|
The Wall Street Journal still doesn't get the blogosphere. It doesn't matter how many stories they run about blogs. It doesn't matter that they have some blogs on their site.
Deep down they hate us. And, they don't seem to be too great at math either.
In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, there's an article about political candidates advertising in blogs.
"The most popular political blogs reach a daily audience of just a few million readers, according to a study released last October by George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet."
And here's a statement from the Journal's own site: "With a print and online circulation of nearly 2.1 million, the Journal reaches the nation's top business and political leaders, as well as investors across the country." A few million was more than 2.1 million last time I checked.
"All told," the Journal says, "online spending by candidates, political parties and third-party special-interest 'soft money' groups, like Moveon.org, could hit $80 million during the 2008 cycle compared with $29 million in 2004, according to an estimate by PQ Media LLC, a Connecticut research firm."
"For now," the article notes, "Internet ad spending is small compared with spending on traditional radio, broadcast and cable advertising. The best-read blogs still charge comparably little for ads. A standard-size weekly ad purchased through Blogads costs $2,900 on the progressive site DailyKos for example, or $250 at Hotair, a conservative video blog site. By comparison, a 30-second broadcast television spot could set back a candidate anywhere from $90,000 to $110,000 a week in a market like Des Moines, according to Evan Tracey of the TNS Media Intelligence's Campaign Media Analysis Group."
Yes, and that is the point.
While spending on blogs is smaller by comparison, blogs have very specific audiences, all of whom are there entirely by choice and who are likely to share the blog's point of view. Dollar for dollar, blog ads pack more power and influence than traditional media.
And, as the numbers prove, the reach can be just as broad as the Journal's.
|
Comments
Excellent review of this "bias" (for lack of a better term) by print newspapers like the WSJ. The other issue in this article that stood out was the issue of impact.
As the Swiftboaters, Obama attackers, and others have proven time and time again, blogs continue to influence voters' opinions. Yet with the exception of the Edwards and Giuliani campaigns, none of the candidate's media teams seem to understand this. (We've seen both Edwards and Giuliani's operatives in websites and blogs that we manage for others.)
Once the impact is truly understood, the numbers become less important. And that is what the authors missed.
Posted by: Mike Rowland | 02.15.07
Agree, agree, agree! Great post. Thank you!
Posted by: Laurel Delaney | 02.15.07
It's easy to see why blogs are a threat to MSM. We make them work harder. :>)
Seriously, the blogosphere is a great watchdog of the press now.
And I hope I am not deluding myself to think that something like Swiftboat or that horrible handling of Howard Dean's unbridled enthusiasm can't happen again in the 2008 election because bloggers will out the bias or sheer lack of energy that allows MSM to roll over and play dead in those situations.
The really sobering thought though, is that an awful of voters have never seen a blog and still think blogs are the personal diaries of teenagers.
Posted by: B.L. Ochman | 02.16.07
Those that can't do teach...
Those that can't teach write...
Those that can't write become
politicians...
Those that can't be politicians become talk show hosts...
Posted by: Jon Foster | 02.22.07