Don’t Stuff Yourself into the Ballot Box
Posted by Liz Strauss · 6 Comments
Recently a list called the Z-List Meme was circulated. It was started to acknowledge blogs of substance that folks might not know. The idea was to take the list, add to it, and post it on your blog. That would give these blogs a little push in the rankings and more readership.
Seth Godin raised the bar a bit when he put one version of the list on Squidoo and added a feature in which folks could vote for the blog or blogs that they found particularly useful. What happened next doesn’t seem to be what was intended. One blogger, at least, went on a full-out campaign to “stuff the ballot box.”
The blog in question has tagline that reads
“The new currency is trust, authenticity, and a good story.”
One blogger added her blog as folks were invited to. But I shy from linking directly to the post where she gives directions to her readers on how exactly to vote, for her blog, but you can find it at http://kimklaverblogs.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-school-blog-queen-for-day.html
Some might call this fun or good marketing. I call it asking your readers to do something they don’t need to. Blatant self-promotion makes me wonder if I were to hire you, who’s agenda would come first mine or yours? I’m thinking you would be thinking of you.
Copywrite, Ink. had somewhat the same reaction as I do.
Unfortunately, one blogger felt otherwise, turning the true spirit of Godin’s post into a case study that is similar to the challenges Reddit experienced a few months ago when overzealous marketing types voted their articles up and other articles down. However, unlike the Reddit stacking, Kim Klaver and a handful of her readers were less than anonymous. On her blog, which I won’t link to, she wrote: “If we push it to #1, I’ll take a screenshot pronto and post it here. We’ll be ‘Queen for a day.’”
Her marketing tactic worked, driving several readers to vote and then report her blog’s progress. In fact, they voted hers up and other blogs down, enough so, that one commenter on her blog finally wrote: “You know, sending an email out in order to ask for votes is really quite lame. … Deceptive if you ask me. Isn’t this the very thing you preach against?” Obviously not.
“I don’t mind asking for votes though, since people can do it or not. I might even send out another email, so be forewarned…hehehe,” Klaver replied. “If the blog writers didn’t tell their readers about the popularity contest, how would they know and how could they help their favorite writers?”
Klaver seems to have missed the point of the post entirely. It was never meant to be a popularity contest . . .
The most basic Internet tracking reveals the story behind her empty victory; many blogs were voted down despite never being visited. It is a shame, because I visited many of those blogs today and several were worthwhile despite being voted down.
What did she win? She probably won some readers who didn’t know her — other bloggers. She’ll keep the kind who believe that marketing can be won by such tactics. They’re the same kids who vote for Jr. High President and Homecoming Queen.
It’s fair to think that she lost the reader who called it lame and deceptive and any reader who thinks as that reader does.
Don’t put yourself in the Ballot Box for fun or promotional reasons. It can only backfire with people who don’t know you.
Let other folks decide you belong there.
Liz Strauss




“Let other folks decide you belong there.”
Can I add an extension to your last sentence: belong there for the right reasons?
Besides that I’m glad to see that the numbers of bloggers who like the list (lists it seems now) for the right reason; i.e. finding new and interesting blogs (like I did), but can’t for the love of blogging see a reason to vote??
Hi Karin!
I love your edit! It needs to be there — for the rights — is exactly what I meant.
There was no reason to vote. There is no way to compare unique value nor is there a need.
You have just won fan. I sure like how you think!
Hey Liz,
I just wanted to thank you for sourcing our blog and mention that I have come to enjoy yours as well. You’re right of course: if brand value equals total positive and negative impressions, one has to wonder whether Klaver had a net positive or negative gain.
Wishing you all the best in the new year.
Rich
Hi Richard!
I’m on the side of a total net loss. What was “positive” was short term and soon forgotten. What was negative is hard to forget.
Thanks for the kind words. I found your analysis refreshing and a great read!