Most Hotly Debated Posts of 2012

Most Hotly Debated Posts of 2012

December 27, 2012 by

The comment section is a nice way to get pushback from our readers, hear what’s working and what’s not. And of course it’s a good place to argue. Constructively, we hope. Here are the most hotly debated posts of 2012, or at least the ones that generated the most discussion:

4) Making Visitors Feel Welcome (But Not Too Welcome) – 15 – Any time you talk about a “feminist, pro-choice, pro-gay hippie who loves Jesus” you’re going to get some comments. That’s why we love Anne Lamott.

3) Churches Reaching Out with Pinterest – 19 – How churches can take advantage of a new social site is another sure fire way to generate discussion.

2) Church Advertising Observations Part 1: Why It Doesn’t Work – 19 – This opening salvo in a two-part series prompted lots of talk about church advertising that sucks.

1) Fighting Over Chicken – 31 – Far and away the most hotly debated post this year was our take on the Chick-Fil-A fiasco.

Fewer Comments?
Oddly enough, the number of comments required to make this list are going steadily down. Only one of these posts would have made last year’s list, it would have squeaked into 2010’s list and wouldn’t have been close to making 2009’s list. So what’s going on?

This is a good discussion for the comments:

  • Are people commenting on blogs less frequently in general? Is commenting moving to social media?
  • Do we do a poor job of encouraging discussion? (Guilty: It’s usually low on my priority list—I don’t like being the ‘yeah, good idea’ commenter.)
  • Are controversial posts what get comments and we’ve had fewer of those lately? (Let’s be honest: We haven’t had a good Rick Warren & Spec Work throw down in a while.)
Post By:

Kevin D. Hendricks

When Kevin isn't busy as the editor of Church Marketing Sucks, he runs his own writing and editing company, Monkey Outta Nowhere. Kevin has been blogging since 1998, runs the hyperlocal site West St. Paul Reader, and has published several books, including 137 Books in One Year: How to Fall in Love With Reading, The Stephanies and all of our church communication books.
Read more posts by | Want to write for us?

5 Responses to “Most Hotly Debated Posts of 2012”

  • Paul Loeffler
    December 27, 2012

    1) Actually, I would be the opposite of posting for controversial topics. The more controversial it is, the more I believe the discussion should be in person rather than via just typed text. There’s too much room for wrong interpretations – of motives, of meaning, etc.
    2) I thing your first reason (social media) is also accurate. Even for posts I get something out of, I keep having to remind myself there isn’t a “Like” button on a blog… unless we want to comment on FB or Google+ about it.
    3) I (and this could really be just a “me” thing) generally read blogs like I do magazine articles. I’m not reading for discussion (usually). I’m reading for information, taking what I get out of it, and moving on.

    My 2 cents.

     | Permalink
  • Pastor Zach Malott
    December 28, 2012

    I feel that blogs/social sites go hand in hand personally. Blogs are capable of providing a long-term discussion about certain “nitch” subjects while social sites allow for many channels and opportunity to brong attention to “blogs of worth” that appeal to more targeted audiences in terms of interest.

     | Permalink
  • Kel
    January 12, 2013

    Less comments may be happening because ppl have many other (& easier) methods to share theirs thoughts eg fb. By easier it means no adding in your details or needing to register. Plus you can track the feedback on social media and keep discussing as opposed to just commenting on a blog (which then never comes up again).


     | Permalink
  • Scott Bachmann
    January 17, 2013

    Your insistence on referring to the Chick-fil-A appreciation day as a “fiasco” is quite telling. I just found your site 3 days ago and you’ve already lost me as a reader.

     | Permalink
    • Kevin D. Hendricks
      January 17, 2013

      Scott, I’d wager you’re missing the point. I think “fiasco” is a perfectly good word for the events of last summer surrounding Chick-fil-A, regardless of what side you’re on. There was ridiculousness on both sides.

      The point of the post was, “If all people see in you is another culture battle, then they probably want nothing to do with you.” And that point is true regardless of which side of the fiasco you find yourself.

       | Permalink