A radio commercial I heard this morning from IQ offers a free CD that promises to “boost your reading speed 1,000%.”

The commercials explains: “you’ll be able to read 10 book in the time it used to take you to read one book” — a tenfold improvement in reading speed.

The only problem is that reading 10X faster is a 900% improvement, not a 1,000% improvement.

It’s a small error. But for a company called “IQ,” I think it damages their credibility a bit.

Do you agree, or once again, am I being too nitpiky?

A friend, AF, wants to make money in his spare-time on the Internet.

He asked me about making money with a blog. I told him: “Forget it.”

Instead, I recommended to AF that he do what I do: sell how-to information products online.

(The method I used is explained on my site www.theinternetmarketingretirementplan.com.)

It has certainly worked out well for me.

I earn a six-figure income online “working” only a few hours a week.

But now that I think about it, maybe I didn’t give AF the right advice.

It’s my feeling that other than the occasional blogger who gets a lucky break — e.g., a book deal, a huge following, or makes money speaking and consulting — most bloggers make little or no money from their blogs.

Am I wrong?

If I am … and you are a blogger who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in your spare time blogging … can you let me (and AF) know what you did and how you did it?

After all, he could use the extra income (who couldn’t?) and I would hate for him to miss out on an opportunity for blogging profits because of my advice.

Can bloggers get rich online from blogging? What say you?

One possible future for magazines is to make them more like the Web — in particular, like social media and other Web 2.0 sites.

For example, according to an article in Circulation Management (6/08, p. 12), Erik Torkells, editor of Budget Travel magazine, published a June issue in which nearly 100% of the content was generated by the publication’s readers.

The magazine received approximately 2,800 pitches from readers resulting in 324 contributors to the issue.

“In the future, love it or hate it, an editor’s role will be to lead a conversation, not deliver a monologue.”

Is quality a problem when peers rather than professional writers provide the content?

Yes, says Torkells, who said the June issue required an “extraordinary amount” of editing, without which it “would have been a mess.”

“Editing non-professional writers is never easy,” he notes.

I received a mailing today promoting a stock newsletter.

In big, bold type, the headline on the outer envelope reads:

Inside: Three stocks set to quadruple in price in the next 12 months.

Now, if you are a new copywriter … or new to financial subscription promotion … you might think this is a good headline.

But to anyone with experience, it’s fairly lame.

Yes, it makes a big promise.

The problem is, I — and everyone else on the mailing lists used in financial direct mail — have read this headline (or others nearly identical) about a zillion times before.

The lack of originality robs it of impact — and reminds us that it’s a pure sales pitch.

You can’t know this unless you are an active writer or reader of financial DM.

That’s why you need to be on as many mailing lists as you can — online and offline — and read all the print and Internet promotions that come your way.

Not only does this give you ideas and show you what’s working.

But it also educates you on what has been done to the death — and should be avoided in your own work.

Doctors, engineers, and scientists keep up with the latest developments and current activity in their respective fields.

Copywriters and marketers must, too.

So … how would YOU rate “Three stock set to quadruple in price in the next 12 months” as a headline — good, bad, or terrible?

If you say to me that social media is the most significant marketing development of the 21st century and will become the dominant marketing channel, I can see your argument — though I don’t necessarily agree with it.

But in an interview with DM News (6/9/08, p. 47), Saul Colt, VP of FreshBooks Marketing, goes way too far when he suggests that one single social media site — Twitter — could by itself be the next big thing in marketing.

Colt states: “Twitter is here to stay and in time could be your most valuable marketing tool.”

His reason: “There is a good chance your customers are already there and perhaps talking about you.”

Saul, are you serious?

Do you really think that Twitter specifically — not social media in general — could become the #1 marketing tool of any B2B or B2C marketer?

Does anyone else out there think Twitter is an important, powerful marketing medium? Do you already get business from Twitter?

For years, auto makers have been selling used cars under the semi-pretentious label of “pre-owned vehicle.”

So I was shocked yesterday when I heard a radio spot for Honda talking about their “certified used cars.”

The whole reason the industry switched from “used car” to “pre-owned vehicle” was to avoid the negative image of the used car industry — in particular used car dealers.

So does Honda know something we don’t? Have they conducted market research that indicates consumers are wary of — or see through — the high-fatutin B.S. of the whole “certified pre-owned vehicle” thing?

Will the market eagerly rush to by Honda’s used cars because of the refreshing honesty of their new commercial?

Or will consumers say “no thanks” to used cars — and stick with pre-owned vehicles instead?

Your thoughts?

My friend Peter Fogel is writing a book on reinvention in the workplace.

It’s rare for people these days to have one career and stick with it for decades.

Most of us have several careers during our life — which often necessitates a difficult period of transition, training, and reinvention.

Have you “reinvented” yourself at work or in your business?

Did you do it by learning a new skill … or finding a mentor … or growing a new profit center?

And did you reinvent yourself out of choice — or did your industry become moribund or your skills obsolete?

When Yale librarian Rutherford Rogers said “We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge,” he could have been talking about Chris Schroeder.

In a speech at the Specialized Information Publishers Association (SIPA) conference this week, Schroeder, CEO of Health Central Network, said RSS feeds were a great way of keeping up with what’s new in your field.

He then showed a slide of his own RSS feed inbox and noted that it had 2,000 items awaiting his attention.

Mr. Schroeder, I have news for you: if you have 2,000 unread items in your RSS feed, then it is anything BUT an ideal way of getting information.

Schroeder and many other people I know subscribe to so many data sources, their RSS feeds deliver hundreds or thousands of items a week — more than they could ever hope to read.

I believe Mr. Schroeder over-estimates his own need for information — or is unable to distinguish between what he needs to know vs. what he would like to know.

In today’s information age, more scientific knowledge is published every 24 hours than you could read in 5 years.

The key to managing your information is to be more selective, not less. Ruthlessly unsubscribe to e-zines, RSS feeds, newsletters, and magazines until you get only what you absolutely need.

Even then, you won’t have time to read even a small fraction of it. But at least your inbox will be somewhat under control.

But over-subscribing to free content via RSS feeds is an invitation to information overload disaster: equivalent to getting a Sunday New York Times delivered to your door every day of the year.