(Following up on this post)

How?

Be brief, be polite, and only submit links that clearly fit the high-traffic blog's theme. Ask yourself, "am I certain that [high-traffic blogger's] readers would be interested in this?"

Also, don't be offended if you don't hear back. Your e-mail was very likely read, but only so many of the dozens or hundreds received every day can be responded to. Don't take it personally. It's just that there are only so many hours in a day that can be spent writing, and those have to be split between answering e-mails & blogging.

SUBJ:What's the best way to send an e-mail that you'll read? (short, no reply required)

First, please forgive the unsolicited e-mail, but I'm doing some research for a post on blogging, and I'm hoping you can help me.

Someone recently remarked to me that bloggers with high-traffic sites don't read e-mails from - or link to - anyone except other high traffic bloggers. I don't think that's true. I think it's more a matter of having a tactful approach, and I wrote a post saying as much:

http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/166595.php

Now, I'm sure you have other subjects to write about, and if you have no interest in this topic, I understand completely, so there's no need to act on this e-mail at all if you don't want to.

However, it occurs to me that you probably get dozens of annoying "please link this" e-mails every day. Discussing my post would give you a perfect excuse to school your readers on the art of sending you short, on-topic, useful e-mails instead of rambling junk - a topic that would normally be off-theme for your blog.

Whether you decide to link to my post or not, you have my express permission to quote this e-mail in full or in part.

I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Harvey Olson
Bad Example
http://badexample.mu.nu/

Since this experiment was all about site traffic, I did NOT limit myself based on a blog's political leanings, so I tapped a few of the big left-wing bloggers, too, as well as a couple blogs devoted to celebrity gossip.

However, I was most interested in seeing whether a "cold-calling" e-mail technique would work, so I *did* go out of my way to avoid bloggers who might actually recognize me and link me as a personal favor, thus no Blackfive, IMAO, or Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.

Here's what happened:

Protein Wisdom - Replied promptly, saying he *does* read e-mails and responds if he has time.

AMERICAblog - Prompt reply, and I found one passage particularly enlightening as to why high-traffic blogs sometimes seem to be a closed society "I usually rely on emails from my readers for suggestions for links. And, big surprise, they usually send me links from the top blogs."

For some reason, I'd failed to consider that blogless readers send links, too, but I can certainly see how 10 e-mails that say "Look what Kos posted!" might carry more weight than a single "please link me".

VodkaPundit - Prompt reply AND a Vodkalanche! WHOO-HOO! Anyway, Stephen falls into the "don't have time to read it all, or respond to it, but I try" category. So it would appear that one key to getting your e-mail read is a subject line that's intriguing, yet doesn't sound like spam.

Right Wing News - Linked the same day. Also, he did what I had hoped - used the opportunity to share his own thoughts on e-mailing & site traffic in a thoughtful post. This is about as good as it gets when you send a link. Also, check his comments section for some good discussion.

UPDATE 4-14-06 7PM:
Outside the Beltway - linked the same day, and took the opportunity to add his own thoughts about how to get noticed. #4 surprised me a bit:

4. Make it easy. Give the blogger a two or three sentence–max–summary of the post if it’s long. Include a link to the post. Include the entire text of the post. Unless they are regular readers of your site and you have some sort of relationship, simply sending along a link to the post with the expectation that they will click through is not a great idea.

My initial thought was that including the full text would make the e-mail longer and thus less likely to be read. However, James is right. Saving your target reader the click and the wait for the page-load errs on the side of convenience. My suggestion is to put the text at the very end of the e-mail, AFTER the summary, the link, and (optionally) why you think the high-traffic blogger might be interested in the post.

(Note on the update: the trackback from OTB didn't work, and I didn't check to see if he'd posted on it. I apologize for the oversight)

Hugh Hewitt - Linked the same day, however I noticed that he also gave a Hat Tip to Right Wing News. Which makes me wonder whether he was planning to link me before he read the RWN piece, or if the fact that RWN blogged about it made him to decide not to dump my e-mail into his bozo bin. Either way, I'm happy. But this also makes me wonder what the "tipping point" is. How many high-traffic bloggers have to link a post before they all feel compelled to do it so that they don't miss out on a "hot topic"? Ah... the mysteries of interpersonal influence...

I'll also mention that although Hugh didn't reply to my initial e-mail, he DID reply to my "thank you" e-mail that I sent after he linked me.

Wonkette - Linked same day, later in the evening, and mentioned that if a high-traffic blogger isn't responding to your e-mail, it may be because you got caught in their spam filter. Lesson learned - don't brag about how your were born in Nigeria.

Seriously, though, you know what spam e-mails look like, so avoid ALL CAPS, excessive linkage, exclamation points!!!, and other filter triggers.

QandO - Responded after about 24 hours. He brought up an excellent point about why some of the more content-oriented blogs (rather than link-oriented) might not be quick to jump on your link: "I rarely link emailed stuff, simply because of my own blogging habits. I tend to write about subjects that I've been thinking about, or about which I have something unique to say. I don't really consider myself a "linker". So, unfortunately, while it's nice for me to get emailed links, I'm probably not terribly helpful to the people who send them. Usually, anyway."

I have to agree - if I can't find a fresh angle on a story, I may not post on a link I've been sent. I mean, if I can't manage to do more than echo the A-listers' opinions, I probably can't muster the enthusiasm to whip up a post on the topic - which is why I don't do a whole lot of blogging on the big headline news stories of the day.

Winds of Change - Linked after about 44 hours. Mentions the Right Wing News piece, mostly for RWN's great money quote of "Getting links isn't about a "Good Old Boy's Club," it's about the numbers game."

Here's something to consider. Right Wing News wrote a better post than I did (I'm being honest, not modest), but I still got a link and praise in the WoC piece. When it comes to crediting sources, I usually only mention the place I got the info from. I almost never cite "the source of the source". I wonder if WoC would've linked me (source of the source) had he not also gotten the e-mail?... again - the mysteries of influence.

UPDATE 4-13-06 5PM: Joe of WoC was kind enough to leave an explanation in the comments, and also points out that linking the source of the source helps improve the shelf life of your post should one of the source links eventually become broken.

The Jawa Report - First, my condolences to Rusty Shackleford on the recent loss of his friend. I would like to give him credit for setting his contact e-mail to autorespond, so I heard about this within minutes of sending my initial e-mail. To his further credit, he responded personally at about the 48 hour mark, to let me know that he's a "reads all, responds to some" kinda guy.

The Real Ugly American - Not one of the initial e-mail targets, but he posted within 12 hours as a secondary effect of the links by Right Wing News and Hugh Hewitt, and added his own thoughts to expand my "how to e-mail high-traffic bloggers" advice to make it inclusive of ALL bloggers.

Daily Kos
Pink Is The New Blog
Michelle Malkin
Eschaton
Go Fug Yourself
Crooks and Liars
A Socialite's Life
Little Green Footballs
Powerline
The Dilbert Blog
NRO: The Corner
Lileks
Roger L. Simon
Captain's Quarters
Outside the Beltway
Ace of Spades
This Modern World
Belmont Club
Althouse

Posted by: Harvey at 09:18 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1663 words, total size 12 kb.

1 Great post Harvey. I have been waiting to see this follow up. thank you for the link. Blog on!

Posted by: The Ugly American at April 13, 2006 10:16 AM (a+JK3)

2 I've gotten a link from Malkin.... NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!!

Posted by: Graumagus at April 13, 2006 12:53 PM (m4jdv)

3 Actually, me too. Don't they feel great? :-)

Posted by: Harvey at April 13, 2006 12:58 PM (L7a63)

4 This insight may help. I received your email at Winds of Change.NET, and mentally filed it in the "interesting" category because Winds sees meta-posts about blogging, social networks, et. al. as part of what we're about. A minor part, but definitely there. The thing is, time is limited and sometimes I find myself focused on longer posts in order to clarify my thinking and get them out. Which means not everything on my "interesting" list makes it to my blog. This is a chronic regret, but largely unsolvable. It's also why my inbox grows a bit each day and is now over 3,000 items. Must do something about that. Anyway, I stumbled across the RWN piece just as I was opreparing to do a short bit. RWN was better, but having received the email (and indeed, given the subject under discussion) I thought it appropriate to link back to your original post as well. We often do "Hat Tip" links on Winds, but this was a bit above. I'm doing it more and more, however, largely because blogs shut down, change software and hence all link URLs, etc. Having two explicit links addressing a subject thus improves the longevity of the information I post.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at April 13, 2006 01:45 PM (s7QFH)

5 Great info... Thanks!

Posted by: vw bug at April 13, 2006 06:37 PM (0LvyK)

6 Next time you write to those heavy-hitters, please tell what a fine fellow I am.

Posted by: Jim - PRS at April 13, 2006 06:52 PM (njBz/)

7 Well, Harvey, I guess this settles the age-old question: is Harvey a whore?

Posted by: Laurence Simon at April 14, 2006 10:49 AM (uBCxH)

8 I've found your advice to be spot on. "Be brief, be polite, and only submit links that clearly fit the high-traffic blog's theme." It's gratifying to get a topic of imporance to you mentioned by a high-traffic blog, but it's always a thrill to get the hat-tip. Sort of like getting a letter in the newspaper. Even though I don't have my own blog, I've lead several blogs to interesting tid-bits that were then subjects of their own posts. And then commented on them.

Posted by: Keith, Indy at April 14, 2006 12:01 PM (pVUxX)

9 Oh yeah, and hat tip to Pajamas Media for linking this article...

Posted by: Keith, Indy at April 14, 2006 12:02 PM (pVUxX)

10 And this just in... http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3723

Posted by: Keith, Indy at April 14, 2006 12:05 PM (pVUxX)

11 The rules aren't completely set in stone. I got instalanched even though I used to be a member of the Alliance of Free Blogs. According to some bloggers out there, Glenn Reynolds won't link you if you're a member. Wasn't the case with me.

Posted by: MikeT at April 14, 2006 12:09 PM (itu63)

12 Laurence - I am NOT a whore... I am a "purveyor of intimate transactions" :-) Mike - Alliance membership is essentially irrelevant to Instalanching. IMAO gets links all the time, and Glenn has a good sense of humor about the whole thing. Remember, he *did* try to join the Alliance himself back in September of '03: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011513.php

Posted by: Harvey at April 14, 2006 02:04 PM (L7a63)

13 I actually linked and posted on the subject shortly after getting the email. I couldn't get the trackback to work.

Posted by: James Joyner at April 14, 2006 03:09 PM (duCq5)

14 Are you Wisconsin based?

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 14, 2006 03:40 PM (43BLH)

15 I'm not a high-traffic blog, but I do link to most of the stuff I'm pitched unless (like others) I get bogged down and your email drifts down past the first page or two of my inbox. I even get pitched by some of the bigger bloggers. I definitely limit my own pitches to posts where I really came up with something new, and I keep track of who links, and stop bugging the ones who never do (cough, Powerline, cough!).

Posted by: Brainster at April 14, 2006 04:30 PM (pCPyL)

16 Hey Harvs, http://www.memeorandum.com/060414/p72#a060414p72 Have a nice day!

Posted by: Jake Jacobsen at April 14, 2006 06:24 PM (hltlb)

17 Marcus - Yes Jake - I noticed that in my referer logs a couple minutes ago. Does this make me a rock star? :-)

Posted by: Harvey at April 14, 2006 08:32 PM (L7a63)

18 Cool! I am Appleton based and contribute to the Badger Blog Alliance.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at April 15, 2006 01:04 PM (43BLH)

19 Good design! http://jodfpyiq.com/uzso/vnlc.html | http://ypsiipqi.com/erhe/yruw.html

Posted by: Phillip at May 04, 2006 11:13 PM (2pYcY)

20 Hm, it is very coo site only for sweet people!

Posted by: ANGIE at June 16, 2006 06:49 AM (4jB9D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment