Comments on: It’s Awfully Crowded Out There

By: Neil Anuskiewicz

Neil Anuskiewicz — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:44:21 +0000

In the market, Schumpeter’s creative destruction rules — or should when the market is working.
Perhaps in the blogosphere, the equivalent is that bad blogs will be ignored. If a blog is unread does it really exist? The market for ideas is there. You choose just like you choose products and services.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:17:39 +0000

I don’t know the answer to that, Lewis. Although mainstream media have to mitigate their liability, unlike blogs, it’s similar to heeding business advice on the radio, TV or in a biz/trade magazine or daily newspaper. Just because something is in the media, doesn’t necessarily mean it has value or is truthful.
After all, what is truth? (How’s that for a philisophical question?)

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:46:45 +0000

Elaine,
I agree: blogs and buzz go together. But I ask this question: Meantime, while garbage floats precariously through the blogosphere, what is our concern for the people that followed a voice that didn’t meet their needs and got burned by doing so?

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:46:31 +0000

Lewis, you’re right that the examples I used are for purchase and blogs are not. However, I still think the principle is the same. Blogs that are talked about or gain buzz will likely survive.
I also agree with CK – she points out one more litmus test – that people will follow those voices that meet their business needs.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:58:14 +0000

CK,
I think we agree on the points you make: I read blogs written by people of all ages and all points of view. But you and I bring enough marketing knowledge and experience to know who and who not to trust. Also, I hate regulation of almost any kind and that’s why I purposely and carefully chose the phrase quality control. There is very little, if any, of that in the blogosphere. It may not matter but the questions need asking. Thanks for your insights, as always.

By: CK

CK — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 18:53:21 +0000

The thing about giving everyone a voice (through these efficient technologies) is not that the cream ultimately rises to the top…it’s that those voices satisfy various niches and needs.
For example, I follow blogs of well-heeled practitioners as well as “newbies”. Why? Because many of those newbies aren’t influenced by a set opinion and fall into a market segment that I need to follow for some of my accounts. I could never expect that a seasoned pro with 25 years of experience can speak to the same challenges as a 22 year-old that’s actually experiencing those challenges. Just like I can’t expect someone who’s been in the field for a handful of years can have the same experience in a certain sector as someone who’s been in it for 30+ years.
It’s not clutter, it’s more choice/viewpoints/vantage points for everyone to qualify according to their own criteria. Can’t imagine that ever being a bad thing. Yep, the clutter is the beauty. I vote for more choice, not less.
PS: Per your question of: “Is it akin to flooding the market with toys from China, where quality control is mostly absent from the process?” Nope Lewis, no toxins (lead paint) in the ’sphere–and while China needs a bevy of regulation, we don’t need it here. We want to encourage participation, not hamper it. People are smart enough to figure out which voices to follow and, more to the point, which voices work for their particular needs. Now isn’t that grand?

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:22:28 +0000

Elaine,
With the examples you use, we purchase those mediums, meaning we can criticize and even end the lives of those outlets with our pocketbooks. Plus there are reviewers and review publications and pundits talking about those mediums everyday. Consumers are maxed out with information and can make intelligent choices based on that information. Not so with blogs.
Harry,
Yep. I once owned a Mac II and hear what you are saying. Professionals will ultimately rule the day.

By: Harry hallman

Harry hallman — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:27:16 +0000

As usual, Lewis you write a post that makes you think. I had lunch this last week with a past associate and he mentioned that he thought that consumer-generated media would fundamentally change advertising. I am not so sure about how much change will occur, but I do believe that it will have an affect on the quality of what “professionals” present to the public.
In the 80’s a small computer company came up with devise that made amazing changes in the graphic arts business. This tool gave everyone the ability to create high quality forms, type and basic graphics. It put many typesetting houses out of business and created fear in the hearts of graphic designers. The end effect was that it pushed and then allowed the true creative professionals to do better creative. When the bottom of the market falls out the best and most adaptable always seem to rise to the top. During my career, I have seen this happen many times and the results are always the same. Turmoil followed by increased quality creative output. The tool in this case, as you probably surmised, was the Mac II.
I believe the clutter will subside and the cream will rise to the top in blogging as well.

By: Elaine Fogel

Elaine Fogel — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:54:10 +0000

Hi, Lewis. Isn’t this situation akin to choosing a doctor, a how-to book, or any other examples where expertise is needed? How can we really know whether our surgeon is a good one if we don’t have the expertise to know better?
We use word-of-mouth referrals or buy into buzz.
To find a surgeon, we may ask advice from our primary care physician for referrals, or our friends who have had previous surgery.
When we buy a how-to book, perhaps we’re drawn to authors whom we’ve seen interviewed on TV, or written about in our newspapers. We can read book jackets to see who has offered a testimonial, and if, for example, Dr. Phil endorsed a particular book, well then, it must be OK. Another similar book written by a PhD without such testimonials may not be a draw because no one we know endorsed it or told us how great it is.
As to what to believe or not in blogs, how do we know that what we read in our newspapers or hear on cable news reports is the truth without bias?
If you read a history of the Vietnam War in English, published in the US, will it have the same facts as one published in Vietnamese for students in that country?
I think we’ve always had multitudes of choices in our democratic society – they’ve just multiplied with technology. Yet, we all must make choices, whether based on referrals or buzz, and then take a leap of faith in our decisions.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:29:51 +0000

Spike,
Your third paragraph features on-target advice. I especially like the idea of personally contacting writers. The other way is to check out a writer’s web page. It is not a be-all, end-all critical filter, but we can learn much, especially if testamonials and case studies are included.
John,
Excellent points. Here is the problem I have with rankings: they care more about links than readers and do not critique the quality of what is being written. On the other hand, like you I do use both of those rankings to discover new blogs, and then I may or may not add them to my blog roll after I have visited each five or six times to determine the value I perceive in each blog.