On your request, given that views are already divided and probably polarised, the only way to satisfy both ends of this spectrum is to continue to do both. Give each article an appropriate heading so it’s clear what profession and what’s Tom’s personal take and people can read the stuff they want to and not what they don’t.
Tom, when I was younger, I leaned towards clean, clear, correct technical advice.
Opinion and stories & metaphors annoyed me.
As a fledging REXer with Dorie Clark in the US - her advice is the same as I've offered my clients for 20+ years, just be known for one thing. The tighter simpler clearer the better.
You could have 5 x versions of your offer for an even wider spread of content for many buyer/seller interaction types and needs.
Now you have two.
I suggest just one.
As Shipley we talk a lot about the difference between content, and the process that uses/leverages/delivers it.
On the basis your content - saying this as a 50 year seller - is technically excellent and I'm assuming will remain so and even improve, your question is about your delivery process.
How personal, or how detached and analytical.
In an industry high on IQ and perhaps lower on EQ - a high EQ content delivery process will never be for everybody.
So you choose who you are, and feel most comfortable being as the delivery process for your excellent subject content.
A final thought, you and I are both #betterworld people - creating a legacy, however modest - that has readers/users/appliers better off.
And increasingly my colleagues and I narrow each year who we seek to serve - not by need, or ability to pay - rather, who will actually use and apply what's offered>
We've always had a no-dickhead policy with painful customers.
Thats now evolved to be people (and their organisations culture) that can best do what we suggest.
And the No 1 indicator?
Alignment of values. Philosophically, emotionally evolved. Open to the experiences of others.
Not as a judgement of those who are smart, big brain people - but lower in EQ.
Who agree with your logic, but usually fail to apply it because most change barriers are fear based. And acknowledging and moving past fear takes high EQ.
So, as a choice for you. Which end of the spectrum of choice you have is most you?
Why are you doing what you do?
Who would make you most filled with joy at seeing your advice acted on?
What would most be the legacy to have created?
What does it matter if you lose half that don't prefer one style over the other?
And you instead of it being a loss you build ten times the people in the end you choose?
On your request, given that views are already divided and probably polarised, the only way to satisfy both ends of this spectrum is to continue to do both. Give each article an appropriate heading so it’s clear what profession and what’s Tom’s personal take and people can read the stuff they want to and not what they don’t.
More Tom! There's already enough vanilla content out there.
Tom, when I was younger, I leaned towards clean, clear, correct technical advice.
Opinion and stories & metaphors annoyed me.
As a fledging REXer with Dorie Clark in the US - her advice is the same as I've offered my clients for 20+ years, just be known for one thing. The tighter simpler clearer the better.
You could have 5 x versions of your offer for an even wider spread of content for many buyer/seller interaction types and needs.
Now you have two.
I suggest just one.
As Shipley we talk a lot about the difference between content, and the process that uses/leverages/delivers it.
On the basis your content - saying this as a 50 year seller - is technically excellent and I'm assuming will remain so and even improve, your question is about your delivery process.
How personal, or how detached and analytical.
In an industry high on IQ and perhaps lower on EQ - a high EQ content delivery process will never be for everybody.
So you choose who you are, and feel most comfortable being as the delivery process for your excellent subject content.
A final thought, you and I are both #betterworld people - creating a legacy, however modest - that has readers/users/appliers better off.
And increasingly my colleagues and I narrow each year who we seek to serve - not by need, or ability to pay - rather, who will actually use and apply what's offered>
We've always had a no-dickhead policy with painful customers.
Thats now evolved to be people (and their organisations culture) that can best do what we suggest.
And the No 1 indicator?
Alignment of values. Philosophically, emotionally evolved. Open to the experiences of others.
Not as a judgement of those who are smart, big brain people - but lower in EQ.
Who agree with your logic, but usually fail to apply it because most change barriers are fear based. And acknowledging and moving past fear takes high EQ.
So, as a choice for you. Which end of the spectrum of choice you have is most you?
Why are you doing what you do?
Who would make you most filled with joy at seeing your advice acted on?
What would most be the legacy to have created?
What does it matter if you lose half that don't prefer one style over the other?
And you instead of it being a loss you build ten times the people in the end you choose?
I trust you.
You can trust you.
Have fun...