Is Mixing Humor and Blogging A Bad Idea?

Every once in a while, I’ll just write a post that is hiLARious. I end up editing out most of the jokes, though, telling myself, “Who do you think you are? LISA?”

I write buying guides for a big internet retailer and I get some flack for some of the jokes I make. My humor is dry, it sneaks up on you, and it’s based on the fact that I’m a 40-something native New Yorker. Yeah, a lot of people don’t get me.
Nevertheless, I keep doing it. Why? Well, do you consider 2,000 to 4,000 words on how to buy slipcovers, faucets, televisions or men’s hunting clothes fun? Not a lot of people do and since these aren’t on our product pages, they are what I call an optional read. If it doesn’t contain extremely useful info and is not also fun to read, you ain’t stayin’ around for the whole 4,000 words. If that happens, I ain’t staying around to collect my paycheck!
Different people have different tastes and styles, and I don’t get why they think they’re funny any more than they get why I’m funny–like the difference between “Night Court” and “Seinfeld”, I loved one, hated the other. But, I always respect their attempt to enliven a dry read.
By the way, my goal as I write these buying guides is to have someone finish it and email a friend to say, “You’ve got to read this thing–it’s hilarious!” If it happens, I’ll probably never hear about it, but I’m trying for it anyway.

Mean?

The guy’s throwing a sulky tantrum about being pretty bad at understanding things. First he has trouble understanding search engines, and then failing to understand Lisa’s humor is the final straw and he snaps. ;o)

As I commented on Nick’s own blog:

Nick said: “Instead of relying on some vaguely defined algorithm, you might actually get results for things you are interested in and not just some staid, worn out keyword stuffed site.”

Sheesh! You moan about Lisa Barone’s writing style then throw your toys out of the pram in a literary sense about the algorithms built by some of the brightest scientists in the field of Information Retrieval, presumably because you’re not very good at understanding them.

Have you considered that maybe with your opinions about “vaguely defined algorithms” (which are not at all vague to those who devise and define them in pure maths) and the suggestion that every highly ranked website is “just some staid, worn out keyword stuffed site” that maybe you’re focusing on the wrong field?

I thought this was going to be a search engine optimization journal and instead I find a search engine pessimism sulk. Maybe you should adjust your meta tags or something?

Wow, that Nick Stamoulis post is kind of mean. Sort of like when boys throw rocks at girls whom they actually like. I mean, he’s talking about you again today!

[prints out entry comments, staples them to Susan’s forehead.]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone, it means a lot. See, I KNEW I was funny! :)

I also wanted to agree with everyone else. This is definitely one of the only blogs I don’t just “skim” through either because of the humor and personality.

Well put Dan!
That’s exactly how I feel.

I’d be willing to bet that the consistency of your humor is what keeps people reading your posts. The first thing I thought of when you started blogging was that, based on your style, Bruce is probably under-paying you (Hi Bruce; See you at SES!).
If you have the ability to inject your personality into a blog, then do it (and you definitely do). There are enough blogs that I’ve unsubscribed from for lack of personality. Without it, we may as well stick to reading press releases.

Lisa,
One of the main things that draw me to read every single entry you have ever written (I’m pretty sure that’s accurate) is the personality element in your writing.
I remember when I first stumbled upon your blog more than a year ago. It took two entries to get me hooked to your writing styles. I remember spending like 2 days reading past entries because I just couldn’t get enough. I have read every one of your posts since then.
I subscribe to about 15 seo/ppc feeds but your blog is the only one that I don’t just “skim” through. Keep it up, breaks in my work day depend on it!

Nicely written post, Lisa. And yes, I think you’re as witty as you think you are. :)
I think I wrote that post as a caution more than anything. I like inserting humor into my posts, but it’s the absolute truth that I restrain myself. I guess I’m trying to reach as many people as possible, and I know from sales copy how easy it is to lose someone.
But ultimately, I feel the same as anyone else–I want to write for the people who get me, and let the others fall where they may. It’s getting easier and easier to live that way as the days go by.

Maybe you’re just trolling for comments (OK, OK, it’s a JOKE!).

It is certainly important to be wary of potentially hurting feelings unintentionally with humor (intentional harm is another matter!). However, personality and humor are part of what makes this blog charming, as well as interesting. Keep up the good work!

Nice thoughts here. You know, I think an author can target his or her audience pretty well on a blog. Brian has gotten a lot of noise on his site about his recent posts, but that’s mostly because of a vocal minority.
In the long run, you can trust that an audience reading about copywriting and blogging will be fairly sophisticated and creative.
In my case, I count on the fact that people who hate their jobs want a balance between thinking about it seriously and laughing at it.
Nice site, by the way : )

If someone can’t appreciate the humor and style you bring to (what is often) a stale blogging industry… that’s sad.

The main reason I read this is for the humor, so please keep doing what you’re doing because you’re doing it great.

But the secondary reason is the insights, which are equally great. I don’t know if it’s just me, but I’ve noticed your posting style has gotten more sophisticated, and instead of just pointing at other stories you’re using them as springboards to look deeply into an issue.

It’s obvious the time you take to craft these posts is substantial.

But I still have no idea who Susan is. That’s okay too, cuz this is Lisa’s blog (and maybe Bruce’s too).