When you start defending your article by applying ‘Survivor-ship bias’ on a questionable character…
Md Sohan Haidear
201

I appreciate your response, and sincerely give a fuck that you spent the time to reply, because your time is your most valuable and most finite resource.

Let me try to tackle this point by point, because this is something I do care about and it’s important:

Keeping aside his poor personality traits, doesn’t that assume becoming loved by Americans is the most desired thing in the world? Have you ever wondered whether being popular matters more to a brand or having more satisfied customers? They are not the same thing, right?

This, my good friend, is a joke. A content tactic that I can employ on my own because I am not personally, as a human person writing this, tying this to any one client I have. And their views are not my views.

I work almost exclusively as a ghost-writer and ghost-content-marketer.

And it obviously did work on you enough to respond. :)

The thing I’m actually trying to prove is that copy does not need to be perfect. That we can be a bit wild with it. That what actually matters is getting people buzzing.

And if I can do it for myself, with the engagements I have, and get leads in a way that lets me be a complete crazy-person for the most part, it proves in this microcosmic instance that anyone can actually do this.

Anyone can actually market their product and services well enough to get a response if they just try to figure out how best to reach their audience.

My audience likes this stuff. I’ve only been doing it in earnestness since last Septemberish.

Check out Jon Westenberg 🌈He and I are definitely cut from the same cloth.

My issue with this article is that, it talks in vague language. “Getting people to talk” — is it the lead generation phase you are talking about? Where does it fit in in the overall marketing strategy?

I take a speak so that others may listen approach. It does wonders for earning client trust and loyalty, since you are a real person who doesn’t rely on buzzwords. This is at the oldschool engagement / awareness level.

Next, someone will inevitably email me (probably once I repost this all over the internet, namely reddit) telling me it inspired them, they liked my fire, and they want to work with me.

The consideration stage of the funnel is already being worked on. All I did was write passionately in a way that others may listen and understand, laymens, basics, visceral, bluntly.

I do not want to attract clients who are put off by this. So I opt them out by putting out this type of work on occasion.

Check out my other stuff. You’re bound to find some far less confrontational, goopy-languaged work in the bunch.

Yes, you got me talking and you can count this as a success, that you got me to write a long response. But my point is, that does not show how good this article was, or how after reading it I felt I could have spent my time on another article. You certainly write with flair, but you needed better argument and research to convince me. That’s why I wrote this, maybe you will mind it for your next article?

It does show how good the article was. You spent this entire time replying with a gigantic response. It’s yuuuge. If the intent is to catch eyes, get people talking — it was — it worked.

A good article doesn’t just mean it was written the way that you want it to be written, an industry standard, or anything like that.

A good article does the job it intended to do. This one did.

Next we’ll most likely get a run-down of how to rock LinkedIn’s world with expert content marketing tactics, as that’s my bread and butter.

I don’t much mind if you stay tuned or not. I do appreciate that you responded. Like I said, I give a fuck about this.

But if you opt-out of the journey now, that’s not really my concern.

My concern in this interaction is you know that I read this and responded. Because I care about this, it’s important.

I haven’t promoted this piece yet. Let’s see how it does.