seth godin

I’m reading Seth Godin’s most recent book, Linchpin, and I was thinking today about how he writes. In this book, his style is a bit different than in the past, though if you’ve read some of his other books you can see how he has evolved into this style.

In Linchpin, the style is more direct, more emphatic and more personal than in the past. The key word in that sentence is “more” because it isn’t as if he hasn’t written that way previously. It is simply more.

Other people also write in this way and there is a good reason for doing so. I see it best illustrated by setting it against my own writing in blog posts.

I have a bad habit of equivocating. That isn’t an issue in Linchpin. Godin is direct and doesn’t fudge his statements. That makes for greater impact and thus effectiveness.

I think there are a few reasons why I equivocate. The first is the really bad reason. I don’t want to make a firm commitment to a statement I’m making. That is so very bad. I hope I don’t do that too often.

Another reason is a good one, but done to excess becomes a problem. I want what I write to be conversational. I don’t want my writing to come across as academic or formal. I want it to read in a way that you can “hear” someone speaking it in conversation. So I put in the odd conversational phrase, more or less, kind of … Like that, at least every so often. It’s okay occasionally, but done too much it undercuts what has been written. (Those italicized words are an example of what I do.)

The last reason is because I want to remain open to other perspectives. I don’t want to be dogmatic. This may be a well-meaning reason but it undermines the writing, makes it come across as non-committal and just reads as namby pamby. You can’t be all things to all people all the time. Take a position and live with it.

Godin does this in Linchpin and the book benefits. It is effective and engaging – partly for what it is about and partly for how it goes about it. It is direct and doesn’t equivocate.

If you’re writing, don’t be like me. Be like Seth.

Share:

Hide Sites

I’ve been busy this week and haven’t posted anything. (The web collectively mutters, “Thank heaven!”) But I have come across a few things that caught my attention.

The first is oodles of writers providing their rules for their craft and while it is in a fiction context many, if not all, are applicable to any kind of writing. The second is a brief Seth Godin post that points to how to use clichés (and why they work). Third is a post of my own from my other site, included if only because it has been ages since I’ve added anything new (probably of limited interest). And finally … a post that begins talking about language but soon reveals itself to be about impermanence. It’s interesting, at least to me, and may prompt me to write a lengthy post of my own. We’ll see.

And now the links:

Ten rules for writing fiction

“Get an accountant, abstain from sex and similes, cut, rewrite, then cut and rewrite again – if all else fails, pray. Inspired by Elmore Leonard’s 10 Rules of Writing, we asked authors for their personal dos and don’ts.”

How to use clichés (Seth Godin)

“The effective way to use a cliché is to point to it and then do precisely the opposite.”

A Lady Takes a Chance -1943 (Piddleville)

After having it on my computer for about two months in a half-finished state, I’ve finally posted my take on A Lady Takes a Chance (1943). It stars Jean Arthur and John Wayne and, yes, it’s a romantic comedy.

Let’s Get Radical (thinkBuddha.org)

“… We are, perhaps, not very good at thinking about change. Western thought, in particular, seems to be very wedded to an idea of stasis as the fundamental condition of things.”

Share:

Hide Sites

Search engines aren’t the only ones looking for keywords. We are too. In a sense, we are search engines as we look for what we’re trying to find or we meander over the web hoping to stumble on something interesting.

When we look, we look for words and phrases.

I‘m thinking of email newsletter subject lines in particular. From what I see coming into my inbox, the majority die on the vine because they have poorly composed, poorly thought through subject lines. In other words, they likely go straight to the trash folder without ever being opened.

The point of a subject line is to get someone to open the newsletter. If most people are like me, and I believe they are, they get loads of emails, including spam, and therefore just glance at what is unread in their inbox. They only see a few keywords, usually those at the very beginning – the first three, maybe five. And what do they see?

• Now available at …
• Great ways to save…
• What’s New this week…
• Company Name newsletter for…

None of these would get me to open an email. They are all so generic it’s unlikely I would continue on to see if the subject line redeemed itself with something interesting. The last one really makes me crazy.

Anyone that gets email knows the From field comes first and it clearly displays your name.

If I was to send out a newsletter, or any email, people would see Writelife in the From field. Why on earth would I then begin a subject line with, “Writelife presents a unique …?” Why include the name at all? The shorter a subject line, the better. Every word counts. This is one case where repetition is definitely not a good idea.

How should a subject line read?

I would try to get the important words right at the start. For example, “Fix your PC…” or, “Secure your documents…” or, “Download Olympic performances …” I would also try to make my subject line as short as possible (although, admittedly, I often fail at this).

Keep in mind that many people get their email on their iPhone, Blackberry or other mobile device. In most cases, they’ll only see the first two or three words. “Great ways to …” isn’t going to get the job done.

In the case of a newsletter, the content and the audience determine the subject line. In many of the newsletters I’ve worked on (usually guided by marketing departments), the emphasis is on what they want people to read rather than on what their customers want to read. And it usually shows in the open rate.

You have to look at the newsletter content and find what would most interest your audience and determine how to best present that in a subject line. The subject line doesn’t sell; the subject line gets people into the store, so to speak. It encourages them to open the newsletter.

Let’s say I’m doing a newsletter based on my last few Writelife posts (not the best example because I’m not really selling anything). I might have a subject line like:

• Respect and work; what’s Seth Godin do?

(Note: obviously, subject lines don’t have links. These are included for anyone curious about see the actual posts.)

The line is short and in many cases the second part won’t be seen on a handheld device. But it does have keywords near the front. However, we could make it better if we look at the keywords, which are: respect, work, Seth Godin. Of those, which would garner the greatest interest? The subject line should be:

• What’s Seth Godin do?; respect and work

If you insist on including your company name (which I disagree with) at least have the good sense to put it at the end – after the important terms:

• What’s Seth Godin do?; respect and work | Writelife

Of course, this version risks having people think the second part relates to the first. These kinds of subject lines are a result of trying to do too much, say too much, reach too many people. You can’t be everything to everyone, so make some choices. To me, the best version of this reads this way:

• What’s Seth Godin do?

I’m not basing this on any data I have at hand. I’m sure there is data out there that either supports or refutes this approach. But my intuitive sense says this is the way to go. It’s definitely based on how I personally view emails and newsletters.

It should be noted that while I’ve been writing about email and subject lines the majority of this is applicable to blog post headlines, tweets on Twitter and most things web related. (And I’m guilty in not practicing what I preach.)

What do you think?

Share:

Hide Sites

I’ve been following Seth Godin’s blog for years. I’ve been reading his books for years. (I think I started with Permission Marketing.) However, as he himself describes in a different context, we often experience a dip and so, as with anything that goes on over a long period of time, it waxes and wanes. Thus I read his blog almost daily for a while then other things get my attention or I get too busy and I go through a period of not following his posts, or seeing them only occasionally.

And then my interest renews and I start following daily again. I get past my “dip.”

Why do I read I him? I asked myself this question today while drinking coffee and freezing my butt off as I paced around my deck. (The pacing was about keeping warm; being outside was about waking myself up.)

I think I know the answer. Although often referred to as a “marketing guru,” and strictly speaking I suppose that is what he is, I don’t think that is what he is or does. What he does is observe and describe human behaviour – and that’s why I find him interesting.

You could probably say all marketing is about this, as well as using what we learn from it to create interest in products or services and ultimately stimulate sales. But it’s often at a distance, as if we’re speaking of something that is “other,” of which we aren’t a part.

From what I’ve seen, when the various aspects of marketing are discussed there is a degree of detachment. Maybe it’s the way we speak of it, maybe it’s because there is a heavy focus on numbers and charts. It’s a cerebral way of seeing it.

With Seth Godin, I sense the visceral. While the head may agree or disagree, it is the agreement or disagreement in the gut that is strongest. I’ll read something that he is describing, such as The Dip, and I know it’s true because I’ve experienced it or seen it in others. Often, he’ll describe something we’re already aware of, if only intuitively, but we’ve yet to formulate or articulate it. But there is an element of recognition we experience in what he says.

I came across one of his posts today, Random rules for ideas worth spreading, and it was the same thing. There is a list and much of it might be called common sense, even obvious in some cases, but each item resonates in one way or another with what we observe either in ourselves, in others or both. My favourite was this one: “Are you a serial idea-starting person? If so, what can you change to end that cycle? The goal is to be an idea-shipping person.” Yes, I know that one.

In his books Seth speaks of being remarkable, of tribes and now, in his latest book, of being a linchpin (Linchpin: Are You Indispensable?). Regardless of the words used, each term (and the ideas contained in the books in which they’re found) are born out of the observation and understanding of human behaviour, something we recognize as true in our guts.

I think that is the key to his success and, while I don’t know this to be true, I’d suggest at the core of what he does is a love of and fascination with people. I suppose someone could achieve success without this but I can’t help feeling that to do so would require so much more effort.

Share:

Hide Sites

I don’t know what was in the air or water today but people all over the place have been posting fascinating items. So let me share (and keep them handy for myself).

Informing ourselves to death

From a speech Neil Postman gave way back in 1990:

“… I have never heard anyone speak seriously and comprehensively about the disadvantages of computer technology, which strikes me as odd, and makes me wonder if the profession is hiding something important. That is to say, what seems to be lacking among computer experts is a sense of technological modesty.”

This speech should, I think, be required reading for everyone but especially for those in the fields of technology, business, marketing and communications. Much as we like technology, there is also another side to it.

Cult of done

Thanks to Daniel Pink, I came across The Cult of Done Manifesto. Definitely worthwhile, though I find #3 a bit worrying given that I’m a writer and editor.

Down time

In a post titled Slack, Seth Godin has some suggestions for those who find themselves with, “… more time than work. In other words, slack time.” I recommend his recommendations.

Thou slander of thy heavy mother’s womb!

That line is from Richard III via the Shakespeare Insult Generator. Just for some fun.

Share:

Hide Sites

In reading Seth Godin’s latest book, Tribes, I came across this and thought it was worth posting:

Instead of wondering when your next vacation is, maybe you ought to set up a life you don’t need to escape from.

I wonder how many people take vacations to get somewhere as opposed to get away from they are? More than few, I imagine.

Share:

Hide Sites

I’m still on the Hugh MacLeod post I mentioned yesterday, Tribes: Ten Questions for Seth Godin. I was juggling various things yesterday so I only read the first five or so questions. I went back today and read the rest and came upon this, which touches on a favourite topic of mine:

Q: Your books and blog posts seem to have one thing in common, they seem to be getting shorter and shorter with every passing year. I have no problem with that; I think people genuinely prefer short reads, over long ones. For people aspiring to publish their own books one day, what advice would you give them re. deciding on a book’s length?

A: Try to write a book or a blog post that can’t possibly be any shorter than it is.

Exactly. This reminds me of what Steve Krug says in his book, Don’t Make Me Think! It reads something like, “Whatever you write, cut it in half. Then cut what remains in half.”

I think it’s much harder and takes a great deal more skill to keep something short.

(It seems I’ve written about brevity before. I also posted a warning note about excessive trimming. Both are posts from four years ago. Memory fades but blog posts don’t.)

Share:

Hide Sites

There’s a fascinating book by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience and it helps to explain why the more successful you become in today’s world of work, the more your work becomes a nightmare from which you wonder if you’ll ever wake up.

It relates, in part, to something Seth Godin wrote about a while back in a post called Godin’s Leveraged Effort Curve. His post, and Csikszentmihalyi’s book, are related. In Seth’s post, he says:

Among highly-compensated workers, the amount of work you get paid for actually goes down as you get paid more.

He talks about how as you succeed, becoming more valued by the company, the less you do of the actual work you were hired for. A designer designs less. A programmer programs less. A writer writes less. Why? Because you increasingly spend time on what Seth calls “overhead,” which I take to mean meetings, “processes,” e-mail, PowerPoint presentations and all those other pains that gobble up time like some great, voracious mouth.

You are pulled from the worker fringes of the corporation closer toward the centre where the job seems to be more of a pointless soft-shoe routine than anything else. You do less of the work you enjoy doing and spend much more time managing – which could be enjoyable too if so much of the managing wasn’t concerned with personalities, politics and seemingly irrational processes.

In his book Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience, Csikszentmihalyi describes the state people get into when they are working well and happily: “flow,” where all the pistons are firing, one idea spawns another and — well, you just work. He describes autotelic work, jobs and workers (autotelic relating to purpose). He explains the term “autotelic,” saying:

The term “autotelic” derives from two Greek words, auto meaning self, and telos meaning goal. It refers to a self-contained activity, one that is done not with the expectation of some future benefit, but simply because the doing itself is the reward.

He also talks about some of the characteristics of this kind of activity, finding it is closely related to games. For example, some of the characteristics include clear goals, feedback (usually immediate) and increasing complexity.

It strikes me that those characteristics are experienced less the more you succeed. Goals become obscure or contradictory, feedback is vague and hesitant and complexity resides more in the processes and structure of the company than in the ostensible work you were initially hired to do.

While I would never argue that a person should do a job simply for the sake of the job itself — you do need to make a buck — I do think Csikszentmihalyi’s book helps to explain why the longer many of us are in companies, particularly as we succeed, the less satisfying our work becomes and the more frustrated we feel. I think we move further away from the work we enjoy as we are steered into work that offers little satisfaction – no flow. But as Csikszentmihalyi says, “work can either be brutal and boring, or enjoyable and exciting.”

I think Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience is a book well worth reading for anyone who is in a job, especially a job they are doing fairly well in, yet finding themselves discontented. If nothing else, it should help put a few things in perspective.

Share:

Hide Sites

While there is a natural inclination when something like an old year ends to look back and review, my memory is so poor I usually make a schmozzle of it. I recall imperfectly and forget largely. So I tend to refrain from reviewing.  (Aside … see my update mention below re: Seth’s blog.)

Still, I do remember a few writing related things from 2004. For example, a study was released showing fewer people are reading now. And another study showed increasing numbers of people wanting to write. (Sorry, I’ve no idea where those links are now.)

Phrased differently, it would seem buckets of people have something to say. But there aren’t many of us who want to listen. Perhaps this would make for a good resolution for all of us as we go into the new year: less talking, more listening.

2004 also continued with the wild proliferation of blogs. People are blogging all over the place, part of which is business people with something to say. Some of us want to do blog even though we don’t have anything to say — it’s  just fun to chatter. Though when you think about it, this isn’t really true. People who chatter but seem to be saying nothing are usually saying, in a roundabout way, “Hey! I’m here! Could someone please notice me? This world is a lonely place, you know.”

Again, in 2005 maybe we could all notice and listen a bit more than we normally do.

As far as my own writing goes, I think the most interesting and significant part of the year we’re leaving behind is this blog, Writelife.

Despite falling off in the last part of the year, I’ve managed to be fairly consistent with posting and I’ve also managed to be focused — well, relative to how focused I normally am, which is all over the map. For the most part, I’ve managed to keep this to writing, marketing, blogs and business. However, I am considering expanding that a bit in 2005. We’ll see.

And that’s pretty much that for my blogging in 2004. My blogging will whisk into 2005 sometime tomorrow, lingering effects of festive celebrations permitting.

Having made a poor job of passing along Christmas greetings, let me make amends by wishing everyone a great and giggly 2005. May we all lighten up a bit and move on. There’s too much fun and joy to be had to waste time on anger and resentment.

The jokes work better too.

UPDATE:

I had to mention News from Australia on Seth Godin’s blog. This directly relates to my closing comment and New Year greeting. And it relates to what I hope will be my next post. Be sure to read this, particularly the part about the Australian dentist. This is how we should conduct our lives and careers.

Share:

Hide Sites