Should Your Business Have A Blog

[KristineS]

I just wrote an article on this subject for a trade magazine. In the article I said that a business should have a blog if:


their target audience is web savvy
they have the time
they like, or at least tolerate, writing
they know at least the basics of how to make a site run


I had a word limit on the article so I couldn't go as in depth as I wanted to go. I think I covered the basics. Do you think there is anything vital that I left out?

[seolman]

One last item perhaps:

If they think a blog is vital to both maintaining customer loyalty and/or gaining new customers.

[KristineS]

That's a good one too.

I wish I'd had a longer word count. I could have gone into a lot more depth.

[vangogh]

Word counts are tough. I have a hard time with them as you might guess.

How about:

if the business wants to connect with it's customers in a more personal way
if the business wants to be more transparent to its customers
if the business has something to say that others would find interesting to read

I'm not sure about the web savvy thing. If the audience isn't web savvy they just won't know they're reading a blog, but they can still read the content. As long as they can find their way to the site that's all the savviness they should need.

[KristineS]

W
I'm not sure about the web savvy thing. If the audience isn't web savvy they just won't know they're reading a blog, but they can still read the content. As long as they can find their way to the site that's all the savviness they should need.

Maybe I should have clarified that a bit. It's not so much being web savvy as it is habituated to using the web. We have clients that just barely know how to turn on a computer. Doing anything web related is a complete waste of time when it comes to them.

[vangogh]

Yeah the person would at least need to know how to turn on a computer before they can absorb your web content.,

[orion_joel]

I think that the whole idea of blog is not really to focused at the people that do not know how to use the web. This i think is what newspaper, TV and radio advertising is for. The whole point of using a blog for your business weather it be advertising or simply discussing the business is to capture the attention of the people that would normally not see your business because they don't watch tv, don't listen to the radio, and don't read the paper.

It is like that extra link in your marketing plan that won't catch everyone but seems to catch those extra few people that the other methods miss. As with any other method of promoting your business i do not think that this should be the only method you use.

[vangogh]

I agree. You're blogging for people who know how to get online. Some may not realize your blog is a blog, but most probably will. Some reasons you see people recommend blogs.

1. More content for search engines to crawl and index
2. Easier to link to informational content on a blog than a sales page
3. Allows you to write in a more informal way so you can connect with customers on a more personal level

With number 2 above you're really trying to appeal to people who are savvy and most likely have their own blogs. People who blog often link out to other sources. Those sources are often other blogs. Blogs are looking for other blogs to link to. It's part of the nature and rhythm of blogging.

As a blogger you have at least two audiences. One being your customers and another being influential people in your industry. This second group may not every buy from your business, but they can help your business gain visibility in front of other audiences.

[KristineS]

I agree that a blog should not be your only method of advertising. You have to have a well rounded plan.

I do, however, think that advertising on the web should be in everyone's plan today. People watch television online, read newspapers online and listen to satellite radio. If you rely simply on methods that have worked in the past, newspaper ads, television and radio, you will miss a great many people. You have to do both.

[Dan Furman]

I agree that a blog should not be your only method of advertising. You have to have a well rounded plan.

I do, however, think that advertising on the web should be in everyone's plan today. People watch television online, read newspapers online and listen to satellite radio. If you rely simply on methods that have worked in the past, newspaper ads, television and radio, you will miss a great many people. You have to do both.

I just wrote a blog post on this (second link in my sig)

I kind of disagree. Blogging is way harder than it first appears. So I'm actually not a big fan of the "blog as part of your advertising / marketing" as a rule. Because very, very few can really pull it off well enough to actually help them (and if you don't do it well, it will hurt you.) Blogging is one of those things where it's much easier to talk about than actually do.

A good business blog needs three things:

Something to say. In other words, the topic/industry has to continually create interest for an eager audience. Now, one can say that any industry has its own general interested audience, but I'm not so sure. Yea, I personally have plenty of stuff to talk about and can go in nineteen different directions, but say your company makes brake pads... is there really enough discussion there for the average company exec to keep an ongoing blog? For months / years?? I'm sure there's a guy or two out there who can pull it off, but again, way easier said than done.

It has to be interesting to read. Ok, we have something to say.... now, who's going to write it? And write well enough to make people want to read more and come back. Because a poorly-written blog will hurt more than help. This is obviously a big stumbling block.

Consistency. This is a biggie. I very strongly feel that if you are not consistent in your blog, it will hurt more than help you. This goes for *any* "Dated" material on your website - if I go there, and the last post date was three months ago, that's a little negative in my mind. It tells me you don't finish things (this is why I tell my clients to not put things like "company news" tidbits on the home page unless they plan to continually upkeep it. Let's not have a client go to the site today and see the last news item was in July.) I'd say once a week, once every ten days is a good blog minimum.

If the above three are present, then yes, blog away.

[vangogh]

Blogging is way harder than it first appears.

That's a really important point that too often gets overlooked. Blogging is not easy. It takes a lot of time and work in order to have a successful blog. I do think it can be a great way to market yourself and your business, but you have to do it well.

I agree with all three of your points too. The consistency part has some flexibility in the sense that you don't need to blog every day, but if you can write a good post once a week or even every other week you should be fine. It's really more about the quality of the posts than it is about the quantity of posts. There are a few blogs I'm subscribed to that now only update once every few months. However the posts are so good it's still worth staying subscribed.

I think the biggest issue for small business blogs is who will write the blog. It seems like it should be an easy thing to write a few hundred words, but most people aren't particularly good writers. You really have to be honest with yourself about your writing ability. If there's no one in your business that has the skill to write, but you still want a blog you're better off hiring someone to write posts for you than writing a poor post every few days.

[KristineS]

Consistency. This is a biggie. I very strongly feel that if you are not consistent in your blog, it will hurt more than help you. This goes for *any* "Dated" material on your website - if I go there, and the last post date was three months ago, that's a little negative in my mind. It tells me you don't finish things (this is why I tell my clients to not put things like "company news" tidbits on the home page unless they plan to continually upkeep it. Let's not have a client go to the site today and see the last news item was in July.) I'd say once a week, once every ten days is a good blog minimum.



This was something I emphasized quite strongly in the article I wrote. If you don't have time to maintain a blog or a web site you shouldn't have one, it's that simple. I actually recommended updating content at least three times a week if you're hoping to build readership.

You're right, blogging isn't easy. That's part of what I was trying to get across to people. If you visit some of the embroidery and t-shirt forums people will ask for advice on how to get noticed or increase business and someone will throw out "start a blog". I'm trying to teach people that blogging can be worth it, but simply having a blog isn't enough to guarantee that you'll attract readers and customers.

[vangogh]

updating content at least three times a week

I'm not sure how important it is to post X number of times per week. I used to think it was important, but over time I've seen it's really the quality of the content more than the frequency of the content that will get people to read and subscribe. That doesn't mean you should let your blog sit idle for six months at a time, but I'd bet you can have a successful blog with even one post a month. I'd suggest at least once a week, but I don't think there's a general rule.

I'm subscribed to blogs that update several times a day, several times a week, and several times a month. I'm even subscribed to a few blogs that have barely had a new post in the last 6 months. At some point I may unsubscribe for those 6 monthers figuring I'll still find my way to the content, but I'd keep a blog that updates twice a month as long as the content is good.

[Dan Furman]

This was something I emphasized quite strongly in the article I wrote.

Sorry Kristine. Didn't mean to reiterate something you already did - I did not see/read the entire article. But yes, I agree, and do feel it is important.

Content quality noted Van, and you are correct that I'll happily wait for good content, but I still think most blogs should be updating every week to ten days or so.

For mine, I make it pretty clear that I am not "all business, all the time". It's maybe a little easier because my business really is much more "me" (as opposed to being a company).This allows me some freedom to, say, post results of my fantasy football draft or my (non-business) opinion of the election, etc etc.

[vangogh]

I think a week to 10 days is fair. I mostly wanted to get the point across that there isn't a specific number of posts you need per week and that it's ok to miss more time than usual on occasion. It really depends on the type of blog and the industry. A news blog needs to update multiple times daily. A blog focused on lengthy tutorials could easily get by with a post a week.

How about the better the content the more you can get away with posting less as long as you meet some minimum posting frequency.

Ideally I think you should post every week and the longer you wait between posts the more you risk losing your audience. Still you should post just because it's your day to post. Unless you have something to say you're just as well to remain silent.

[KristineS]

I advised three times a week when first starting to blog and working to build readership. I think once your blog is established you can scale that down if you like.

I used to be a bit anal on the subject of posting and posted every day. I've since scaled that back, as that schedule just isn't practical, particularly as I start writing in more places.

[vangogh]

Nothing wrong with three times a week posting schedule. It's a reasonable number of posts to make and you may be right that more posts (assuming they're quality posts) is a better way to attract readers.

I used to follow a three times a week schedule, but over time I've seen it really is less about quantity and more about quality. You obviously need some kind of quantity. If you never post there's no reason to subscribe, but I think the rules about posting frequency are less important than making sure the posts are worth reading. If all you can reasonably come up with is one great post a week it's better than three average posts a week.

[greenoak]

i like to post a few times a week, depending on what happens around here.... and what kind of pictures i got..mine is a lot more about pictures than lots of blogs...
im covering too much ground as usual....making it hard to have a single focus....but thats how the store is too...im getting about 60 hits a day....have no idea if thats good or not....i think have readers in about 4 different interest groups....
im enjoying ittybiz for blog advice...hers is so deep and rich..
ann

[Harold Mansfield]

Consistency. This is a biggie. I very strongly feel that if you are not consistent in your blog, it will hurt more than help you. This goes for *any* "Dated" material on your website - if I go there, and the last post date was three months ago, that's a little negative in my mind.


There are ways to cheat.

If your site/blog does not need constant updating, you can strip the:

<?php the_time('F d, Y') ?>

From your blog files, (I believe it's "index.php", or in some themes "post.php" ) that way you won't have the old dates showing on your home page.

To give the appearance of "freshness" install a current date and time plug in (or code it), for your sidebar or header, that way no matter when the last time was that you updated, new visitors will see today's date and current time.



I should follow my own advice :)

[Marcomguy]

Another reason to blog is to improve your main site's search rankings. If your blog is at www.example.com/blog or at www.blog.example.com, you get an incoming link every time you post.

[vangogh]

I agree blogs can help with search rankings, but I'm not following how you automatically get an incoming link with each new post.

[Marcomguy]

Every post on my blog gets a tag like:

<h2><a href="http://www.accessconsultinginc.com/blog/?p=111" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to ... etc.

I agree it's not a targeted link, but it still has some value.

[vangogh]

Right. That's an internal link from one page of your site to another. Sure it's a link and it can help the page being linked to, but internal links are likely given less value in the eyes of search engines than external links. And I think the the link you're referring to is one where the page is linking back to itself.

If you think of the idea behind why links are valuable when it comes to search engines it's that each might be considered a vote or recommendation for the page being linked to. An internal link is like a vote or recommendation for yourself, which generally isn't going to carry the same weight as a vote or recommendation from someone else.

Think of it another way. If internal links could help your pages rank as well as external links people would be creating hundreds of thousands of pages on their sites linking to the other pages on their sites.

It's a good idea to link between your pages and it can help to a degree (though it's more complex than just linking to your own content), but the link you're referring to doesn't have the same benefit you're thinking it does.

[Marcomguy]

I'll take an absolute internal link over a relative internal link any day. Agreed that internal links aren't as valuable as external ones, but - and your post seems to concur with this - they they do have some worth, no matter how tiny. And every tiny bit helps.

You're right that the link in my example above probably points to itself. That wasn't a good example to use. But there are other absolute internal links that get embedded with every post that don't point to the post itself.

Many high-ranking sites do have thousands of pages with internal links. Some article sites may have hundreds of thousands of pages. The good ones put relevant, non-duplicated content on their pages, so Google doesn't penalize them.

[vangogh]

By absolute and relative links do you mean:

http://www.domain.com/page.php
/page.php

or something similar. If so there's really no difference as far as search engines are concerned. They'll see them as the same thing. It can make a difference if someone else steals your content, in which case the absolute URL will still end up as a link back to you where the relative URL won't.

There are some other good reasons for having absolute URLs over relative URLs

Many high-ranking sites do have thousands of pages with internal links. Some article sites may have hundreds of thousands of pages.

I think you're seeing a cause and effect relationship where their might not be one. You're assuming the rankings are due to internal links. Some other possible causes of the search visibility:

more pages = more content = more opportunity to rank
more pages probably means more external links pointing into the site
more pages likely means a longer amount of time online so more trust in the eyes of search engines.

Again I'm not saying internal links can't help and I do think you should link between pages of your site, but it takes more than internal links to rank well. And it's not really an explicit benefit of a blog.

[Marcomguy]

I think you're seeing a cause and effect relationship where their might not be one. You're assuming the rankings are due to internal links.

Not assuming any such thing. As I said in a previous post, I understand internal links have only a tiny bit of value.


Again I'm not saying internal links can't help and I do think you should link between pages of your site, but it takes more than internal links to rank well. And it's not really an explicit benefit of a blog.

I think we're both saying the same thing - that internal links do help.

[billbenson]

That one caught my eye as well. I have never seen anything where absolute vs relative internal links matter. It doesn't mean they don't, but I've never seen something that said that they do???

[vangogh]

Bill search engines will pick up either fine. The main advantage to relative links is if you move things around you often don't need to change links. As long as you keep the same structure you could move a site from one domain to another and all the links should work. They're also easier to type.

A few advantages I've found for absolute URLs

1. You know they're right. Even though it shouldn't be a problem using relative URLs you know the absolute URLs are going to be correct (assuming you type well)

2. They work in feeds. Relative URLs don't

3. If someone steals your content and you're using relative URLs all the URLs will work on that site too. If you use absolute URLs all the URLs point back to your site.

4. Continuing from 3. If someone steals your content and all the links point back to your site you get free links. Low quality links most likely, but they're still links.

I used to use relative URLs all the time, but a couple years ago I switched to using absolute URLs for the reasons above.

[billbenson]

I hadn't thought about several of the things you mentioned VG. I have tended to use absolute url's as sometimes path issues can be a pain. Just gave up and used absolute. I still have a combination in most cases though.

[vangogh]

I generally use all absolute or I'll start the URL at the root as in /blog/postname/

[Harold Mansfield]

I agree blogs can help with search rankings, but I'm not following how you automatically get an incoming link with each new post.

You have kind of touched on this with the feeds, but to be more specific, blogs can be set up to automatically ping feed services, and you can set it up to ping as many as you want, so with every new post, you alert multiple sites that you have updated from Technorati, to Google. Those pings, are links to your blog that can be found on those reference sites.

[vangogh]

Harold I agree with everything you say, but the pings aren't the link. I was only referring to the way blogs will create a link around the page title that links back to the same post. If your post happens to be copied by someone else then the link will point back to your site, but otherwise it's just a link pointing back to itself and I can't see how a search engine would place much weight on it.

The link you'll get in the feed may be used by people to click through the feed and to your site, but again I'm not sure this would mean much to a search engine when it comes to ranking.