Ann,

I am conflicted. However, since the blogosphere has decided this is the news of the day, I suppose I should share my humble opinions.

Here's my cynical take: "Time" has published a brilliant marketing strategy to create buzz, and the blogs are eating it up. However, the facts lie closer to JJB's analysis than to an anointing.

"Time" is in control, not the customer, not we bloggers. And that's just the way they want it. Remember, like the "Sport's Illustrated" swimsuit issue, "Time's" award issue is about selling magazines and subscriptions, not about the readers.

Here is my "bow to 'Time'" take: They get it! (Man, that is hard to write.) They recognize and acknowledge that customers are in control. We are moving into another era in mass media. They like us, they really do!

Okay, I admit it. Having sat in lots of editorial meetings within the publishing world, I don't believe "they get it" for a moment. Editors like all self-designated thought leaders (with a few exceptions, like Ann), need to be in control and think, no believe, they are smarter than the rest of us.

Well, perhaps I am wrong. It doesn't matter because if I am then I have gained some control over the message. Oh, wait, by writing this I prove I have some control. Does "Time" notice or care?

I agree with both you and Lewis;

I was super excited to see it and did a little jig of glee (so glad nobody could see it too). Then the heady buzz wore off and I realized that it is a backhanded compliment of sorts.

Yes, they are validating us, but from that Ivory Tower on high. They are allowing us our crumbs... and we're gobbling them up.

Not to sound like an ungrateful wretch, but it is somewhat hollow. Somewhat...

Why shouldn't we still be excited just the same? The blogosphere and other UGC centers are about to get a whole bunch of new traffic. New media darlings are going to emerge. New plans and schemes are going to be hatched and some new icky folks will be dirtying our little paradise. BUT... we're going to have even more company and now we will be seen with a somewhat increased level of relevance and credibility.

I am still excited about the article and I am looking forward to what happens next. It certainly can't be bad to get this kind of attention.

Here's the one negative I see in this; a bunch of bloggers looking for attention are going to do things that they wouldn't otherwise. Some less "scrupulous" folks will be trying to spread their own brand of "expertise" around and it might result in a backlash. Let's all keep our eyes open to this and in usual blogger style rat-out the offenders.

Something else to think about: according to the Magazine Publishers of America (MPA), Time's average circulation runs at about 4 million readers. Combined subscription and single copy sales were $312 million in 2005. Sure, they have a lot of overhead to support, but those are numbers far beyond the reach of the long tail. In any case, they're getting great press because as I've learned this past year - the one surefire way to generate blog buzz is to blog about blogging.

(BTW do you remember Time's old TV commercial? "Time flies...and you are there. Time cries...and lets you share. Beyond your world...beyond compare - yes Time brings you closer to living." Maybe they saw this coming decades ago...)

Couple of points:

1 - There are now almost 1,300 bloggers that linked to this story. Yes THIRTEEN HUNDRED.

2 - While Time praises social media in the article, their enthusiasm for the tools don't seem to be translating to the site itself. All I can find are a few RSS feeds, and three blogs, none of which allow comments.

IOW, it seems that Time thinks social media is nifty as long as they can use it as a tool to push more content towards us.

When Time starts letting 'You' have a say in the content they publish, such as by allowing comments on their stories/blogs, and by linking to blog posts, and even by letting readers write some of their stories, THEN I'll believe that they feel that 'You' are the Person of the Year.

As of right now, it looks like this was just a cheap publicity stunt to sell copies of Time, and serve as linkbait for bloggers.

But I'll agree with Ann and Tim, more mainstream attention given to the power of social media can't hurt.

First bloggers complained that MSM doesn't give social media the cred its due (I agreed with them); now people are complaining when they do. The point of "You" goes with the mylar/"mirror" cover...so that when you look into it, YOU get to be the man/woman of the year.

I'm just pleased that MSM is acknowledging US. Could they have done better? I'm sure. But I wonder if they hadn't picked You/Us if people would lament.

I only see positive implications coming from the piece. So shoutouts to lots of "You's" :-).

CK,

I love you girl but I don't think we are complaining.
As for me, I was simply trying to counter all the good-feeling stuff posted on the blogs I had so far read with a counter point of view. Without point counter-point, there is no discussion.

It's a good story and well-written. I just don't believe it does a thing for increasing our readership or the number of blogs that will be created.

It's a short imformative article; not a piece with enough umph to drive the growth of the blogosphere. And it wasn't meant to. It was simply meant to acknowledge a current phenomenom, and it did a good job of that.

But I'm not getting all gushy over it nor do I care much that they picked "us". In fact, picking everyone is akin to picking no one.

So it really is all about me. I mean, us.

I am not convinced mainstream journalists hold bloggers in anything but disdain, but this is an encouraging sign, nonetheless.

I think there are two stories here -- first, TIME doesn't necessarily practice what it's acknowledging in its latest issue, as Mack points out, and it was definitely going after that blog love, as Peter points out. But at the same time -- do we care? Because the larger story -- which CK pointed out on her blog -- is that it legitimizes bloggers in the eyes of the world. So who cares about what TIME Magazine really believes or thinks deep-down?

I didn't mean to come off critical, CK. Because the truth is that I love that TIME acknowledged social media. And I said so, above. But at the same time, it IS a tiny bit ironic that bloggers fall into the same trap that the rest of the world falls into....which is that it's not legit unless the big guns say so. I count myself in that group -- because my first reaction was that I wish my Dad was around to get that issue of the magazine.....because kudos from a respected, traditional platform are, well, somehow more worthy. I was more musing than criticizing, for the record.

As for the "you" versus "us," I do agree with the view that TIME seemed to set itself apart. And I'm curious about whether the editors considered as much -- (it's more telling, of course, if they didn't).

And Rhea -- yes. It is about you. Always. : )

To clarify: I was talking about complaints from several blogs I've read today. That's why in my comment I specifically wrote "bloggers" instead of saying "You guys" and said "people" not "You guys". I was voicing my reaction to a mass of remarks on blogs and via e-mail. Sorry for the confusion.

Lewis (love you too, man) is right that the article was short, but it was a cover story. In PR, at least old PR, the ROI rule on value of exposures is not only length but placement.

Lewis, I also agree that they may be looking to cover the current phenom. They'll learn it's not fad nor trend but a permanent shift soon enough :-).

I guess I'm just so happy that we're getting some coverage by MSM in this 'front and center' fashion that my focus is just that.

Ann has a good point on the irony. Do I like that it takes the "Big Guys' nodding to us to give us cred? I don't like that one bit. But this revolution is all about the "little guys" and I really love that.

Yeah, this article just made me so happy and I was blabbering on about it to my sis who smiled and said "You talk about work too much". I told her "It's not work, it's a revolution and a shift in power to the people!".

To which she said "What do you want for dinner?" Go figure.

I understand your joy, CK, and share it. As DA pointed out on Mack's blog, TIME is using us to become relevant again and we are using them to raise awareness of emerging media.

That works for me! LOL....

CK- "Yeah, this article just made me so happy and I was blabbering on about it to my sis who smiled and said "You talk about work too much". I told her "It's not work, it's a revolution and a shift in power to the people!".

To which she said "What do you want for dinner?" Go figure."

I feel you sister. I really do.

Here's the beauty of this dialog; we're ALL right! That's where the beauty comes in. We're being exploited and we're exploiting them back.. HA! (We're so clever.) We all get a voice in this. All of us. Mr. Community gets to openly be cynical and a doubter, CK gets to be a cheerleader (she has the legs for it), Ann gets to be the happy skeptic, Lewis gets to have his doubts on their sincerity. It's a little something for everybody and as CK points out, it is a revolution... and (just for you girl)... it's a revolution of Share.

How cool is that?

Tim - I think my husband knows your sister. Call me if you want to talk about work :-)

I'm not quite sure what to think of this either (and I was one of the 1300 bloggers that linked to the article).

At the end of the day, the Time article will raise awareness of user generated content. As my husband keeps pointing out to me (on the occasions when he does talk about these things), we're still the minority (he just calls me a freak - but I'll spare you that label). There are still many more people out there that don't even read blogs (forget about writing one).

I think I'll agree with Ironic and Opportunistic, but in a good way. As a group of marketers, we should all appreciate a brilliant PR move like that, and considering it only helps to add credibility, and spread our message to a larger group that doesn't "get" blogging, or youtube, or whatever, I think we should embrace them for it.

TIME hasn't hit the stands here as yet, but it is all over the online press (no surprise there) ... and the first view I had of it at all was via David Armano.

Why is it important? Because it opens the doors to other levels/spheres of debate. Bloggers should understand this better than anyone -- it is about authority and authenticity.

In one cover story, TIME is putting social media on the radar of all the influencers, stakeholders and decision makers that we bloggers cannot just yet reach. With a single article, social media has jumped from one pond of influence into a much larger (if disconnected) pond, and in doing so gains a measure of traditional respect.

Sure there is a bit of mutual lovin' ... the blogosphere gets exposure and TIME gains some blogcred, but when those business folk begin to listen and start looking for someone to help them navigate this "blogo-thingamy", then my guess is that they will be calling some of the smart marketers who read MarketingProfs.

Great debate. Ann's post is a great example of what blogging should look like, as it drove comments and an exchange of ideas.

CK, thanks for adding wood to the fire. Without the nudge, we may not have had such wonderful sharing and participation.

I'm not really qualified to comment but I'm going to anyway. I'm still on the fence of blogging because I'm not sure what to blog about.

I am a musician and getting press is always exciting even if it's bad press.

But, there is a moment when you see an artist become part of a machine and a publicity splash that begins to dominate the original purpose: The music

Wouldn't it be weird if one of you were asked to be on the Daily Show because you're such a powerful blogger?

Is there any one of you that would rather be published in Time, New Yorker, etc. than posting your message online?

If so, what does that say?

I think all of you are wonderful and you breathe life into my daily activities and challenge the way I think. Not that I don't have a life...I DO, but I enjoy the way you make me think, pretty much everyday! Thank you!

SO what am I saying? I'm not sure. I just know I have spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to be cool and different in my life; to be cutting edge and hip to the underground. Maybe that's pathetic but when statements like
"It's not work, it's a revolution and a shift in power to the people!" are made I think that is so cool, but what's next? I want to be apart of a revolution that doesn't include the "Icky People"

That's what happens...the "Icky People" want in. Maybe I'm one of them to you all. ( I actually don’t worry about being cool so much anymore, but I have to admit it's still part of who I am.)

So a nod from the mainstream sounds like the beginning of the end; time to find a new voice.

Ha! I haven't even started my own blog yet and I'm feeling like I'm too late.

Tammy, I can't speak for anybody but me, but your comments here are great and your comments on this post are perfect.

That's part of the beauty of this "you" thing- you are supremely qualified to comment and be a part of the conversation. As a blog reader with nothing else invested in blogging, you frankly have a more valid view than many of us. Thank you for your comments.

The icky people are coming. That's a given. Hell they are already here. We'll just see more of them now. BUT... more good people are going to come too and more companies will seek them (us) out for help.

You're not too late to the party and it's not time to find something else. We're just getting started here. It'll be getting better- I think.

And, Tammy, for what it's worth most of us (not all) are trying to be cool in our own way. You are not alone... not even close.

i would suggest that time has to leverage its readership and is doing this with the hype. it's something that we do ourselves, intentionally or unintentionally, too. we try to be catchy, to engage the people who read our diary.on the other side it's a good thing because it will drive attention to what we consider "our world". in some way i feel in the comments some defense of the blogosphere: why are they talking about something they do not know? they should have asked for.
am i wrong?

Thank you Tim!

I admit that I haven't read the TIME article, but I saw and heard the advance hoopla covered by CNN. (I am so behind in my reading - that's what next week is for.)

Aside from all this discussion on TIME acknowledging social media, did anyone notice that one of the finalists for Person of the Year was "You Tube?"

That struck me as very odd. "You Tube" is a corporate entity, a technology innovation, and a new form of sharing information, but it is certainly not a person. This reminds me somewhat of Hal in 2001 A Space Odyssey, when technology begins to take a human form. Oh-oh.

Ann, like you, I remember when the TIME Person of the Year was a major news event. This year, it has been talked about in the blogosphere, but it doesn't seem to have made a big dent in news via the mainstream media. I'm not sure if it's because TIME is becoming less relevant, or because their selection this year is not a high-profile individual that the MSM can grab onto, but rather a concept -- albeit an important one -- that just doesn't have the excitement and glamour a celeb selection would have had.

Just my take, from here on the sidelines.