Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith  I don't really understand the point behind having a 'private channel' (ie. a mailing list).
I don't understand what value it adds that your blog is not already providing (in terms of delivery channel - I realise the newsletters contain unique content). I also don't understand the benefit to providing offers to subscribers only.
I'm not trying to be facetious here - I just don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this. |
Steve would provide the best answer here, but I believe the newsletter offers Steve different opportunities for reaching and communicating with a different audience. I definitely understand what you are saying (you won't find many who value equality and fairness as much as I do), and if the newsletter wasn’t available to everyone I’d probably be up in arms along side you, but since it is, I think there are different ways to look at this. Let me propose two scenarios to help you understand how I see it:
----------------------------------
Scenario #1
For example, when an individual grants Steve the “privilege” of direct communication via email each month (something that is a privilege in its own right, and a privilege to Steve in that it may assist him with promoting his website and various efforts), that individual is rewarded in kind with content in the form a monthly newsletter. If the individual has been signed up to the mailing list for say, 12 months (and thus, has been granting Steve the “privilege” for a long time period), the “reward” offered (in the form of newsletter content) will be greater then the what is offered to someone who has only been granting Steve the “privilege” of direct email communication for only 1 month. Think of it as a trade of value that is prearranged when you subscribe and continued as you offer email contact privileges.
----------------------------------
Scenario #2
Additionally, Steve may be able to provide special offers that are more suited to his newsletter audience, either because of the type of content that the audience is interested in, or because certain offers may only be feasible to offer to an audience that is smaller then his website/blog audience.
For example, Steve may want arrange a discount on a useful product from a company of some sort, but finds that the company are only willing to offer the discount to a limited amount of people for profitability purposes (just humour me here). This is where the newsletter audience can become a unique opportunity for Steve to help some people receive a discount on a product he's found to be effective. The discount may not be available to his entire website audience, but being able to help out
some people is better then being able to help out none at all just because you didn't have the appropriate means to communicated to a more limited audience in a manner that can be considered “fair”.
And after all, the product can also be recommended to those who aren’t subscribed to the newsletter via the blog even if they don’t have access to a discount. The value lies in what the product provides, not the discount itself, although it could be quite possible that after the company is able to make some profit and see the success they had with offering a discount to the more limited subscriber audience, they may decide to offer such a discount to the larger non-subscriber audience as well, and the situation turns out to be win-win.
----------------------------------
I see the newsletter and the content offered in it as a sort of reward for the more loyal, dedicated visitors and those who are willing to take the necessary effort to sign up. While it's quite possible there could be loyal, dedicated visitors within the website/blog audience (and I’m sure there are), such things are not as easy to measure when compared to a newsletter subscription. The more months you are subscribed (something that is very measurable) = the larger your "reward" is. Simple, measurable, and “fair” (depending on your definition of fairness).
I also think it’s useful to look at it this way: Back in February 2005 Steve first announced his newsletter via his blog in the blog post,
Personal Development Insights Newsletter, and also had a sign up form on his website. Later in November 2006, Steve announced that the newsletter would be starting soon in the post,
Newsletter Update, giving visitors of his website a chance to sign up for the website and ensure that they were able to receive it without any issues. Shortly after that in December 2006, Steve made another blog post,
First Newsletter Issue, announcing in more detail when he would be sending the newsletter and reminded his visitors that this would be the time to sign up if you wanted to receive the first issue.
Now I think it is reasonable to say that Steve gave ample opportunity for his visitors to sign up. If for some reason you were unaware of the announcements, or were aware of the newsletter but did nothing about it, you either consciously, subconsciously, or being completely oblivious to the announcements as a natural result of taking unrelated action, decided that you were going to put your focus on other things. The word “decide” is derived from the Latin word “dēcīdere”, which means “to cut off”. In other words, you decided to “cut off” the option of signing up to the newsletter in order to focus on other things. This isn’t something to be resisted -– it is merely something to be accepted. When you make a decision to focus on one thing, other opportunities will be “cut off” from you because of that decision.
Anyway, perhaps what Steve could do is make a newsletter archive available to those who are signed up to the newsletter. This kind of defeats the purpose of the scenarios I proposed, but if that option ends up being able to help more people, I’m sure Steve won’t reserve the newsletter content to the limited subscriber base unless he has good reason to do so.
I’m sure it looks like I’m one big Steve defender by saying what I have, but I merely think of Steve in a positive light based on the actions I see him take. If I had reason to think otherwise maybe I would, but presently, based on what Steve is doing with his website and the value he has provided me with (for free of charge, no less), I see no reason to. So feel free to label me as a "Steve Pavlina defender" if you wish -- I won't hold it against you.
