Read aloud, the unnecessary stands out

I am reading my book to my daughters. They seem to enjoy it, particularly the parts where I poke fun at seemingly invulnerable adult characters. Seeing a gruff adult turn all sappy, or a scary villain trip all over himself is funny to them. They like hearing the story and beg for more. I enjoy reading it to them.

As part of the writing process, reading it aloud to them really helps out. The grammatical errors become glaringly obvious as my mouth trips over trying to say the sentences out loud. Even more glaring, though, are the writing indulgences which prove completely unnecessary to the book. In order to keep myself going, I force a free form "write whatever hits your head" approach. If I get an idea, I write it down on paper the way the words form in my head. If I think something is funny, amusing or interesting I just go for it right away before I lose it. Sometimes I will even skip several chapters ahead just to get something written out as it hits my skull, although usually I capture the idea in notes (as an aside, my inner geek shows through, as I use SGML style markup to do it... like this).

The problem with this approach is that many ideas are distractions which might have seemed fun to me, but that really don't play a part in the movement of the storyline. For the kind of story I am writing, sticking to the action is critical to keep the audience's interest. I have read whole chapters that on reflection should be removed entirely with just the bare stitching need to fix the hole they leave behind. Some chapters I want to keep, but maybe move to later in the story, as they deal with character development that become important points of the plot.

I'm not saying anything new or novel here. I have read several times in articles by other writers that reading the story out loud really helps in the proof reading. It is just interesting to reflect on it now as I am doing it.

Hey, advertising is free!

Really, all you need is the time to make a video. Then just post it on YouTube. Here are two of my own that I did for the book:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOjah2HWsGE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkMSEaBvLuM

Obviously this isn't all. The desire is for the video to go viral. I have to admit to my own ineptitude at manipulating the interests and desires of the general populace. I really have no idea how to get something like this to go all over the place. I tend to lean a great deal on hoping the content itself will carry it, but as I have seen with other attempts at promoting my book, that really is not enough.

Other people seem interested in this phenomenon as well. Advertising companies are doing a great deal to get their ads on YouTube and the web in general. One of my friends, Dave Kindard, seems to be invest a deal of research into the viral tipping point, particular with his recent use of Twitter as a distribution medium. Maybe I need to start reading up.

I recently read an article by another author about Amazon detail page visits. He never published the article, but he sent me a copy because the idea for the technical hack making it possible came from me. I had suggested to him a means by which an author published on Amazon could track how many times their book's detail page had been hit, something Amazon doesn't tell you (the technique no longer works - Amazon's behaviors changed around May this year). He ran an experiment and found not only could he count his hits, he could tell how the person visiting the page had got there (Amazon keeps such information on the URL query string), which allowed him to catalog the effectiveness of different means of promoting books. The conclusion: personal websites, Amazon guides, Listmania lists and author blogs are ineffective. The most effective means are Amazon's "bought together" feature and placement in search results.

Its all part of the "what drives people to something" soup that is the Internet. I personally found that paid web-based advertising was completely useless for promoting my book. I set the account on a small budget (this is a hobby to me, not a business) - and got lots of clicks (I chose pay for click as the model). Not ONE of those clicks registered as a visit to my website. Again, to reiterate - not ONE SINGLE CLICK that I PAID FOR resulted in a web site hit. I believe I was likely a victim of clickbot fraud. This is when automated programs simulate clicks on advertisements to exhaust the advertisers budget, after which point that ad no longer runs. This leaves the ads the clickbot deployer paid for a greater amount of the remaining ad displays. The problem is so big that MS actually sued the daylights off a business in Canada doing precisely that.

You know what DID drive people to my website? Chest pain. Well, searches on chest pain. When I first created my website, I wrote an experimental blog post about having a heart attack. The article talked about how after a heart attack all the day to day little muscular pangs you get in the chest area scare the daylights out of you. I forgot about the article for about six months until after I had published my book and put a page about it on my website and ran some ads on Facebook and Google. I was looking at the site visit reports, and surprisingly I had traffic, but many months before I ever published the book. I followed through the referrer URL, and they came mostly from Google searches. Google? Why would people be searching my site on Google? I checked the tag terms, and they were for "pain in chest". Apparently calling Google comes before calling 911. Go figure.

But the point that is interesting is that in both cases, effective placement in search results seems to be an important aspect of website promotion.

Yet, I am not sure if that is works for viral media. I always get that delivered to me by someone in email, or on sharing sites like Facebook and Digg. I am wondering about the dynamics of social movement described by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. There, Gladwell describes the necessity of three personality types to start a social phenomenon - the early adopters (the ones on the fringe who differ from the mainstream), the observers (these are people who understand the early adopters and see a fad coming) and the connectors (these are people who have a massive network of other people they either know and communicate with, or who hang on them for advice). I am wondering if viral media rely on the same sort of thing.