — 9:22 pm
Brian Brady says:
Jeff,
Your post is too long (I’m the one who suggested that)
August 8, 2007 — 9:23 pm
Brian Brady says:
The 90 loans included repeat business and referrals from the online inquiries. The actual loans closed from DIRECT inquiries was less than 70.
Lani, hits are not leads. People asking for loans are leads.
August 8, 2007 — 9:35 pm
Lani says:
I AGREE that hits are not leads. Tell it to the buttfaces trying to sell Realtors “leads” that are actually hits. Buttfaces, I say!
ANY back end numbers on websites can be maniuplated. I can spin it to make my blog look like an “EXPERT” blog… convert numbers to percentages (ex: increase in readership) and I’m the TOP blogger. It’s all politics and it’s stupid.
August 8, 2007 — 9:49 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Lani – Are you suggesting this is what the agent in my post did?
August 8, 2007 — 9:56 pm
Brian Brady says:
“ANY back end numbers on websites can be manipuplated”
How?
August 8, 2007 — 9:57 pm
Todd Carpenter says:
Brian,
You can create a program that tells one computer, or a bank of computers to visit a site. It does happen, but it would make no sense for Laurie to be doing this (and I don’t believe she is), she would only be lying to herself. Companies that typically engage in such tactics are trying to sell advertising on a CPM fashion.
August 8, 2007 — 10:07 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Guys – Laurie is generating serious $EO.
Let me try again here.
A high school hitter averages a homer a game for the entire season. He’s involuntarily tested for drugs, including steroids – all negative. They then test his bats to see if he’s cheating there. Maybe all the catchers in the league really, really like him, and are telling him what pitch is coming.
Or maybe he’s just a great slugger. I’ve got an idea……..let’s find out who taught him. Let’s film him batting – break him down in slow motion.
Or, we could hold a meeting and brain storm how he’s not doing it on his own. Geez, Laurie is hitting multiple homers week in and week out.
Frankly, if I was her competitor, I’d sure wanna find out how she was doing it. Naw, that’d make way too much sense. π
August 8, 2007 — 10:18 pm
Brian Brady says:
3L33T= elite It took me a minute or two, also
August 8, 2007 — 10:40 pm
Jeff Brown says:
3L33T= elite It took me a minute or two, also
It also easily explains why I didn’t get it – elite indeed….NOT. π
August 8, 2007 — 10:46 pm
Jay Thompson says:
These 2000, 3400, whatever hits per day are defined how?
Unique visitors? Page views? Actual server hits?
*Technically* speaking, each file sent to a browser by a web server is a hit. So, for example, if you have a web page (or individual blog post) with 5 photos on it then a request to the server will count as six hits (five for the pics, one for the HTML/text). Add in scripts, widgets, etc and it’s quite possible to generate dozens (even hundreds) of “hits” from one person viewing a blog for 10 seconds.
I’m NOT saying that is how Laurie is getting these numbers. But **many** people don’t understand how different stat packages count “hits”. If one if going to talk about web/blog traffic, then “hits” need to be defined as how they are counted varies *wildly* between stat counters. Typically page views is a far better metric than hits. Better yet are unique and returning visits.
My blog ranks very well for many key search terms in a very large market and I’ve never come remotely close to approaching 3400 unique visitors a day. There’s more to it than just SEO if those 3400 are indeed unique visits. I’d sure like to know the secret!
August 8, 2007 — 11:02 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Jay – You’re so over my head on this stuff I can’t see you. If I studied SEO for a year I wouldn’t know what you’ve already forgotten.
That said, I guess she can tell you how it’s all counted.
What I call her $EO is 1-5 leads – daily. And they’re pretty easily counted – by her banker.
August 8, 2007 — 11:09 pm
Sunriver Real Estate | Thesa Chambers, Broker says:
I believe my blogging goals are similar to many agents that are blogging. Increasing my web presence, and educating my clients, which in turn brings me new clients. Do I want to be #1 you bet, but is that my goal, NO – my goal is to increase my number of clients, to bring quality buyer and sellers to me. It works, no matter what you know, or do not know… as long as you are speaking the truth and providing good quality information about market, area and what is important to your readers.
August 9, 2007 — 7:00 am
Ines says:
It would be great for someone from RSS Pieces to step up here and give us the definition of HITS. (Since they do host Laurie’s site….and mine at that).
It’s funny how people can get on the defensive when a colleague is doing so well and they even start questioning stats.
The reality is that Laurie’s blog is pretty new, she is not considered one of the “experts” and she is blowing many people’s minds! Go Laurie! and Go Brian! You guys ROCK!
August 9, 2007 — 7:57 am
Jay Thompson says:
“It would be great for someone from RSS Pieces to step up here and give us the definition of HITS. (Since they do host Laurie’s site….and mine at that).”
Ines – ask them! I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to explain it. Just make sure they explain in English, not geek speak. You know how those nerdy types can get… π
Jeff – “leads” (depending on how THAT is defined) is an even better measure than hits, page views, uniques, or whatever. Assuming of course that lead generation is the goal. Great post, thanks!
August 9, 2007 — 10:56 am
Jay Thompson says:
“It would be great for someone from RSS Pieces to step up here and give us the definition of HITS. (Since they do host Laurie’s site….and mine at that).”
Ines – ask them! I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to explain. Just be sure to get it in English, not geek speak. You know how those nerdy types can get… π
Jeff – “Leads” (depending on how THAT is defined) is an even better measure than hits, page views, uniques or whatever. Assuming of course that is the goal. Great post, thanks!
August 9, 2007 — 11:02 am
Ines says:
Jay – I sent them an e-mail! Thanks
August 9, 2007 — 11:13 am
Laurie Manny says:
Perhaps you should call RSSpieces directly. I doubt you will see a comment here from them. RSSpieces mentioned to me a couple of weeks ago that all of their comments on the Bloodhound Blog are deleted.
Perhaps Greg would like to jump in and verify and or explain that.
August 9, 2007 — 12:02 pm
Chuchundra says:
There are several kinds of stats to look when measuring site popularity and traffic.
HITS: A hit, in the strictest sense of the word, is one file — one thing — transferred from the web server to someone’s web browser. A web page with three images on it would record four hits when someone accesses it. One hit for the page itself, index.html or whatever, and one for each of the three images on the page. Back in the day, we used to talk a lot about hits. These days, it’s not considered a very good metric.
PAGE VIEWS: As the name implies, a page view measures how many times a web page was looked at. Generally this is done by considering certain types of files, .html or .htm or .php, to be pages. In my example above, someone loading index.html would record one page view for that server, no matter how many images are on that page.
VISITS: Branching out, visits track a person coming to the site and clicking around. If I surf on over to bloodhoundrealty.com and spend a half hour clicking around, I might record several dozen page views and hundreds of hits, but only one visit.
August 9, 2007 — 12:14 pm
Jay Thompson says:
Laurie – Ines already said she’d email them….
Perhaps you could share with the community what your great numbers represent? Congrats on your success!
August 9, 2007 — 12:21 pm
Laurie Manny says:
Thank you Jay. Mary McKnight has informed me that RSSpieces only records unique hits.
August 9, 2007 — 12:24 pm
Greg Swann says:
> RSSpieces mentioned to me a couple of weeks ago that all of their comments on the Bloodhound Blog are deleted.
You were lied to. I’m guessing more than once.
August 9, 2007 — 12:27 pm
Laurie Manny says:
No comments since Jun 19?………….
August 9, 2007 — 12:33 pm
Greg Swann says:
> No comments since Jun 19?
You were lied to. I’m sorry you don’t like it. It’s not my fault.
August 9, 2007 — 12:36 pm
Laurie Manny says:
How was I lied to Greg. Mary’s last comment is on Mar 28, she was a regular commenter prior to that, by your own records.
Or are you referring to the hits? If so, how?
August 9, 2007 — 1:13 pm
Greg Swann says:
> How was I lied to Greg.
You said:
>> RSSpieces mentioned to me a couple of weeks ago that all of their comments on the Bloodhound Blog are deleted.
This is false, which I demonstrated.
I have made an effort to show you that were deceived. It is silly and churlish of you to attempt to impugn my integrity. I have nothing to gain or lose from you. The entire point of working the way we do at BloodhoundBlog — eliminating every conceivable pecuniary interest — is to protect our reputations from smears like this. You are very far from being the first person to try to run these innuendo games on me.
I have no idea why people do or don’t comment. What I do know, and what I have demonstrated, is that no comments from either rsspieces.com or fueledsoftware.com have been deleted.
My frank opinion is that you were sold a bill of goods, but I do not care. Your money, your life, your problem.
August 9, 2007 — 1:42 pm
Lani says:
Obviously I was out of pocket today (the whole worky thing), so this is delayed- but for what it’s worth, my addressing the definition of “hits” was NOT aimed at Laurie or anyone else. Clearly Laurie is at the TOP of the game and I trust her word even if she never showed me a screenshot for “proof.”
Jeff, I’m sorry if I derailed your point, I simply meant as a SIDENOTE that when someone is buying into a lead generator to ask that provider how they define “hits” because I’ve learned that it is a subjective term. There are so many tech leeches that politicize their numbers to get your business, so get specific before you open the checkbook.
Laurie (and others)- congratulations on your massive success!
*Lani ducks head
August 9, 2007 — 2:49 pm
Laurie Manny says:
Lani,
The back end of the blog site in question was up on the big screen in the RealTyger room at Inman last week for all to see. Many people saw it.
I don’t like being put on trial and that is what this feels like, it sucks.
I wish you all the same success and the same response.
August 9, 2007 — 4:20 pm
Colleen Kulikowski says:
I find all this very interesting.
I have known Laurie for awhile as we both are Moderators at ActiveRain. In our conversations about what is happening in ActiveRain we would talk about her new new baby — her BLOG http://www.longbeachrealestatehome.com.
Because we have had occasions to deal with countless sensitive issues I know Laurie very well. She does not argue or debate. She will discuss an issue and she always considers opposing viewpoints.
Why is it that Laurie is on trial after the fact? Her backend was open to everyone at Inman that wanted to see it. Laurie has been generous not only with me but countless others. What is it that everyone is so afraid of?
I might be able to give some insight to what is happening over at Laurie’s BLOG. Like all new parents, Laurie would share the progress of her new BLOG. I have witnessed her joy when she got 200 hits in a single day(my baby rolled over), then a few weeks later a call with news that she hit another record 500 hits in a day (jr is crawling) and a few weeks after that 1,000 hits (jr is standing up). And just two weeks after that, nobody was more shocked than Laurie when she hit 2,000 hits one day (OMG Jr is walking!) even exceeding 3,300 hits recently. I know of all of this because I was there at the birth and I have witnessed this child’s growth.
About the time that she hit 1,000 hits she asked me how many I was receiving. I was embarrassed that I was not getting the results she was getting at the birth of her BLOG. I chuckled when I read in your post:
>> “2,000 daily blog hits, they wouldn’t get out of the room without at least giving me a hint as to HOW. ”
Because that is exactly what I did.
My first thought was not to disagree with her results it was “HOW AM I GOING TO GET THOSE RESULTS!!!” I started asking questions. I sought to understand why she was so successful. I read everything that she suggested. A few tips from Laurie and some changes in how I was writing and how the BLOG was set up I am now receiving double the hits that I was prior and consistently.
I believe she is definitely achieving these results, because my own performance is slowly improving. And like I said I have seen so on Laurie’s BLOG with my own eyes!
August 9, 2007 — 4:27 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Colleen – Thanks so much for airing out the room. π
It’s often instructive to watch when someone in an industry does something experts just can’t, or more accurately, won’t believe.
In no time at all, these same experts will be touting Laurie’s approach as their own.
And I’ll bet she won’t care a bit. Grandma said success breeds success – but that it also very often breeds envy.
I hope none of what I’ve been reading has anything to do with the later.
As far as the squabbles go – I’m purposefully unaware of any previous friction. I tend to stay out of that sort of thing whenever possible.
Thanks again for wading in Colleen.
August 9, 2007 — 5:44 pm
Greg Swann says:
> experts just can’t, or more accurately, won’t believe
Keyword packing is not a new idea, Jeff. It’s a poor strategy on a number of grounds. If Liz Strauss has half the brains you claim she has, she can tell you why.
August 9, 2007 — 5:57 pm
Laurie Manny says:
Ok, lets clear this up once and for all. You are not the Google SEO authority, but Matt Cutts is. Here is Matt Cutts take on Keyword Stuffing: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/avoid-keyword-stuffing/
August 9, 2007 — 6:11 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Greg – I just know she’s smart than I am – to what degree I’m not sure. It’s (ins and outs of blogging) more than I care to know for sure though. π
I’ll just let her blog’s success talk for her. I’ve always assumed she knew what was what because of her blog’s stratospheric rating and authority.
You’re absolutely right though, I’m just not in the class of some of the highly knowledgeable bloggers. I aspire to their understanding. I’m just not inclined to being such a student as some have become.
I just write what I know on my own blog, keeping my head down and doing what I can do.
August 9, 2007 — 6:25 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Ok, lets clear this up once and for all.
You are defending a vendor you now know told you a deliberate lie, according to your own testimony. I’m done with you. You can go to hell in your own way.
Inlookers: If you have any sense, do not adopt a strategy that packs the string literal “Long Beach” into one post 61 times. (I have the code; say so if you want a copy.) There are many good reasons to avoid turning your weblog into a splog, but the best is that Google will catch you and punish you severely. Keyword packing is not just sleazy, it’s suicidal.
August 9, 2007 — 6:29 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I just write what I know on my own blog
I think this is the right strategy for long-term success at weblogging. You form and cultivate relationships, and that effort turns into many profitable transactions. It’s all one, though. People should do what they want, paying as much attention as they choose to the risks and rewards.
August 9, 2007 — 6:34 pm
David A Podgursky MBA says:
Jeff – sorry about the Elite-ism :)… Not saying I am by using a hackerism but it is just another jargon that shows that there is a class system in cyberworlds…
On to the pertinent topic du jour… I knew you were talking about Brian and Laurie but I didn’t want to expose them if they weren’t comfortable with it.
I don’t know why it is up to anyone but Laurie to dispute the validity of her stats package.
1) She’s not measuring her results by eyeballs but by leads. She is a salesperson and just like any of the rest of us, being popular is just a means to getting more business in the pipe.
2) Even if her hits are not the same calculation as anyone elses which I am sure is NOT the case… why the speculation?? why would anyone think they should challenge her backend? Skeptics run amok in the world of Tech… but BLOGGING is not TECH… Blogging is a middle ground between TECH and Sales in Laurie’s case…. as in my own case. 3300 hits a day?? So if 95% of them were garbage looky-loos.. then that still 165 valid shoppers. That’s TREMENDOUS. Of those, if she turns a mere 7.5% a la Brian, that’s 12 clients a day. Who CARES if the Blog-Techies don’t agree???
3) Let’s revisit this in 6 and 12 months… my forecast is that Laurie’s spending more time hiring a team to maintain her leads than the pundits are spending yammering about the validity of her results… Go Laurie!… and Go Brian!!
August 9, 2007 — 6:35 pm
Michael Cook says:
Jeff,
Once again you have written a seemingly innocent article that leads to controversy. I dont know anything about SEO, but I do know that you have a knack for bringing out opposing opinions.
“You can go to hell in your own way”
This even made me blush. I cant imagine anyone in a comment evoking that reaction out of me, but I guess I dont have the same passion for SEO. I would offer the old adage, agree to disagree, but it appears we are way past that. I respect everyone here, but I am not a huge fan of putting my name on a blog that treats readers with that kind contempt.
August 9, 2007 — 7:04 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I am not a huge fan of putting my name on a blog that treats readers with that kind contempt.
My apologies to you and to Laurie. It’s a figure of speech where I grew up meaning, literally, “Do as you choose.”
August 9, 2007 — 7:07 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Greg – I’ve not heard of that before. This is something you’re teaching me. I am interested in seeing that code – even though I probably wouldn’t understand much of it. Thanks
August 9, 2007 — 7:13 pm
Michael Cook says:
Thanks for clearing that up, my apologies. My lexicon is obviously not even close to as rich as yours.
August 9, 2007 — 7:28 pm
Laurie Manny says:
If you notice the article on keyword packing it is typically a strategy
that involves including words that are not relevant to the page or site.
The keywords that you supply are manually entered and from what I have
seen are always representative of the actual post. If Greg Swann, who is
by all accounts the LAST person that should dispense SEO advice, thinks
that adding words that are related to the article is keyword stuffing
then how does he propose that you write at all? After all, when you
write a post you have to TALK about the topic and MENTION what it is
about or it is irrelevant. The fact is that he is a petty man that seems
to have a beef with everyone, has no tech knowledge and cannot
distinguish between keyword stuffing and keyword rich. One is
misleading, the other is helpful.
BTW – Any time that I post a comment, he will not publish it. Then he
has the audacity to say that we don’t defend ourselves. The fact is that
I told him in my last comment on his blog that he would not have the
balls to publish it and I was write. He is a blog dictator that seems to
think he can rewrite peoples history and opinions.
What you do (and we support) is
keyword rich, we never advocate keyword stuffing and I have not once
seen keyword stuffing on your site. Another aspect of keyword stuffing,
BTW, is the hiding of keywords in the footer, miscoloring them, etc. –
still not anything that you do. He knows nothing and says even less.
John McKnight
August 9, 2007 — 7:36 pm
Greg Swann says:
John McKnight has never posted a comment to BloodhoundBlog, nor has he ever emailed me directly. No comment from either rsspieces.com or fueledsoftware.com has ever been deleted from BloodhoundBlog. Our server logs will bear this out.
For what it’s worth, the comment I am responding to is way beyond the limits set by our about page. I’m letting it stand because I think it’s worth everyone’s while to take a good long look at Mr. McKnight.
August 9, 2007 — 8:35 pm
Greg Swann says:
Addendum: John McKnight posted his first comment to BloodhoundBlog in the dead of the night. It was captured by the moderation bot, as are all first-timer’s comments. The text is not devoid of interest, but, since it is replete with false charges and ad hominem attacks, these in violation of the terms established on our About page, I have elected to remove it. Mr. McKnight can now proudly — and truthfully — tell the world that he is banned from commenting on BloodhoundBlog. He is of course at perfect liberty to express himself however he chooses — on someone else’s property, at someone else’s expense.
Laurie Manny has essentially been caught in a crossfire, so I should add that I wish her nothing but success with her weblog.
August 10, 2007 — 7:14 am
BR says:
Brian, you asked Lani how one can cheat stats and be able to show them off w/o it being obvious. I stopped Lani from answering for various reasons, but after reading all of this drama I answered your question over at my site. This is just one way, I’m not going to get any deeper into the other 50 ways to cheat a client but I feel like you deserve an answer.
August 10, 2007 — 7:52 am
Jeff Brown says:
Assuming honest intent, and a good heart, winning and therefore success – is it’s own reward, isn’t it?
I’m too old-school to disclose what results my own blog produces, but as I watch this soap opera evolve, I’m struck with another idea.
Why doesn’t everyone take a look at their own blogs, and figure out the total number of unique hits (as in the strictest definition of the word, unique). Then, being objective and honest with yourself, figure out how much money you’ve made by providing excellent service to those you would not have known, BUT FOR YOUR BLOG.
Now, take the total dollars earned and divide them by your blog’s total number of unique hits.
What’s your dollar per hit figure?
Whatever it is – isn’t that number fairly important to you?
It might be, but if you get 20,000 daily hits, and you ‘only’ make $250K a year from your blog selling homes to nice folks – are you upset? π
See what I mean Verne? Whether it’s 100 or 20,000 hits – it’s the dollars you’re banking.
Generally speaking, this topic, though not always, as I’m as interested in having more readers as the next guy, falls into my biggest file folder. It’s labeled – Don’t Know & Don’t Care. π
The rest is good to talk about when you’re bored, and feel like conversation. π
Everyone — 1…..2…….3…….relax. Chill pills are over there on the counter, free to all.
August 10, 2007 — 6:59 pm
Brian Brady says:
“Everyone — 1…..2…….3…….relax. Chill pills are over there on the counter, free to all.”
Good advice, as usual, Jeff.
August 10, 2007 — 9:32 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
Once again, I’m late to the party. But people have three motivating forces;
1. Money
2. Sex
3. Power (Fame)
Bloggig can help with #3 quickly. #1 will come if they “keep it real”. #2 depends on how well you do with the first and third!
August 11, 2007 — 3:52 pm
Chris Lengquist says:
Oh, and now that I’ve read everyone’s comments…my head hurts.
Jeez. Can’t we all just get along? What is the argument about anyway?
If you want leads, go for it.
If you want fame, go for it.
Who cares?
Here’s my numbers: I average about 42 hits per day. That’s up from two months ago at about 28 hits per day. Up from the beginning of the year at about 5 hits per day.
You know what, I’ve closed 5 homes that came from my blogging. 2 more pending. I think that’s great. An additional 7 closings extra! so far this year.
I write with a central theme in mind. Is that bad? If I could write a certain way and double my hits and add an extra 7 by this time next year, I’ll do it.
My blog isn’t for the purity of blogging. It’s to make a dollar. Otherwise I’d rather be hanging out with my kids.
There hasn’t been a poster on here I don’t respect in one manner or the other. But this is really just silly.
August 11, 2007 — 4:08 pm
Steve Berg says:
I am sooo late to this party, but it is so entertaining. Luckily for the masses I have put a gag order on Kris (if you believe that I have a way to get 4,000 “hits” a day on your blog to sell you). Having reviewed this seemingly endless stream of comments let this be the last (not likely): Until “hits’ or “page views” or “leads” or whatever, pays the bills, ultimately, there is only one statistic for real estate agents that counts – closed escrows.
August 11, 2007 — 6:54 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Amen Chris.
August 11, 2007 — 9:51 pm
Jeff Brown says:
Steve – Gagging Kris? I can’t imagine why. If anyone knows how to write at the highest level, with the richest content, and with keyword consciousness, it’s her. From the name of her blog, to the subjects about which she writes, she’s one of the bloggers that obviously understands which way is north on the map. She’s a terrific model to follow.
Your point Steve – is my point exactly. Thanks again.
August 11, 2007 — 9:58 pm
Steve Berg says:
Jeff – BTW, great post!!
August 12, 2007 — 8:05 am
Jeff Brown says:
Thanks Steve – sometimes you just can’t see the quicksand, can you? π
August 12, 2007 — 12:36 pm
Mike Thoman says:
Jeff, great post. I read it a couple days ago, but missed the comments drama until today (couldn’t access them for some reason; Greg was probably busy deleting comments…). I love how you call it $EO. That’s really the goal of any SEO effort, isn’t it? Spot on.
One qualifier to your post, though, Jeff. If you’ve got a blog and update it regularly and connect to other blogs with links, comments, etc, then the vast majority of your SEO (and $EO) should come rather naturally, and you can prosper ($SEO) without it (SEO). Right? That’s the beauty of this platform. However, if you’ve got just a static website, you’ve got a lot more to worry about. It’s NOT: If you build it, they’ll come. SEO suddenly becomes much more important.
What’s the non-tech, do-it-yourself, low-cost solution? Start a blog.
Brian: Congratulations. I’ve no doubts about your success. I hope there’s more that follow in your footsteps.
August 13, 2007 — 9:19 am
Jeff Brown says:
Mike – And you could continue by factoring in excellent and compelling content on a consistent basis. This is what has been the foundation for BHB’s amazingly quick ride to success.
Thanks Mike.
August 13, 2007 — 9:26 am