COMMENTS
I was reading this article and listening to the blog post earlier today and I remember saying to my business partner "Ok, that's great and all, but what are you doing about it?!"
I dismissed it as being WSJ.
Well, as of this post, WSJ still hasn't followed their own advice of "talking at" the customer. There is a little discussion going on, but nothing contributed by the authors.
I agree that the article does bring in some interesting points, but never follows them. There is nothing "Web 2.0ish" about the page, but that may not be the authors fault. Unfortunately, the web developers at WSJ may not be aware of this information. That is why it is so important for the marketing people to become involved in technology and every interaction with the customer or potential customer.
On the topic of HubSpot, this is my first time visiting the site, so I am not overly familiar with it, but I feel that it does a rather nice job. It is far better than WSJ. There are still ads, but there is also a fair amount of user interaction with the page. From RSS feeds, to Stumble and Digg links, and even a Wikipedia link! One of the things that I may recommend is to allow for more user customization (colors, themes, layout, etc). This will allow more user interaction, and create a stronger bond between the user and the site.
The real test will be to see if someone from the WSJ comments on this article... they would redeem themselves a bit if they do. Let's see...
Rick,
I definitely hear what you're saying in regards to the WSJ not 'walking their talk'. However, the authors have been commenting on the WSJ forum for the post:
<a>http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=4739<a>
It seems Bruce Weinberg has been responding to almost all of the comments at the forum.
-Brad
Well, you make excellent points in your blog, but for all our disappointment in WSJ and approval of Hubspot... No, you're not taking your own advice. You put social media links at the top of the story, where you should be catching the reader's attention. That means they are not at the bottom of the story, where readers could instantly respond to the great article they've read by posting it on their own page or voting on it. At the bottom, where you should have actual comments that would draw people into the conversation, you require them to click on a link to the comments and risk losing them. Not only that, but the space where the comments should be is reserved for promoting one of those insidious Hubspot white papers/tutorials that I seem to fall prey to every other day. (You listening, Adam?) You're offering me three how-to videos and an e-book to leave your blog.
I only bring this up because I can't believe you provided the opportunity. Keep on blogging. (I dare ya!)
oo its really great it had given me good inspiration
@Brad Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't notice the forum posts, but it's great that the authors are doing them. I think the fact that I didn't see them underscores my point #3. The links to the forums are not where you would expect them. I think this stems from the fact that the WSJ pages are designed for ads, not for conversations.
@Casey I'm not sure what you mean. If you look at the page for this post (http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/4458/default.aspx) The comments are displayed right beneath the article. There is the small banner between the post and comments, but that's simple to ignore. On the WSJ site there are no comments -- or even a link to the comments -- at the bottom of the page.
To be honest, Rick, I liked your review of the WSJ article much more than I liked the article itself. Not only does it fail on the points you mentioned, but it reads stuffily, which goes against the conversational nature of Web 2.0, in my opinion. From what I've seen, a conversational tone encourages readers to, well, conversate. It increases the relatability of the company. I'd much rather read a company blog in a friendly, casual tone than one full of buzzwords and complicated sentences. Keep it short. Keep it simple.
Of course, certain audiences call for certain tones, which definitely applies here, and why the article was written the way it was. Still, I'm a fan of leading by example.
And not to be nitpicky, but my alma mater needs its "e": Bentley. And we're techinically University now, but I'm ok if you still call it Bentley College :)
@Leah, thanks for the great comment. I completely agree with you about the conversational tone. In think there are actually a lot of things site owners can do to encourage conversation -- I was getting at this with ads/comment placement, and I think you hit the nail on the head with your point about writing style.
Also, thanks for pointing out my misspelling -- another reason conversation is great!
Thanks to the commentor for pointing about Author's participation. I am surprised ot see the authors did not market themselves (or did they through comments on WSJ!). More Babson presence in WSJ/MIT review. See
Gild by Association by Ross Petty. It is interesting as well!