Scobleizer - Latest Comments in The changeosphere

Re: The changeosphere

ericgonzalez — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:50:31 -0000

Much of the adoption growth in corporate arena unfortunately involves renaming the "press releases" section of their website to "blog" website and just doing the same thing they're always done. Bleh.

Re: The changeosphere

Christopher Coulter — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:15:38 -0000

The classic shell con-game.

When numbers low, claim elite right-sized right people audiences, when numbers high, bet on all tables, and stake claims in the fact that you were here before anyone else, and obviously so much smarter, as you saw it all coming well well beforehand. Play it that way, and you can never lose. Down, everyone is more important, but Up and you are more important still, as you forecasted it all.

Low - keyword themes: 'elite', 'smarter', 'more important than you peasantry riff raff', 'we matter', 'our votes count for more'.

Up - keyword themes: 'trend', 'evangelist', Go Dave Winerish, 'I invented it or thought it all up', 'knew it before you', 'I was blogging when blogging wasn't cool'. 'Took you long enough, stupid as you are'.

Re: The changeosphere

Andrew Feinberg — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:48:54 -0000

Totally spot on about "the right audience" versus a large one.

First thing I look at in my stats is where my hits come from.

When I see NTIA, FCC, Google, Facebook, US Congress, etc, I know I'm doing what I need to do.

Some DC publications have "limited audiences" but you know what? Everyone who matters reads them. Getting into National Journal is a pretty big deal, not so much if you hit the Examiner's "Yeas and Nays" section.

Re: The changeosphere

Michael Parkatti — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:24:08 -0000

Aren't blogs almost entirely identified with a personal brand as much as their own? If I wanted an objective take on the news, I'd watch the news wires. The reason I read blogs is because I appreciate the personal touch of who's writing it.

Blogs will never 'beat' CNet, because if they tried, I'd stop caring. I want to be part of an informed crowd, not a faceless servant of the corporate press.

Re: The changeosphere

M1ke — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:08:34 -0000

I find it quite strange that any of this is going on at all - bloggers have switched to exchanging views on technology, world news, sports etc. and many of the larger blogs are focusing mainly on what they think of the other blogs. It all seems a bit "meta" really.

My blog (currently with a retro theme as I'm reliving the days before sites were called blogs) has a tiny number of readers but I'd like to think the few posts I make a day can inform them, interest them or make them think about something. It's not worth money but who's opinion actually is? Newspapers got it sorted a long time ago, and they thrive. If bloggers just discuss each other the whole thing will implode and a few individuals will walk away with the prize.

Re: The changeosphere

Tim Courtney — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:54:58 -0000

I'm curious what people think. While you cite Mark Cuban talking about *newspaper* blogs, what about company blogs? We're in technology, does the word 'blog' carry the same stigma?

My thought is the word 'Blog' tells the audience what type of communication channel you're using, and what they should expect as far as how content is delivered. For B2B, somewhat tech-savvy audiences, does "blog" still carry the stigma of negativity, snarkiness, and amateur journalism?

Re: The changeosphere

Stu (Clarion Folk) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 17:37:23 -0000

Something else I've been thinking about with blogging is the nature of the Engines that run the blogs.

What is Wordpress planning? Or Drupal? Wordpress seems to be taking Joomla/Mambo space, in a good way. Not sure about Drupal, don't use it. But I think that their direction could change aspects of the blogging world.

Also, all the new Engines popping up. Google "blog engine". There's half a gazillion just appearing all the time. I can just see the buso's thoughts, "Hey, this blogging thing is awesome, let's hire some nerds to build us an engine that we can then on-sell for millions!".

So I think the Engine, while not important in terms of the actual content or the motivation .. will in some smaller way shape blogging's future.

Course, I was wrong about Apes taking over the world, so I could be wrong now :).

Re: The changeosphere

Webomatica — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:46:03 -0000

After reading Mike's post, I definitely agree with one of his points that excessive investment money has the potential to ruin blogging. It did that with .coms in 2001 and this ludicrous housing bubble. As soon as you get a bunch of MBAs and clowns who do "x" for the money and not for the love of "x" - it gets petty, superficial, bubbly, and fake.

As for how things are changing? Well I think we have many bloggers who are moving toward basically a recreation of the old media but with new faces. That is not the direction I'd like to see it go. Then we have other bloggers who "get it" - meaning, open standards, linking, sharing, helping each other out. Generally speaking, the newer bloggers with less to lose are in the latter group.

Re: The changeosphere

Luke — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:00:29 -0000

Ok so I am curious what the critical mass point for blogs is. It is definitely not huge but for the long tail even 100 is quite a bit.

I just started a survey at http://luke.gedeon.name/blo...

Would you guys take a minute to help with this? Only 3 questions.

Re: The changeosphere

Robert Scoble — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:07:10 -0000

Luke: back in the early days it was easier to build an audience because more people linked to each other back then (and because there were less people involved so you could pretty much link to everyone cause the size of the tech blogging world was a lot smaller back then).

Re: The changeosphere

Robert Scoble — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:06:07 -0000

Luke: back in 2000, when I started, I had an audience right from the start because I was helping to plan a Web Design Conference (which is how I started blogging in the first place).

Dave Winer linked to me within my first 10 days and he sent 3,000 people over with that first link and it's been off to the races ever since. He also took me to Steve Wozniak's Super Bowl party, and that accelerated things.

When I joined Microsoft my audience was 1,000 to 2,000 people a day (that was in 2003).

Re: The changeosphere

Luke — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:58:37 -0000

I think having the right audience is most important, but you are not going to find the right audience until you have a large enough audience. Getting the first 100 readers can be pretty tough.

Robert, any idea how long you were blogging before you found the right audience? How many readers per day did you have at that point?

It would be neat to find-out what critical mass is for a blog. My guess is that it is pretty similar for most who have reached the audience they want.

Re: The changeosphere

z-list blogger — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:45:11 -0000

good to see that a-list gets the longtail :)

Re: The changeosphere

Robert Scoble — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:25:35 -0000

Eric: if you're in my audience, it's big enough. :-)

Re: The changeosphere

Corvida — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:17:08 -0000

I'm definitely seeing the changes. You've even shared 1 of my stories! (Thanks for that)

I've definitely been reaching 'the right audience' for SheGeeks. And I agree that companies should not make the word 'blog' into a corporate and capitalistic icon! They need to come up with their own world that has no relations to the word blog, because blogging isn't something that they do.

Re: The changeosphere

Eric Rice — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:16:09 -0000

Come on man, that's not an answer! "big enough and not any bigger"? WTF!

Re: The changeosphere

Robert Scoble — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:09:37 -0000

Michael: I want one that's just big enough and not any bigger.

Re: The changeosphere

Michael Markman (Mickeleh) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:49:36 -0000

@4 Robert, you didn't respond directly. Would you like a bigger "right audience" or a smaller one?

Re: The changeosphere

Maurice — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:44:01 -0000

Hmm

so a netball team owner has a hissy fit (and a fairly poor one by the standards of Alex Fergerson) News at 11.

Re: The changeosphere

Keith — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:40:55 -0000

"Mark Cuban caused a bunch of noise a few days back by writing that newspapers shouldn’t call their blogs “blogs” because it destroys their brand."

This one makes me think of that weird segment on CNN(?) where one of the reporters turns a monitor towards the camera and browses the web to see what's on the blogs for the day. It's really no more impressive to watch a professional journalist surf than when I do it myself and makes me flip the channel to something with better production values.

Re: The changeosphere

carlacthompson — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:29:06 -0000

Chris Shipley and I are currently struggling with changes in the blogosphere and trying to adapt. I just posted a bit of a call for help and would love insight from others. http://tinyurl.com/3268k8

Re: The changeosphere

John Evans (Syntagma) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:59 -0000

I agree with Mark Cuban about the wretchedly uncommercial name, "blogs". However, it's only cosmetic to change it unless you adopt more MSM techniques, like paying loads to get really big writers onboard and forging a brand outside the web.

Michael Arrington's dream -- it seems to me -- will only reach that halfway house between serious blogs and the press online. I don't see anyone getting the traction needed to take the blogosphere's content businesses into the big time.

Robert, you're right about getting "the right audience not a big one".

Re: The changeosphere

Robert Scoble — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:14:57 -0000

Dave: true.

Re: The changeosphere

Robert Scoble — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:11:43 -0000

Michael: the right audience doesn't need to be very big at all.

Re: The changeosphere

Michael Markman (Mickeleh) — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:10:08 -0000

Yes, but surely you and your sponsor would prefer a larger "right audience" than a smaller one.