Proof that Social Networks and Blogs Are the Worst Places to Find Readers

[MGalloway]

You can keep your blogs and get less visiibilty, but for those who are wondering how to increase it: giving up your blog, switching to a website, and guest blogging are great ways to start.

I think this really depends on what kind of books an author writes. Although I don't get a great deal of traffic on my blog (and it is not geared towards writers, either), it has allowed for a great deal more interaction than a static website can offer. There is definite value in that.

Also, some of the posts I have written over the past few months are finding their way into a non-fiction book I'm working on (albeit with some changes). Additionally, writing all those posts has actually strengthened my non-fiction writing, much in same way as when I write a big block of short stories before setting out to write a novel. Although I've cut back from posting three times a week, I'm not ready to give up the blog yet. Guest posting would be the next logical step, however.

[Adam Pepper]

Yes, actually the study does support the contention that "social networks and blogs are the worst places to find readers"

What the study supports is that "social networks" and blogs scored the lowest of the options given.  That is light years away from "worst."

Also, there may be some overlap between social networks and recommendations from others.  Because those recommendations may be coming via social network and blog.

[Rebecca Burke]

Thank you, Lisa Grace. That is what I wanted to hear . I would rather be writing books than blog entries, mainly b/c I know I'd have so much fun doing the latter that the book-writing might grind to a halt.

When I think of some of the traditionally published authors I read and like, few have blogs--they're too busy working on their new works.

Of course, some people have more energy than others, i.e. Joe Konrath, who I HOPE never stops blogging, too. But the more I learn about algorithms and the need for authors to spread their footprints wider v. deeper, the more I believe you are right.

[Rebecca Burke]

This is too funny not to share everywhere: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL31OIktdZ4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL31OIktdZ4</a>

Note that at the very end he spams us; no one is pure .

[CoraBuhlert]

I blog because I enjoy it. I had a very active blog from 2001 to 2006, but stopped blogging when my MA thesis started eating my brain. I started up again in 2010, because I found that I missed blogging. When I published my first indie book, I already had an active blog which gave me my first boost of sales.

I definitely think that you should only blog if you enjoy it. I see plenty of writers (both indie and traditional) who post a thinly veiled promo post on their blogs every two weeks or so. I rarely visit those blogs a second time, because they're boring, even if I like the authors and their books. But if a writer is interesting, I will write his or her blog again and will probably give their books a try as well.

So blog if you enjoy it, tweet if you enjoy it, facebook if you enjoy that, do guest blogs and interviews if you enjoy that. There's no magic bullet that works for everyone, you have to find your own promotional mix. For example, I blog, I do interviews and I do guest blogs, but I don't tweet or facebook, because I don't enjoy it. Somebody else will have a different mix.

[pamclaughton]

All I know is I have bought MANY books because I read about them on a blog or someone on Facebook or another social network site recommended them. I don't think I'm alone. If anything, I think more and more people will be influenced this way.

[LilianaHart]

According to that survey (which I don't know enough about to judge as to its validity) 23.9% find new titles on blogs and social networks. I call that hardly an insubstantial number, especially since we have some control over those and have no control over most the other means.

Yes, agreed!

The survey is interesting, but like with any survey, it only takes the opinion of a handful of people. That hardly justifies the whole. I know for a FACT my writing career took off because of social media. I was a nobody starting from nowhere, and I'm selling A LOT of books.

With that said, I think the only reason social media is an ineffective tool is because the person using it doesn't know how to find their target audience. There are ways to do that and I've written on here about them before so I won't beat a dead horse  You can't just sit back and hope readers fall into your lap. You have to look for them constantly. You have to talk to them, build a relationship with them. If you make it a point to connect with your readers, just on a basic level, a comment here or there, then you will have a fan for life. Readers love personal attention. And we as writers need to give it to them.

Blogs are secondary, after the social media sites, but still extremely important. Being visible is the goal. Your name needs to be recognizable. In the indie world, our names are our brand. Not like when you're trad pubbed and your genre/humor/whatever is your brand. Our names need to be seen, and the internet is the only way to effectively do that in giant proportions.

Word of mouth is extremely important, but it's the slower sailing ship as far as marketing and exposure go. It takes time for word of mouth to take hold, and believe me, it's great once it does. But do you know how many times I've gotten a Google alert or seen my name on Twitter with someone recommending one of my books? It happens pretty often. Word of mouth is mostly through the Internet now--in an email or on a social media site. When was the last time you picked up the telephone to tell someone about a great book you read? See where I'm going with this? But I had several conversations on Twitter yesterday about a few great books I'd just read.

Just my 2 cents.

Liliana

[oliewankanobe]

Patrick Rothfuss is my favorite author in recent years and he doesn't blog constantly, but I ADORE his blog.  Neil Gaiman is on twitter and blogs.  Joe Abercrombie... lots of guys and gals I really respect.

It doesn't have to be constant.  I only blog 3/4 times a month.

[LisaGraceBooks]

It's a good idea to get on other blogs, but there are also some good reasons for having your own.

1. It's easier to get guest spots when you can offer the same, and you actually have enough readers to make it worthwhile for the other writer.

I don't have a blog and have never had a problem booking guests spots. They're relieved they don't have to reciprocate. Most the blogs I hit are review sites, they have no need for me to reciprocate.

2. The 200 people will each buy your book because they've developed a relationship with you. Many of the writers will also post about your book on their blogs, which is like having multiple guest posts written for you. That's even more efficient than writing them yourself.

If they're on your website mailing list, they have a relationship with you, and they are eagerly awaiting your next release. I post where I've guest blogged, they can click the link, and read what I wrote (same as if I had posted it on my blog) but now they're introduced to a new blog, with all kinds of interesting posts and I've just helped out two sites, mine and theirs with the link. Much more bang for your time than scrouging your post on your site.

3. You can't tightly control your content if you guest post. I'm about to release the first book of horror movie reviews from my review site. The content from this site will make 7 books a year. I couldn't find 250 places to publish horror movie reviews. My topics would need to vary, making it much harder to turn it into a book.

Of course you do. My posts are rarely edited if at all. No one has the time.

But guest posting is good, too. It's just way more of a drive-by tactic, and products sell better if you can get them in front of people 7+ times.

Unless you have something to say that really sets you apart from Konrath, Dean Wesley Smith, Bob Mayer, or Kris Rusch or you enjoy blogging more than writing novels, you are wasting a huge amount of time and energy. Sorry, but the wisest way to blog is to guest blog only.

[BrianKittrell]

Data such as this is useful to a point, but we're talking apples and oranges.

I would rather see a survey at the end of my books which asked, "How did YOU find out about THIS book?", and I might better understand what's working and what's not.

[oliewankanobe]

I suspect that people who have little success with social media are very bad at it.  I know I've had GREAT results.  But I also see authors (some are even friends) who are positively ABUSIVE with promo. 

If I follow you because you are interesting, funny, informative, or just PLEASANT and you tweet/post about a book of your own or one you reccomend?  I'll click that link.

If I follow you because I was curious and you do nothing but shove links in my face?  Never engage other than to pimp?  I'll unfollow.

[jtw78]

I think people give up on the blog angle too quickly. It takes 6 months to a year of blogging 5 days a week to just start to build a readership. Then you can slowly build up your blog with good quality posts, maybe 3 days a week. It's not a flash-in-the-pan kind of marketing. It's the slow game where you develop trust over time.

Just because you can publish a blog instantly doesn't mean that it will be viewed at the same pace. Google won't rank you blog very high in the search results if you're new or you don't post very much content.

And social media is about interaction. If you are constantly blasting your readers with advertisements, then they won't care and they'll tune out. But if you can cultivate interaction and conversation with them, you have a much more committed and powerful fan base to promote your work.

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

http://www.kindleboards.com/index.php/topic,101699.0.html

Perhaps they should be merged.

[Rebecca Burke]

LisaGrace, thanks for sharing your marketing expertise (and all the other commenters, as well). I'm drawn to your philosophy of social media marketing because I don't want to blog--mostly because I think I'd enjoy it way too much and never write another book. I love many writers' blogs and hope they keep chugging, but it's easy to imagine all the hours they spend doing this.

Do you have a FB fan page? Is it worth it? There's a thread somewhere else on Kindleboards where writers debate this, but of course their opinion is based on their own success with it. I think many who think it's necessary are genre writers who have a much wider fan base than I ever will, writing YA fiction on different subjects each time out.

[shelleyo1]

I don't trust the numbers on any pie chart that adds up to 200.3%--like their discoverability chart.

[smreine]

It's curious that one of the book discoverability options wasn't "it's an author I already like." Many times, I find an author I love and "discover" their entire backlist (or at least the rest of the series).

This is part of the social media thing, too-- it might not be the biggest way people find NEW authors, but it's a way readers keep up with authors they already like. You should always make sure to have a way to contact your readers and tell them you have a new book out.

Also, I'm in love with Courtney Milan, who is right about everything (as usual). But who doesn't love her?

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

I don't trust the numbers on any pie chart that adds up to 200.3%--like their discoverability chart.

Because everyone knows that each of us only discovers book in one way, and it is impossible for people to use multiple means of discovering books...

[Elizabeth Ann West]

There are far worse ways to find readers than in social networks.

Sky writing. Now THAT is a thing of the past. (What a waste of $1,000.)

I am ROLLING!!! I was wondering why my smoke signal campaign wasn't working as well as my twitter channel. UGH. I'm going to kill the telegram blast, too.

Social media is a great way to find readers if you're social. Just like book signings weren't great for every author in their heyday (some authors are best kept away from the public, just saying...), neither is a one size fits all "Here is where all the readers live, have at 'em." But the more places you try to find readers rather than deciding something isn't worth your time (really, why is an author's time somehow MORE precious than a reader's?), the more readers you get. Period. Whether it's via church visits, glad handing at playgrounds with other Moms, handing your business card to your restaurant waitress, or just tweeting. LOL.

[shelleyo1]

Because everyone knows that each of us only discovers book in one way, and it is impossible for people to use multiple means of discovering books...

No, because a pie chart is a goofy way to express their findings in this case. Pie chart percentages should equal 100%, representing the whole. That's the point of using a pie in the first place. Then the breakdown of percentages actually mean something.

30.8% use bookstore employees as their main method of discovering books, for instance, with a separate wedge of the pie for people who can't choose between one or more methods as their main method. The way this is broken down, with the 30% getting recommendations from bookstore owners, they might have done that once or twice, but 98% of the time find a book another way.

There are other methods of expressing their findings that make a lot more sense, and would make the findings clearer.

[ShayneHellerman]

I have heard this figure before about how influential bookstore staff are. I question if it is still accurate, or people answering the survey might be speaking in general terms about their (past) habits, habits that are no longer applicable.

Speaking as someone who worked in Chapters (Canadian chain book store) I've seen how influential bookstore staff can be. I worked in receiving, so I got to handle all of the incoming titles, and see the frequency with which they came into the store. At once point the management challenged the booksellers to hand sell their favorite books to people who came looking for a recommendation, and I saw a significant jump in how many copies of those books were ordered, and how often.

Hand selling can be a powerful tool - unfortunately, there are hundreds of thousands of titles in the stores, and there's no way a bookseller can hand sell them all. You just have to hope that a bookseller falls in love with your book enough to recommend it to people.