Feedburner Freaking Out = Profit?
Many bloggers logged onto their site today and were astonished by the number of subscribers Feedburner was reporting for them. I’ve read accounts of blogs going from 300 to 3,000 and over at ProBlogger the count went from 41,000 to 100,000! The glitch has been tracked down to FeedBlitz reporting drastically inflated numbers something which will likely be fixed shortly. So, if you’re feed numbers are through the roof, don’t get too excited just yet.
However, there is a way that you could potentially profit from this whole thing if your feed numbers have been affected. I must admit it’s a bit borderline ethically, but I’ll leave that determination up to you.
The method is rather simple really, update your listings on any sites such as ReviewMe or SponsoredReviews etc. that use RSS subscriber numbers as a measure of your site’s value. ReviewMe for example has a link that allows you to force them to reevaluate the value of your site. SponsoredReviews doesn’t have this option but a quick email to publisher support would probably take care of it. Since your numbers are temporarily inflated, there’s a good chance your site will be deemed more valuable.
Like I said, this probably won’t sit well with all of you but others might view it as simply being industrious or capitalizing on an opportunity. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, I figured you might want to know that it’s an option. Enjoy!
Comments
Andrew Wells January 18th, 2008
Although my opinion falls in the unethical category, it probably won’t work anyway. I’m pretty sure these sites are aware of the error in Feedburner’s subscriber count. You might get away with it for a short while, but it won’t last.
Justin Dupre January 18th, 2008
While I see huge ethical problems with this, I can’t say your idea is pretty genius. Unfortunatly, I’m sure they are well aware of this.
Justin Dupre
http://www.blogosis.com
Jason Peck January 18th, 2008
I knew something was up when I’d just barely cracked the 100 subscribers mark and then was up to 800+ all of a sudden….would have been nice though.
Eric Vernon January 18th, 2008
That’s an excellent idea. But still unethical. And they might be a little PO’d at you for taking advantage of that.
Tim January 18th, 2008
I think it’s a great idea, and wish I could take advantage of it. But I’m not registered with either site.
Ron@TheWisdomJournal January 18th, 2008
Dang! I only increased by one!
Ben Cook January 18th, 2008
@ Ron, yeah as best I can tell I wasn’t affected at all. On the one hand it would have been nice to see a huge number, even if it were only a mirage, but on the other, it’s good to know my climb to the 800′s isn’t a glitch.
Online Empire January 18th, 2008
I don’t know all of the ins and outs of Feedburner but I would think that a savvy blogger could make a great post out of a screen shot of their inflated numbers and talk about how they they have taken off in attempts to build advertiser revenue.
Eric Vernon January 19th, 2008
Yes, but what happens when the error is fixed, and the truth is revealed?
I’m not sure exactly how the money is divvied up for ads, but if you’re having them pay per spot per month (sort of like Ben with his “Buy this Ad” box), you’re telling them that they’re likely to get X exposures. By giving them a bloated number, and they realize what you’ve done, it seems to me like you’re setting yourself up for a tort law case.
Emma January 19th, 2008
Sorry Ben, that 800 is a glitch. I’m your only subscriber! OK, just kidding. That is actually a clever idea. No wonder you are doing so well.
David Bradley January 19th, 2008
Definitely unethical, probably be spotted by the orgs in question and more to the point I saw your post too late, my numbers settled back to the more honest 3154 subscribers yesterday…
db
BlogEntrepreneur January 20th, 2008
It isn’t borderline unethical…it would be a complete and blatant lie. Maybe I am naive but lying to your business partners is not the way to get ahead.
Coryan January 20th, 2008
Come on Ben. Did you really think this one through before posting it? It’s unethical without question. IMO, no respectable blogger would ever consider doing this.
Ben Cook January 20th, 2008
Ok, just to play a bit of devils advocate here… why exactly would it be unethical? You are simply asking the service to recheck your blog’s value. If they rely on unreliable systems to determine that value, isn’t that their fault?
Eric Vernon January 20th, 2008
Yes, but when you are asking them to recheck it you are knowing full well that the number you’re presenting them is wrong, and are taking advantage of the feedburner glitch. Remember, SOMEBODY is paying that extra money for lost promises. Like I said, it might create a good tort case.
Ben Cook January 20th, 2008
Eric, but the blogger wouldn’t be the one presenting them with that info. They elected to use those numbers, and it’s feedburner (well actually FeedBlitz) that is showing the bad data. Really the blogger doesn’t have a whole lot to do with it. Would that be any different than people trying to pump up their technorati or alexa rankings to make more money from these programs?
Man Vs Blog - Make Money Blogging | How To Make Money - Definitive Resources? January 21st, 2008
[...] to push it as far as possible to get the results. He is a rockstar. Here is an example of why to love or hate [...]
Scott Sweeney January 21st, 2008
While I personally feel it might be unethical, I think Ben brings up an interesting point in that last comment. What is the difference between taking advantage of a glitch or taking advantage of an already flawed system like Alexa?
You would have to be able to prove the blogger knew there was a glitch. Even if he/she did know, it would be impossible to prove. Unethical? Maybe. But does it make for a good legal case? I doubt it.
I kind of liken it to sports marketing. In 1999, the Chicago Bulls made sure they pumped up their numbers by saying ‘We have sold out 12 years running’ and ‘We are defending champions’ — Nowhere did they mention that MJ had retired and the team was gonna be a pile of crap. Did season ticket holders get a refund because MJ retired and they bought those tickets with assumption he was playing? Nope, even though they were paying higher premiums. Should the Bulls have refunded money? Was it ethical to take money from season ticket holders when they knew flat out it wasn’t going to be the team they were promoting? Taking advantage of a flaw maybe unethical, but it happens on all fronts of business and you need to decide if you are going to be the bug or the windshield.
Cheers!
SEO Blog January 21st, 2008
Well Ben, no offense but you could of spare this post. Okey lets say you get your trick played and those services do update your prices together with the RSS number (since advertisers pay attention on that) and I see that pumped up RSS reader, order a review, and my review is not already published but the glitch is going to get fixed…wouldn’t that piss off the SponsoredReviews (as taken in this example) when I will contact them?
It won’t piss off readers, but it will piss of advertisers.. in either case one does what he/she feels is right. But in long term business I am not sure how well this type of business model will work out.
Eric Vernon January 21st, 2008
Alright, so in my mind a case would end up in a standoff similar to the one going on in baseball right now with Roger Clemens. No one has proof that he did use steroids, no one has proof that he didn’t. So innocent until proven guilty right? Wrong. His name has been forever tainted, even if he is proven innocent.
Although your blog may not be internationally famous, I’m sure there’s some blacklist of blogs out there among advertisers. If not? There’s still a good chance that people will talk.
So while you might be able to earn a few extra bucks with the first couple of reviews, it might hurt you on the road. If someone’s giving you money, don’t betray their trust or they might not keep coming back.
Ben Cook January 21st, 2008
Eric, that is a good point. I know that at least SponsoredReviews allows advertisers to rate your review. It’s kind of like the feedback system on ebay, so if you get a bad rap, you’re a lot less likely to get any more reviews.
Dennis January 21st, 2008
This is definitely the dumbest thing I’ve ever read on here. I think you’ve just scraped the bottom of the crap barrel for something to blog about. I do hope you have somewhere else to look for new topics.
Eric Vernon January 21st, 2008
@Ben, Exactly. On eBay, I almost never buy from someone with lower than 90% approval, especially if they have a significant number of reviews. 80% and below? Forget it.
@Dennis, That’s a rather incomplete argument. You said that the article was dumb, and walked away to work on your dating site. Personally, I think this is rather interesting. This has definitely generated a discussion about the subject.
And I’ll use the same defense that Matt Groening used in the 1990′s: If you don’t like what goes on in this blog; no one is making you type in “bloggingexperiment.com”.
Dennis January 21st, 2008
I thought the existing comments already did a good enough job pointing out why it isn’t the greatest post.
Something broke + take advantage of it = probably unethical + probably won’t work for long if at all.
My point was that I hope there is indeed a new/better source of material for future posts because like you suggest, if I am subjected to more of this, then I indeed will no longer need to come to this site.
By the way, I wasn’t meaning to troll or anything. I’m also not quite sure what my dating site has to do with any of this.
Eric Vernon January 21st, 2008
I’m not trying to cause any fights here, I’m just saying that yours wasn’t the most productive of comments.
Yet I have to agree with you, Ben hasn’t produced _great_ content lately, with his last post being a repost about PPP ads.
Dennis January 21st, 2008
I’ll have to try to write more productive comment when the point of my comment is about “unproductive” posts!
Drazen January 21st, 2008
Thanx for the info, i haven’t noticed that but good to know for the future.
Ben Cook January 21st, 2008
lol ok now THAT was hilarious.
Eric, keep in mind the PPP ads post was a paid review. I don’t normally rehash topics that quickly. But, I agree, it’s about time for another couple of home run posts. I’m working on a Lessons on Blogging post right now so hopefully I’ll polish it off this evening and have it ready to roll tomorrow.
Eric Vernon January 22nd, 2008
Oh, sorry, I didn’t know it was a sponsored review. I thought you were starved for content or something.
Ben Cook January 22nd, 2008
No worries. Not content starved, just trying to reach my goal of $1,500 for the month