Introducing the Inspired Blawggers Newsletter!:

You might notice, if you're reading this on the blog's website, that I've got a new addition to the sidebar - a prominent link to a new page where you can sign up to join the newly minted Inspired Blawggers newsletter mailing list!

This newsletter is going to feature all new content - stuff you won't find on Inspired Solo or anywhere else, for that matter. Articles written exclusively for the newsletter will include a host of topics of interest to lawyers who blog:

"I will inspire you to be a better blawgger by forcing you to sign up for an email newsletter."

For those of us who realize the benefits of syndication, the notion of being forced into email newsletters is crazy. Email doesn't allow for the richness, the linking, the sharing, or the cataloging that syndicated web content does. There is really only one compelling reason to make this sort of move: identification of readers to advertisers. That's hidden in code here: "in addition to new and exclusive content, subscribers will also receive advance notice of new services and products from Inspired Consulting. . . ." But then there's my favorite: "regular “best of the blog” feature where I’ll highlight some of the most useful posts at The Inspired Solo since the last newsletter was issued."

Tell me again how an email newsletter is supposed to inspire me about blogging? And please, tell me how seriously I'm supposed to take a blogger who resorts to a an email newsletter for content distribution.

Thanks for the comments - that's an interesting point of view, certainly. A couple of points - no one's "forced" to sign up for anything. This is a business blog, first and foremost, and it serves a business purpose. I make no apologies for that, and I don't know of any business blogger who's any good at it who does.

Secondly, there is no advertising in any newsletter of mine apart from just what I wrote - new services and product announcements. People who sign up for my newsletter are, presumably, those who are interested in hearing about those services. If they're not, they won't.

Finally, I really have to disagree with the notion that email is somehow so outdated it's of no use. When such a small percentage of blog readers uses RSS consistently, it leads one to the natural conclusion that email still has a place. (As witnessed by the rapidly growing list on my site, and it's only been a few hours since I put it up - since I'm certainly no "Daily Kos" and have a pretty narrowly tailored niche blog, I find that pretty telling.)

Thanks for the comment.

Obviously, how you publish -- especially at no charge -- your own content is entirely up to you. And I agree, no one is being literally forced to do anything. None of your content is forced on anyone. However, if what you're publishing has value, and if the only way to view it is to sign up for the mailing list, the one is figuratively being forced to do so. Obviously, I see value in your content, or I wouldn't have viewed it from that perspective.

However, the larger issue isn't whether email is outdated. Instead, the issue is whether email is the ideal mechanism for publishing, especially for publishing about blogging. Therefore, it is publishing by email that I might suggest is outdated.

My argument is that web syndication via feeds is almost uniformly better. Need to track and limit who can get the content? Set up authenticated feeds. Need to provide searching and archives? Almost always easier on the web. Want to reach the broadest audience? Feed subscriptions through aggregators, desktop clients, web searches, blog searches, collaborative tagging, and feed-to-email gatewaying will get the message out much more broadly than a directed email. Still want to ensure email accessibility? Sign people up, but for those who want email, run the feed through one of those feed-to-email gateways.

What are the downsides of an email-only publishing model? First, it limits choice. Second, it limits sharing, and what sharing it does allow often butchers any formatting. Third, spam filters get in the way. Fourth, email addresses change. Finally, it's not blogging. What sort of message does it send about the value of marketing via blogging if it's "not good enough" to distribute an inspiring message to blawggers?

Meanwhile, other than collecting a silo of email addresses, I'm unable to determine what can be done via email that cannot be done via blog, given the broader technical accessibility of feeds.

I vastly prefer them myself. Unfortunately - and this is my key point - my targeted readership simply hasn't embraced RSS yet to a sufficient degree that I can safely assume they're all "getting it" - whatever "it" is. And as the communicator, isn't it my responsibility to make sure that the message gets across? If so, and if roughly 80% of my audience isn't using feeds (according to very informal surveys done by others but it's backed up by anecdotal evidence - lawyers simply aren't embracing RSS en masse yet) - then email is the next best thing. Poor substitute? I'll agree. But until the non- believers are converted, email it is.

Thanks for the debate.