The Economist published an article called “Blogging: Oh, grow up” and they get it so wrong I’m almost lost for words. They focus on Jason Calacanis’s famous retirement from blogging (oh but 38K people follow him on twitter, some retirement) as some indication that blogging has lost it’s revolutionary zeal. Nothing could be further from the truth, the power of blogging is the ability to DOMINATE a global niche, just ask Gary Vaynerchuk who built a media empire around wine over the course of 17 MONTHS.
Here’s a quote from the article which you can read in full here:
Gone, in other words, is any sense that blogging as a technology is revolutionary, subversive or otherwise exalted, and this upsets some of its pioneers. Confirmed, however, is the idea that blogging is useful and versatile. In essence, it is a straightforward content-management system that posts updates in reverse-chronological order and allows comments and other social interactions. Viewed as such, blogging may “die” in much the same way that personal-digital assistants (PDAs) have died. A decade ago, PDAs were the preserve of digerati who liked using electronic address books and calendars. Now they are gone, but they are also ubiquitous, as features of almost every mobile phone.
And here’s the response I left on the Economist web site:
I’m afraid the problem with this article is it assumes the ‘blogsphere’ to be some kind of monolithic cloud and somehow that is being dominated by the mainstream media. What has happened is that mainstream topics like news, politics, and gossip are being dominated by blogs that act and look like mainstream media. But that as they say is the tip of the iceberg. The blogsphere is actually comprised of hundreds of thousands of topical blogospheres that are like communities of interests for their own particular topics. Lots of these are career type blogs, if you want to know about marketing, there is probably someone blogging about it.
I started blogging in 2003 and that has turned into a career blog which has become more important than my resume. It’s got me speaking engagements, was instrumental in me getting my current job and will likely be critical in getting my next job (if I decide to work for someone else).
I also, in my spare time, write the number 1 T-shirt blog on the internet at http://tcritic.com and have been writing it for two years. There are over 150 T-shirt blogs, and numerous T-shirt search engines. I get about 65,000 unique visitors a month, and monetize it through advertising and starting up my own line of T-shirts. This is never going to be visible at a mainstream media level, but there are thousands of blogs like this that are building small empires around niche topics.
Saying that the subversive and revolutionary aspects of blogging have somehow disappeared now the mainstream media is dominating the top stories is erroneous. The power of blogs and social media in general is the ability to dominate a niche and connect with people who can help you create value. Just ask Gary Vaynerchuk of Wine Library TV.
UPDATE: a couple of people have pointed out the similarity between the Economist article and Paul Boutin’s article in Wired magazine, which I agree there are similarities. Both Nick Carr and Jeffery Zeldman wrote responses to that piece. I guess i’m just used to that sort of hyperbole coming out of Wired, but not the Economist. I think I care more about The Economist.
Here’s a quote that I particularly like from Zeldman:
Paul, when do we stop talking about web content exclusively in terms of narrow platforms and shallow, self-interested goals? When do we stop saying x makes y irrelevant? When do we stop reducing the web to a vulgar and trivial competition between head boys, and start appreciating it as a maturing medium for real thought and expression?
Also Kevin Marks has written an article about this and brings up some great points about how the tools are changing, and I think he’s got a point. The tools like twitter, britekite, tumblr, friendfeed, google reader ’sharing’, even facebook etc. are under the radar of mainstream media, as are the networks and value they are creating.
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
The Economist may’ve gotten it wrong, but you, my friend, hit the nail on the head. Bravo. I mean, what is The Huffington Post if not, um, a blog? Even traditional news sources are modeling themselves after blogs these days! It’s not that the blog is dead; it’s that it’s becoming the norm, and online news outlets are enveloping that model. Blogs are pretty much here, and here to stay for awhile.
Thanks so much F, no only are the not dead but they’re are still virtually limitless opportunities to get involved and own a particular segment right now.
Karl,
I agree with F you are definitely right with your analysis – and I am currently experiencing all the benefits of blogging that you mentioned by myself. I started my blog just a few months ago and I have to say it still works if you provide quality content in a niche. Frankly speaking I can not imagine any different approach to achieve the same impact, contacts and conversations that I generated in the last months.
What we see hear is a perfect example of the hype cycle – first XY (replace XY with whatever you want) is going to change the world, then XY is dead. But everyone who can see the “bigger picture” knows that this is the normal lifecycle for each and every new technology. AdSense, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn – all of them have or will go through the same cycle.
Knowing this cycle I just ignore what “pundits” say and focus on my own experience and the experience of people who really know what they are talking about: bloggers.
You’ve got it Bernhard, anyone with a little bit of knowledge, as small amount of technical skill, and a modicum of communication skills can dominate a niche if they just go for it. All of these amazing niches and small topic focused social networks like all the sites under Ning are totally under the radar of mainstream media.
Hi
Firstly, I think you mean Paul Boutin’s article in Wired? Nick Carr wrote a retort on his Rough Type blog
Secondly, I agreee that blogs aren’t monolithic and shouldn’t be treated as such. the Internet blurs the boundaries, and we see some blogs permeate the MSM (HuffPo may be a blog, but it is a professional blog while most newspaper sites now have a blog section) and others remain true to their DIY amateur origins
Simon
Completely agree, I responded to the Wired article here, which chimes in with a lot of what you say above – that for the mass of bloggers a lot of these anti-blogging arguments are fairly irrelevant
http://tinyurl.com/5p3ont
Are we reading the same article?
“Blogging has entered the mainstream, which—as with every new medium in history—looks to its pioneers suspiciously like death.”
“Today lots of internet users do this, only they may not think of it as blogging. Instead, they update their profile pages on Facebook, MySpace or other social networks.
“They may also “micro-blog” on services such as Twitter, which recreate the raw, immediate and intimate feel of early blogs.”
Where exactly does it say that blogging can no longer catapult a single writer or cause to a mass-market level? The article is only saying that blogging now exists at a mass-market level.
What glasses were you wearing when you were reading this? You turned a fair article into a bullshit post. “Traditional blogging”, it seems, by your very actions, is alive and well.
No offense, but for the sake of intelligent discussion, I have to admit I think you’re absolutely wrong, and that there is reasonable points to say that the blogging landscape has changed. I think it’s easy for bloggers who are NOT working within the larger market (which now far surpases just including internet executives/startups/etc) or those stuck in the blogging “echo chamber” to think that blogging is still trumping media. I don’t believe it is. I think that there is still opportunity for bloggers, but plenty of big media and entertainment are moving in, and not just that – the user base is changing, the climate is changing, etc. The future of the web is not just interactive entertainment but passive as well and we are only just touching the very beginning of that movement. Yes, bloggers can still spin out their platforms into larger media elements but much has showed that few truly rise to the level – and can manage the growth – that would surpass media. Few blog sites are making millions. Tons of media outlets are still. It’s just a changing landscape. Bratty, angry responses to these changes versus intelligent conversations about the changing landscape just support any claims of lack in terms of blogger stature.
But more importantly, failing to acknowledge reasonable changes in the marketplace is no different than the paddle boat companies refusing to think steam ships would replace them. I think if anything, bloggers should read these articles and adjust their strategy. I work in the large digital marketplace and if you don’t think that media is starting to catch gains, go look at how often NY Times, etc. makes it on Techmeme. It’s a blended market that’s evolving. How are bloggers going to adjust? That is what should be discussed.
As far Gary, he’s a great talent and more of a good example of Retail 2.0 versus success of a blog in my opinion. People forget or don’t realize that he had an established, active client base to build off of with his “empire.” That doesn’t make it any less successful, but it does point to something different than what a traditional blogger does. A built in following elsewhere coming in of course would make it easier to develop a media empire. Out of dozens of bloggers trying to win this game, very, very few actually do. TechCruch, Politico, etc. are examples – but there are far less that win it.
The bottom line is, the blog world IS changing and will change. If i still owned my social media company, I’d be reading these things and brainstorming on how to make adjustments.
Just my .2
Are we still arguing over which of our favorite media channels is the bestest? Really?
Is anyone surprised that a struggling magazine would write an article that predicts (fantasizes about) the death of blogs? And to an audience they know will for the most part agree with them? Come on, guys. Don’t get baited like this.
We’re in the middle of a swift media evolution in which EVERYONE is struggling to capture or retain just one more reader. Everyone who has money tied to their channel of choice is just protecting their ‘turf’.
The folks at the Economist probably need to cowboy up and figure out how to stay in business instead of scoffing at the blog world, especially after the Obama campaign proved the viability of social media channels (and they’ve only scratched the surface). Instead of rejecting the medium altogether out of anger and frustration, the folks over there should embrace it and allow the Economist to evolve.
Blogging is far from dead. It isn’t even grown up yet!
Olivier, do you know a damn thing about The Economist? They’ve done blogging for years: http://www.economist.com/blogs/. And the article Karl misperceives and you misrepresent is only in favor of the rise of social media technologies.
@Simon thanks so much for pointing out I had blamed Nick Carr for the Wired article, I should aplogize to Nick
@Christopher G The way I interpreted the article was that they were suggesting that blogging has become mainstream and is therefore as mundain as any content management system.
this quote:
“Gone, in other words, is any sense that blogging as a technology is revolutionary, subversive or otherwise exalted, and this upsets some of its pioneers.”
Blogging is still a place where you can build equity in a global niche and is still incredibly revolutionary.
@patricia I think it’s as unlikely that i’m “absolutely wrong” as it is for me to be “absolutely right”. Some of your points are quite valid, yes the tools are changing, and anyone that blogs should adjust their strategy and use those other tools, I use twitter heavily, and find it incredibly valuable, but I build no equity there. A blog under my own domain allows me to build equity that is valuable to me and serves to demonstrate who I am and what I think. The idea that popularity is the only measure of success in the blogosphere is erroneous. I could give a fuck if I’m on techmeme, or digg, or whatever popularity contest du jour is, what i’m interested in is building relationships with people that inspire me, and connecting people that can help me, and doing something amazing. My eventual vision for the future is not to be a popular blogger, but part of an amazing business that i’ve helped build. This is still revolutionary for me personally, and is still revolutionary for anyone who wants to dominate a global niche.
@Oliver the economist is not a failing magazine IMHO, and I don’t think they are fantasizing about the death of blogging, they are saying it’s mainstream and therefore not revolutionary, which is where I disagree with them.
@Christopher Yes the economist blogs, they are probably about 2 years behind in their approach to it, and don’t get me started about their podcasts and audio. Also I don’t believe I’ve misperceived anything, do you have something specific?
Phew, I need threading in these comments
Blogging establishes some very basic humanitarian needs; communication, conversation, engagement and introspective thought.
The potential reasons why blogging–as a technology–will never be mainstream, is because it is driven by people–thinking individuals.
Whom learn and grow.
And as everything must inevitably progress in order to survive, people will continue to publish their thoughts, ideas and opinions. The only thing that is mainstream is the Internet. Which is simply one big operating system that provides everyone the same ( relatively ) opportunities.
What the Economist has misunderstood on the functionality of the internet vs the from in which it functions is this; A blog is read, indexed, crawled and searched as indiscriminately as any website is.
They will rise and fall based on the merits of it their respective content.
Mainstream or not, the stream continues in many directions.
Most people in their forties will tell they don’t read that crap (blogs).
They think blogs are written by guys lining in their mother’s basement. What they do not realize is that most of the content they do consume is created on a blogging platform.
Most people in their forties will tell they don’t read that crap (blogs).
They think blogs are written by guys lining in their mother’s basement. What they do not realize is that most of the content they do consume is created on a blogging platform.
Yes .. one might argue that more and more of what they read on line is some for of “weblog”. I used to speak several years ago about the arrival and spread of “blogging-like derivatives”.
We all have lots left to learn about social media, it’s use, its evolution and the eventual large-scale impacts on many aspects of human activity and our societies.
We all have lots left to learn about social media, it’s use, its evolution and the eventual large-scale impacts on many aspects of human activity and our societies.