1. Not everybody knows what to blog about.
2. Not everybody knows how to gain readers.
3. Not everybody knows how to monetise a blog.
IMAGINE A FULL-TIME INCOME FROM WRITING 30 BLOG POSTS
I'm talking about niche blogging.
I've seen blogs about the sport pickleball, homemade kombucha, and even unicorns.
People can make enough money to quit their 9 to 5 job from one niche blog alone.
(Thread 👇⬇️⬇️⬇️👇 )
1. Not everybody knows what to blog about.
2. Not everybody knows how to gain readers.
3. Not everybody knows how to monetise a blog.
When deciding on what to blog about it's worth exploring niches you are familiar with.
Avoid generic niches like "Pets" and instead go for a cross niche such as "Pythons" or "Parakeets".
When choosing a domain name, avoid going too specific. For example, while a name like https://t.co/Ixb1shksNk is attractive, it could limit you. Instead, go for something that allows you to expand your niche later.
Don't blog about generic subjects. For example "5 facts about Pythonides" is generic and not a question people with a python may be searching.
Instead, go to sites like Quora, find your niche and answer the questions being asked on your blog post.
10 of your blog posts should be a 'response' post where you answer a specific question. Typically 1.2k to 1.4k words.
The rest should be staple and pillar posts.
Staple Posts = 2,500 words
Pillar Posts = 3,500 words
If you only blogged about specific questions people are asking, in other words, the response posts, you should be seeing some traffic trickle in from Google.
You could also expand your reach using social media.
If you decide to expand using social media, stick to a maximum of two channels.
Take, for example, if you're blogging about parakeets as a pet, social channels that could work best for you may be YouTube and Pinterest.
Think about what your audience may be searching.
For example, on YouTube, it may be "How to train my parakeet to sing."
or on Pinterest "Parakeet cage design ideas."
Monetising a blog isn't difficult. However, I have seen blogs with 10-50k visitors per month, unmonetised. So here are two ways to make money blogging:
1. Use affiliate links to products, services or other courses from other creators.
2. Display ads
I tried keeping it short but detailed as possible.
My advice is from the experience of creating niche blogs.
If you have any questions or are interested in starting your own niche blog, please @ me on Twitter. 🤗
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
