Hacker News Reader

Comment by antonovka | Hacker News Reader

My parents taught me to not disclose the amount of money I make, and to not trust people who do -- they have every incentive to lie, be it due to ego or simply a desire to leverage an appearance of success into actual (but usually much diminished) success.

A 'professional blogger' is blogging about how to make money blogging. What does that tell you?

It tells me that what makes this blogger his money (however much he actually makes) is leveraging page views from individuals who want to know how to make money blogging. Thus, the blogger has every incentive to inflate the numbers, or simply lie outright about the expected return.

Unsurprisingly, he sells a "31-days to build a better blog" ebook here: http://www.problogger.net/31dbbb-workbook/

View on HN

Hi there - I actually welcome your skepticism on this one - there's a lot of people claiming a lot of things online these days.

The reason I actually revealed the amount I've made with Amazon in this post was simply that I constantly get people telling me that Amazon is impossible to make good money with because it's just lots of tiny tiny commissions (ie 5% of a book sale isn't much).

In terms of what makes me my money - if you read the article you see that I'm linking to my photography blog. That is my main blog (in terms of both traffic and earnings). I do make some from ProBlogger but it's small in comparison with the photography one.

Yep I sell an ebook from my site - it's done ok but it's not my main income source by any means.

In terms of inflating the amount - not quite sure how to 'prove it' - I don't like to post screenshots of earnings pages because people tend to say they are photoshopped - but if you know anyone in Melbourne Australia and want to set up a meeting I'm more than happy to show them my reports live and have them verify them for you.

I'd also say that if I was going to inflate the numbers I'd probably go a little further than I did - $119k in 6 years isn't really the most amazing claim of making money online that I've heard :-) It's more than pocket change but it's small time in comparison to many.

Again - happy for people to be skeptical - I actively encourage people to be in this game, there's a lot of big claims, hype and empty promises going around. I myself pride myself on not promising big easy money - in fact I've written many times on how hard it is to make this kind of money, I've worked my butt off for 7 years building my blogs up - it certainly doesn't happen over night.

Happy to chat with anyone who wants to raise concerns over my approach and shed as much light as I can on the topic.

Not that it's any of my business, but I've found that putting too much effort into rebutting naysayers tends to just make me come across as combative and hurts my credibility. I address them at times, but I try to keep it to a minimum.

Anyway, would love to hear your thoughts (or links to anything already on your site that might be relevant) on trying to monetize a site that's primarily a grass roots movement and which is targeted at an audience somewhat predisposed to say "If you are trying to make money off me, you are a snake oil salesman and can't be trusted!" I've made it clear to people that I have no plans to cut my own throat for their benefit and this (and other stuff) has helped some with public relations. I know I still have major issues in terms of not yet having a steady pace of updates. But even if I did, I know of sites with tons of traffic that aren't well monetized. I want to avoid that fate. I know a few webmasters who are rather bitter about the time and effort they have put into a "labor of love" and the lack of money and lack of (official) recognition it has gotten them.

Anyway, sorry if this is kind of rambling. Thanks in advance if you bother to reply at all. :-)

I'll put my hand up as a Melbournite if someone is desperate to check up on Darren. Let me know if anyone is actually interested in some HN confirmation.

(for my behalf - I think Darren looks pretty legit - he makes money on stuff like photography & the olympics - and gets famous writing about blogging)

happy to have a meet if there's a genuine interest in it.

Have you ever found being Au-based a limitation on your online efforts?

not a lot. I tend to develop blogs for US based audiences where there is more traffic and more monetization options. The only downside is that occassionally people think I've only got Aussie traffic and are not willing to advertise with us until we can prove the US traffic thing. Other than that there's not been a lot of problems

My parents taught me to learn from other people's experiences - it's a lot more scalable than only learning from my own.

But absolutely read everything with a skeptical eye. People lie, people are mistaken, and every one of us is unique so what works for others won't necessarily work for you.

My parents taught me to not disclose the amount of money I make,

Yet we spend hours bickering over the perceived value of facebook and twitter and how if we follow their examples, we too can have success. That's why this industry exploded the first time - real value is only measured in real dollars.

A 'professional blogger' is blogging about how to make money blogging. What does that tell you?

What it tells me is that he's been able to monetize something that seems unmonitizable, and that regardless of how much he makes, he probably has a lot of insights regarding the motivation of his customers, and their behaviour.

In fact, he probably has better insights into what works and what doesn't that most VC's.

Thus, the blogger has every incentive to inflate the numbers, or simply lie outright about the expected return.

He has bigger incentive to describe methods that work for others, actually. As with any business, creating value for the customer is the main driver. This guy has been around for a while, and I'd like to think that's because some or all of the things he's done are working for others as well, and his reputation has grown because of that.

This guy has been around for a while ...

This business strategy has been around a long time. Here are some other large modern examples:

Amway was founded in 1959.

[The FTC ordered] Amway to stop retail price fixing and allocating customers among distributors and prohibited the company from misrepresenting the amount of profit, earnings or sales its distributors are likely to achieve with the business. Amway was ordered to accompany any such statements with the actual averages per distributor, pointing out that more than half of the distributors do not make any money, with the average distributor making less than $100 per month. The order was violated with a 1986 ad campaign, resulting in a $100,000 fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway#FTC_Investigation

Herbalife was founded in 1980.

A 2004 settlement resolved a class action suit on behalf of 8700 former and current distributors that accused the company and distributors of "essentially running a pyramid scheme." A total of $6 million was to be paid out, with defendants not admitting guilt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbalife#Controversies

And both offer extremely informative insight on how to create a successful and profitable business.

Let's just say both of those examples are much better businesses than 90% of the tech that's been released on the web to date.

I'm concerned about the psychology of monetizing a product - because it's the same regardless - not the fact that their particular product isn't appealing to you. If you want to discount an entire examination of how people are convinced to give money to companies so be it. Given that I'm trying to accomplish that exact thing however, I'd like to understand as much about it as I can.

And both offer extremely informative insight on how to create a successful and profitable business.

Only if the business you're building is swindling individuals trying to build their own business.

Yet both business still exist and are extremely profitable. Like I said, if you choose to discount the entire industry as unethical, believing it can teach you nothing, so be it.

I however would like to examine what and how they continue to be successful, with the thinking that these people - ethical or not - have clearly captured a way to monetize their customers that has been very effective. These principles can no doubt be applied in much broader strokes to varying degrees.

Yet both business still exist and are extremely profitable. Like I said, if you choose to discount the entire industry as unethical, believing it can teach you nothing, so be it.

I'm curious what you think people who sell other people on selling people on selling people have to actually teach someone that owns a company that survives by creating?

Other than how to sell the Brooklyn Bridge, that is.

Well, how about the fact that you the value of said creation is determined by the customer, not the creator?

I'm curious as to why you're so emotional about the whole thing. It's really not worth such a long discussion.

Well, how about the fact that you the value of said creation is determined by the customer, not the creator?

If that's they way you want to look at it. I don't do business with that kind of person, since they usually try to sell me on the idea that something is worth far more than it actually is.

I'm curious as to why you're so emotional about the whole thing. It's really not worth such a long discussion.

I'd prefer to not see more SEO/MLM/MakeMoneyOnline posts on Hacker News, so I stated my disagrement with your comment.

If that's they way you want to look at it. I don't do business with that kind of person,

That is reality my friend. The customer and market determine the value, not the creator. You can choose to ignore this, but if you compare successful and unsuccessful startups, it usually comes down to the fact that the customer believes that the creation adds value, nothing more.

If you sell an individual on a perceived value that's higher than what you know they'll actually receive, that's dishonest, no matter how you try and dress it up.

How you couch that reality doesn't change what it is, and that's why I won't do business with that kind of person.

Where did I suggest doing that? And where does Problogger do that?

I'm suggesting that just because you think your creation is worth 19.99, doesn't mean it is. Often it means it is less, but just as often you'll find that the market thinks it's worth much more.

If you don't price it right, it could be detrimental to your business.

For whatever reason you seem to be fixated on this Amway/Herbalife deal. All I'm saying is that both those companies are obviously showing value to somebody, because otherwise they wouldn't be around. How they manage to do that is worth studying.

Suggesting that everyone that doesn't see things your way - including myself, and pretty much 80% of major corporations - is unethical is rather immature, to be frank.

Where did I suggest doing that? And where does Problogger do that?

Problogger/TwiTips are entirely predicated on selling you on the idea that you too can make money on your blog -- for evidence, just look at Problogger, which makes money selling you on making money on your blog.

At least the recursion is fantastic.

Suggesting that everyone that doesn't see things your way - including myself - is unethical is rather immature, to be frank.

Well, I doubt we'll agree. That's OK, but I don't think that there's anything immature about pointing out what I see as inherently dishonest behavior.

http://www.johnchow.com/

That is the most annoying blog I've come across, in the 'internet marketing' niche.

Problogger on the other hand, seems trustworthy, of course its good to be skeptical with such posts.

Annoying is putting it mildly. Downright useless is the way I'd describe it. Virtually every single post is a 'paid review' where, in return for $500, John will shill anything you want him to. Literally. There is no screening process whatsoever. You pay him to talk about flaming dogpoop and as long as your money gets deposited, he will talk about it.

He has basically made it clear that his only goal is to drive readers to subscribe to his newsletter (so that if they stop coming to his blog, he can still chase after them in their inboxes) and through the newsletter, get them to sign up for some of the most useless crap under the sun and collect commissions.

Darren Rowse aka Problogger on the other hand, seems to genuinely want to offer info that can help ppl generate money online. What sets him apart from the rest of the 'me-too' probloggers is his standards. He rarely has any aff links in his posts and when he does, it's usually for something that he's personally used and wants to recommend.

Linking to such a thing is a bad idea: i) people can accidentally click on it ii) you might be contributing to its Page Rank iii) The fact that it's linked from HN, gives it certain credibility.

can you please consider making it text, instead of hrefed?

Hi You might be somehow right in general sense, but this particular critique is uninformed. Darren is a well-known and successful blogger, and he also runs other blogs like Digital Photography School or Twitip. I think the reason he discloses the amount of money he makes is because it is relevant to do in Problogger. In his other blogs he doesn't do that.

http://www.twitip.com/the-proper-way-to-pitch-on-twitter/

"I don’t want to make 4,000 [dollars] per month with Twitter (I do this fine on my own thank you)"

These sorts of hucksters survive by selling you on an ideal that you reinforce by buying into it. Like any multi-level marketing scheme, you are the target market, not consumers.

Hucksters?

Cocky, maybe. But huckster? No.

Darren Rowse is one of the most successful bloggers out there when it comes to monetizing his sites and he discloses the details of how and why he earns money on his problogger.net site.

In addition to several of his own successful blogs, he's also one of the co-founders of b5media which has gotten (approximately) 8 million in funding since it's launch in 2005. Darren's expertise in blogging and their monetization was a crucial factor in getting that funding.

This reply will probably be downmodded but I don't really care about that. Before shoving him into the 'huckster' category, do a little more open-minded research next time.

By the way, that huckster is also the minister of a small youth oriented church in his city.

Apologies for seeming harsh, but your comment was blatent and unfair.

Funding is not a direct indicator of anything but the funding party's evaluation of perceived or likely value -- just like any testament to Darren Rowse and his success.

By the way, that huckster is also the minister of a small youth oriented church in his city.

I was speaking generally, but regardless, I'm not sure what that has to do with being (or not being) a huckster.

I should clarify - that I don't work as a minister any more. I did that for 10 years but transitioned out of it a couple of years back.

Of course that doesn't really prove anything - I'm not one to claim that all ministers are above doing dodgy stuff but I wanted to clarify that. Thanks for the encouragement though.

> By the way, that huckster is also the minister of a small youth oriented church in his city.

At this point in your argument you've driven entirely off course and closing in resorting to personal attacks instead arguing the point on merits.

The BTK Killer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader) was also a 'family man' and 'community leader.' Being a minister does nothing to disprove one of being a huckster. Just look at all of the priests accused of child molestation/rape.

I know my examples are fairly extreme, but the world comes in shades of grey. It's possible to be a minister, community leader and huckster all at the same time. You can't use one of those roles as evidence to disprove the existence of another.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com