Just call me Pollyanna
Published August 2nd, 2007 in Blogging.“If no one hates you, you’re doing something wrong”
This is a quote from a recent post on Copyblogger. Do you think that’s true? While I agree that you can’t water down your content so much that no one will ever take issue with it, stating firm and well thought out opinions does not have to be offensive. As Brian quotes in his article, Tim Ferriss said in a recent interview on ProBlogger,
Do not try to appeal to everyone. Instead, take a strong stance and polarize people: make some love you and some hate you. Hate is an extreme, but here’s the gist: what you write, in order to create the highest pass-along value, needs to be “remarkable”. Is it something that is worth remarking upon?
I agree with Tim that being “remarkable” is important, however why must anyone be offended because someone takes a strong stance on something and holds a different opinion that they do? Of course, there are those who try to be offensive just to drive traffic, and I don’t understand that either.
Here’s my appeal to you:
- If I happen to take a strong stance on something and you disagree, tell me about it in the comments- I’m interested in your opinion.
- Be nice as you express your opinion here or on any other site, and I’ll do the same.
- Let’s not turn into jerks just to drive traffic. It’s not worth it in the end.
- Let’s try to remember the lessons we learned in kindergarten: be nice, share and try to get along with others.
Tell me what you think. Am I just being too girly and naive? Are we really not successful unless people start to hate us?
Stay tuned- the next post contains some big news!
You might also like:
Did you like this post? How about subscribing in a reader or via e-mail.
28 Responses to “Just call me Pollyanna”
- 1 Pingback on Aug 3rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
- 2 Pingback on Aug 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Hi Randa. I don’t think you’re being Pollyanna at all. In fact I totally agree with you.
It’s not about being offensive, it’s about people getting offended even when you mean no offense. People get offended about everything these days. It’s somewhat depressing if you let it be.
One must take a firm position in order to resonate with anyone, which means you won’t be liked by everyone. The fact that that’s not only ok, but preferable, is all I was trying to say.
>>Are we really not successful unless people start to hate us?
Some people will hate you simply because you *are* successful. So you tell me.
Inside the Tim Ferris quote is this line, “Hate is an extreme, but here’s the gist: what you write, in order to create the highest pass-along value, needs to be “remarkable”.
He is not advocating taking a stand for the sake of principals, he is advocating offending people solely for the sake of improving your personal exposure and I find that offensive.
That makes total sense Brian. Thanks for your comment. One doesn’t have to actually be offensive to be hated.
@Adtracker- I wondered whether he was using the word “hate” to make a point. I didn’t get the sense that he was really advocating offending people, but advocating being “remarkable” which, as Brian said, is offensive to some, no matter what.
>>He is not advocating taking a stand for the sake of principals, he is advocating offending people solely for the sake of improving your personal exposure and I find that offensive.
Are you sure about that? Being “remarkable” is often simply not popular with everyone, but resonates with some. That’s all he’s saying, which is also what Seth Godin and tons of others before him say must be done in order to say anything that someone will find worth listening to. Sadly, the truth often offends people the most.
For example, you took offense at Tim’s statement, but I find his statement innocuous and true. I think that proves the point that you can almost always offend someone these days without really trying.
Randa - Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion here. I had, and have, no intension of comming onto your blog and starting an argument.
As long as there has been communication, muckrakers have enjoyed loyal followings, if only temporarily. I understood the quote to advocate taking a strong or sharp position “in order to create the highest pass-along value”.
Perhaps he was simply saying one should stand by what they believe to be true or right and not always ride the fence or blow in the wind like a politician, thereby gaining the respect of their readers. If this is the meaning I totally agree with him.
I have no problem with anyone, blogger or otherwise, who speaks passionately about what they belive. I do have a problem with speakers who manipulate people’s passions for their own benefit. Perhaps my disdain for this type of person caused me to interpret the quote incorrectly.
@AdTracker - I didn’t get the impression you were trying to start an argument, or that there was an argument - just an exchange of opinions.
I’m with you in your disdain for types of people.
If someone disagrees or hates something that you write they don’t need to be nasty about it. Especially if they have any interest of a) being heard and b) trying to make a point. Things are always better received when you are respectable about it. I have found when people leave comments and are in strong disagreement with a person they are nasty, do not stick to the point and venting in vulgar ways this doesn’t make them seem to sharp. I have read comments on many blogs that the same person over and over again write really horrible things, so why do the read the blog? Thanks for letting me put my two sense in.
Randa,
I think the assumption is that you either state something everyone agrees with, something so obvious there is no real reason to be restating the obvious. ‘President Bush is unpopular this week’. That won’t attract much attention. It isn’t remarkable.
Once you stray from the ’safe’ things that no one can object, to, by definition you increase the likelihood that someone will object. For instance, bad mouthing using Comic Sans type, simply because it often reduces readability of a web site. Many may look at Comic Sans and think, Golly, this is distinctive, relaxed, and I like how my site looks this way. Controversial, potentially more remarkable. Make a good case for an alternate approach, for improving readability on your page (since the content is what sells the product, conveys the information, not the appearance), and people will remember the comment and the point. Sadly I forgot the site I encountered this topic.
Remember the Kindergarten rules? The play nice, share stuff was intended to make the teacher’s job simpler, the classroom safer. These values and rules are not what you see in company executives, or in many work places. Hint: Watch how a pipefitter tracks and marks his tools. No sharing there.
@Brad- thanks for your comments- I appreciate you taking the time. I would say that while the Kindergarten rules did make the teacher’s job easier and the classroom safer, the real purpose is more about providing training in basic manners and good behavior. Despite the fact that those simple rules are not what you see in corporate environments, they are still considered to be “good behavior”, and that’s what I’m advocating. (Obviously sharing is not always the appropriate action.)
What’s interesting is that the “gist” has no correlation with taking a “strong stance and polarize people”:
“what you write, in order to create the highest pass-along value, needs to be “remarkable”. Is it something that is worth remarking upon?” doesn’t infer being extreme.
We all stand by something, agree with one thing and disagree with another. In that sense we’re all “remarkable”: we remark on what others said and get remarks from other. Thus, there’s nothing remarkable in being “remarkable”.
Being controversial is another story. It is always remarkable, since someone will always voice their approval or disapproval.
I don’t like when people are stirring up a controversy just for the sake of getting the name out, however I do like when people stand by their beliefs and are not afraid of expressing their opinion and thoughts on a certain subject matter.
I agree that we can “disagree without being disagreeable” as the saying goes. Every blogger should stand up for his/her beliefs, and comments offering different opinions only add to the conversation … if everyone is respectful.
I totally agree. People respectively note their disagreement without being offensive. I think people sometimes forget that the written word can be interpreted in many ways because something like 70% of what someone says comes across in tone/body language.
I agree with you, the people need to use others people shoes before write or tell something.
Wow, Randa! You got Brian Clark over here! Good job! He said “Some people will hate you simply because you *are* successful.” That is so spot on.
I don’t think you need to be disagreeable, rude or purposefully controversial to be successful, but often, whether intentionally or not, successful people do create controversy. It might be because of the above quote from Brian, or it may simply be because they are more widely read or heard than the average person. Brad had some good points, too.
I can’t remember where I read this, it may have been on Copyblogger (so many people are discussing Tim these days! The conversation on Copyblogger was really good). Tim is trying to create sensation for his book and he has done it, particularly by making that comment. I know we talked about it on Dawud’s “micro site” too.
Randa,
I agree with you 100%! I think we can stand by our principles and express what we believe, while, at the same time being kind, friendly, personable, and likeable! I always strive to live up to this ideal at Writer’s Notes and everywhere else!
Regards,
Jeanne
If all one cares about is traffic, setting visitor against visitor in a “Let’s you and him fight” situation is what a number of public forums and services use to not only gain traffic but more so, to get people clicking on their ads.
There are so many people on the Internet needing some outlet for their aggression and life angst that once they find that outlet, they will be back again and again.
The more one can polarize one’s readership, the more one can set each other against themselves and the more often each will come back trying to defend their anger.
But at the same time, sites like that end up driving away so many potential long term visitors who could likely contribute much more meaningful discussions that one wonders whether or not it is worth what might ordinarily seem like only a short term solution to getting traffic but unfortunately, there are so many people with so much to get “off their chests”, that they aren’t really short term solutions but instead can support a site for a long time.
One does have to question one’s self though if traffic, i.e. ad revenue is the only thing one cares about but it seems there are enough people willing to provide the gladiator arenas for others to bloody themselves in, all for the advertising they can sell.
Which do you prefer to be, a rich person living off the anger of others or the average person who likely will never see a million dollars in the bank, but has a clear conscience, without having to lie to yourself?
If no one hates you, you’re doing something wrong - Totally CORRECT!
~ people won’t notice your blog’s success until they realize your blog is much better than theirs.
~ as with most successful people, it’s a take it or leave it case translated into “I love him” or I hate him”
~ it is, therefore, accurate to say that when you get hate you have a good value!
Oom, your last conclusion bothers me.
A successful blog or other communication should be ‘remarkable’. That is, have something specific to say that is not common, mundane, everyday stuff just restated in an inoffensive manner. The successful communication should contain a strongly held insight or explanation with potential value if applied by others, that is, to be useful. Such a blog may well generate responses expressing doubt, anger, or even hate,
But the presence of hateful responses does *not* mean that your blog has value.
The value is in having new insight, that is explain applying principals in new ways. The value is that some of the readers gain value from visiting your site.
The presence of hate in response to a blog has nothing to do with whether anyone gained any value. There are ever so many ways of attracting a hate filled response, and most don’t have value.
@Brad - very well put. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
@Craig- I’d definitely prefer to be the average person. I really feel sorry for people who seem to enjoy cultivating anger and controversy. I wish they knew how much nicer their life would be if they would just come over from the dark side!
I agree with you… But i think that if everybody likes you, than you are not making a great work; but if everybody hates you than you are not making a great work too… (Excuse my bad English : )
Have a nice weekend!
Stating a strong opinion, and people not liking it, has the possibility of causing a ‘flame war’ in comments. While most bloggers would rather not have flame wars, they do create a tremendous amount of return page views, and comments.
Comments add value to your posts, search engines look at them as updates to that particular page. Artificially creating this kind of situation isn’t something I agree with, or participate in, but I can understand the reasoning behind doing so.
God, I hate this sort of S**T!
(He he, only kidding. )
“Let’s not turn into jerks just to drive traffic. It’s not worth it in the end.”
I absolutely agree with this. I’ve read several times about adding controversy to your blog to gain traffic or more comments but personally I’d rather try to gain traffic with helpful posts or interesting website finds to share. Probably not very exciting I know, but I find controversy for the sake of it to be pretty disingenuous.
Ask any 5 year old. It’s easier to get noticed for poor behavior than it is to get noticed for outstanding behavior.
On the other hand… a great title can be just as compelling as dishing poo… just look at the popularity of this post!
Kathy,
The title of this post is actually quite poetic.
Many people remember the Disney version of Pollyanna with a precocious Hayley Mills, or the delightful book. Many more people understand that ‘Pollyanna’ is a euphemism for a person that is revoltingly sweet and cheerful in a sour environment. The implication is both that the Pollyanna is obnoxious to the environment, and that sweetness will overcome the sour environment.
‘Just call me Pollyanna’ is a bit hopeful. Taking on the label of Pollyanna both acknowledges a sour environment, and suggests a ’sweet’ opposition to the current (sour) environment. The phrase ‘call me’ implies there is doubt that the ’sweetness’ will indeed prevail, as it would for a real Pollyanna.
The title of this post draws on the hopes of good behavior overcoming bad behavior, on the clarity of children’s stories, and on the suggestion that there might be a suggested change that would help people looking for sweetness in a sour environment.
The title of this post both attracted people hopeful for a nicer way to interact with people, and subtly filters out people that are offended at a nicer way to pursue business. People looking for a mechanical answer to solve problems won’t be as interested in a post relating to people and interactions. That means most of the traffic drawn by the title of this post are more likely to interact at a personal level. We will be more likely to find a cheerful welcome, and respond with feeling.
But then, maybe I just read too much into the title.
@Brad - thanks for your thoughtful comment. You said that
I never thought of Pollyanna as “revoltingly” sweet, but more “unfailingly” sweet. No matter what the situation, she always found a positive spin on things.
Randa,
Well, ‘revoltingly’ is probably pretty strong for gentle, kind people. For hard-nosed, no-nonsense people living in the ‘real world’, though .. Keep in mind Pollyanna is a signal of change to a kinder, gentler way of life. This means that the existing ways of doing business and living are threatened, a ’small death’ of the current way of life. For those with hope, with memories of happier times this is challenging. For those focused on current affairs, this can appear to be a disaster to be avoided.
I think of the perception of a Pollyanna as an acid test, a way of measuring the amount of joy (in particular) in one’s dreams. ‘Revolting’ would be a worst-case example.
Enjoy!