Make that two…
Posted by PRGirlz Alumni on June 26th, 2006
So, finally joining Jennifer in the “blogosphere”. (Does that word strike anyone else as funny? I find it hard to type it with a straight face, let alone say it…) Echoing Jen’s first post, it’s pretty obvious that the ol’ sphere is largely a male domain so far. And the genre of PR blogging is – dare I say – over-populated with men, given the actual ratio of males to females in the business, especially on the front lines. So, I guess we’re hoping to add some estrogen to the fracas. Myself, I come to communications from a journalism and publishing background, and my first agency experience was in technology, so I’ve been around digital communications for awhile and have always been interested in its evolution.
Also, in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m hoping to discuss some of the hype around “social media”, especially as it relates to PR and corporate communications, and to play devil’s advocate. As my colleagues know, I’m pretty under-whelmed when it comes to the reach and importance of blogging and bloggers. So far, I’ve failed to see the revolutionary part, and historically I’ve thought of bloggers as kind of digital public navel-gazers. So then, a few questions to stir the pot… Isn’t a blog (web log) just a jumped-up website? And haven’t they been around for years now? And wasn’t the goal of conversation better served by old-fashioned message boards and discussion groups, wherein people reacted to each other’s comments as opposed to one person’s pontifications?
Can’t wait to hear what you have to say…
Posted to Introductions, Social Media
June 26th, 2006 » 9:55 pm
Mary Ellen, I am always happy to meet a social media sceptic. I think that many people in the field do both our tools and our clients a disservice with the hype they throw around. I’m looking forward to seeing what you will bring to the conversation in your role as devil’s advocate.
Being something of a devil’s advocate myself, I feel compelled to point out that most people in the blogosphere are not in fact men — although this is a widely-held belief.
According to the Perseus blog study conducted last fall, 56% of blogs are written by women – http://www.perseus.com/blogsurvey/thebloggingiceberg.html.
I find that makes the fact that men are the A-list bloggers in virtually every field (the mommy bloggers were still holding out last I checked) all the more interesting.
I am also amazed at the lack of discussion on how blogs present an amazing opportunity to micro-target messages to women (cf The Long Tail).
To answer your questions:
1. Isn’t a blog (web log) just a jumped-up website?
Yes.
And, what sets it apart is a lower entrance threshhold: it is possible to put a blog online for free or for low cost (or for a lot of money, depending on how you go about it), with little or no technical skills.
2. And haven’t they been around for years now?
Ayup.
But they were in geek-land, where mainstream business and media folks fear to tread.
3. And wasn’t the goal of conversation better served by old-fashioned message boards and discussion groups, wherein people reacted to each other’s comments as opposed to one person’s pontifications?
Hmmm…I’m getting the feeling we must be around the same age, because I came up through dial-up BBS’s, usenet, forums, and email lists too. *Some* of them were great for two-way exchanges. Many of them, in my experience, were dominated by a small group of strong personalities…who took over the venue for their own one-way pontifications. So some of our flaws are with our end-users, not just with our tools.
Did they serve the goal of conversation better? Possibly. Case by case.
But your question seems to presuppose that the ultimate goal of blogging is conversation. I know that blogs=conversations is part of the official social media hype…but is that really the only or highest or best goal of blogging?
June 27th, 2006 » 4:31 am
Greetings, Mary Ellen, and welcome to the blogosphere. (I’ve posted a more formal welcome over on my blog.)
Here are some thoughts on your questions:
>>Isn’t a blog (web log) just a jumped-up website? And haven’t they been around for years now?
At its core, of course it’s just a website. What distinguishes it is ease of publishing. The Net has always held the promise of putting a megaphone in everyone’s hands, making everyone a communicator. The barriers to entry — cost and technical — were simply too great for the average person to take advantage of them. Then along came blogs, that even my 74-year-old mother could figure out. (She hasn’t tried, but she could.) Essentially, the software component of a blog is just a lightweight content management system, but it’s one that incorporates several characteristics unique to blogs, such as trackbacks and other mechanisms that make it easy for them to interlink, thus creating trackable conversations.
And that’s another point: Plain old websites tend to be static while blogs are like living things, constantly changing and updating with a river of fresh content.
Webistes offer a storefront or a place to find items in inventory or research the governance policy of a company or read jokes that have been archived. Blogs are where you keep up with a conversation based on the linkages of trackbacks, comments, and posts that link to other posts.
>>And wasn’t the goal of conversation better served by old-fashioned message boards and discussion groups, wherein people reacted to each other’s comments as opposed to one person’s pontifications?
That depends on the goal. There’s an excellent post to a blog I like called CommonCraft that is dedicated to the distinctions between message boards and blogs. It’s at http://www.commoncraft.com/archives/000768.html. In a side-by-side comparison table, author Lee LeFever pegs the differences between the two on these dimensions: locus of control, authoring of new topics, intent, responses, tools, chronology, personal connections, pollution control and content buckets. Then he goes into detail on each, with “locus of control” the key from my perspective:
“Perhaps the most compelling difference in weblogs and message boards is the locus of control. Weblogs are individual or small group resources — the control of content and value is driven by a single person or small group. Message Boards are group resources — the control of content and value is shared equally across all users.”
Anyway, I hope this at least kicks off some discussion. It’s great to have all of you involved in the conversation!
June 27th, 2006 » 1:10 pm
I linked to your blog after reading about it in Shel Holtz’s blog. I don’t have a blog of my own, but I find them very useful as PR/communications resources. Working in a one-woman shop, I’m always “desperately seeking resources” and blogs like Shel’s and Steve Crescenzo’s and others are very useful. Not only do they point me to new thinking or just make me think, I’ve also gotten a lot of pointers to new resources… I’m looking forward to PRGirlz being one of those. I agree that it does seem to be very male-dominated. I keep thinking I need to step out into the blogosphere…I’m just waiting for the right idea.
June 27th, 2006 » 5:02 pm
Hi, Shaula – you’re right. Seems I must have consumed some of the social media dogma inadvertently, because I really don’t know why I assume conversation is the goal. What the heck is it all for then? (My take? Outlet for frustrated scribblers and armchair quarterbacks of all stripes, but that’s just me.)
To be honest, I think blogging has lowered the threshold a bit too much. Just because one is able to have their say, doesn’t mean what they have to say has any merit. In fact, as you mentioned, the roots of blogging are firmly in geek land and the whole ethos still has a Revenge of the Nerds feel about it. For example, it makes me howl to read discussion on the “rules” for blogging. That strikes me as supremely silly, like trying to forge rules for the use of pen and paper.
Thanks for your comment, and thanks for making the point about female bloggers – that does get overlooked I think. (Typical, huh?)
June 27th, 2006 » 10:31 pm
Thanks for your comment, Shel, and the warm welcome on your blog (http://blog.holtz.com/index.php/weblog/comments/welcome_mary_ellen/).
I think your point about putting a megaphone in everyone’s hands is central to my problem with blogs. Not everyone needs a megaphone, not everyone knows how to use one, and not everyone has something to say that deserves to be broadcast at high volume.
I think the ease of publishing has created an incredible amount of hot air and clutter. It’s not much of a problem when it comes to personal blogs about your dog, your love life, your home renovation – those are basically personal websites on steroids, meant primarily for family and friends. But now that the business bloggers have begun to run amok, I feel the ’sphere is creating lots of self-professed experts for whom a few comments on their blog has become tantamount to publishing a bestseller. Worst still, lazy (or over-stretched) journos are increasingly taking these digital ramblings at face-value, making news out of molehills.
I also acknowledge your point about individuals or small groups being the distinctive point of difference between blogs and message boards. I agree, and this is why the idea of “corporate blogs” irks me. Unless a company is a one-man band, or unless the blog is actually written by a central figure in the organization so aligned with the corporate brand as to embody it, then it’s just a website posing as a blog. And really, what sensible company is going to “get real” in public and invite comment (which, on the Internet, tends to be a euphemism for abuse)?
There may indeed be useful and meaningful ways for large organizations to use blogs and other social media tools, and they certainly need to know how to be aware of what’s being said about them, but blind bandwagon-jumping is rife, encouraged by those hoping to hype their way to the bank. At the end of the day, it’s just another tool in the toolbox, I think. Like a buzz saw – useful in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing, annoying and potentially harmful in the hands of someone who doesn’t.
June 28th, 2006 » 12:25 am
Hi Mary Ellen,
So, what’s the big thing about blogs?
Start at the top and read your original post and the comments. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Drawing in experts like Shaula Evans and Shel Holtz. A conversation across continents. Groups of experts coming together.
And the price of entry is so low and the interface so user friendly that it is truly open to those who have something to say, but aren’t software coders.
I hope you’ll continue to challenge. I hope you’ll continue to drive the conversation.
It is still early days for social media. It’s going to be thrilling to see where this leads.
June 28th, 2006 » 2:00 am
To your first point, Mary Ellen, I don’t necessarily disagree. My question is: What are you going to do about it? The introduction of social software has shifted control from institutions to individuals and communities, like it or not. Institutions are going to have to learn to cope with it and thrive within it.
Of course, the blogs of people who have nothing to say won’t get read!
As to corporate blogs, I’ll disagree with you. Take a look at General Motors’ blogs, Fastlane and FYI. On Fastlane, Bob Lutz and his team engage in frank conversation with people who are passionate about cars, providing unfiltered feedback. Lutz says it’s the best intelligence he’s ever seen, and he has become a prolific and enthusiastsic blogger. But the new FYI blog is the one that really intrigues me. Read this post and its follow-up comments, then let’s talk about the uses of corporate blogs!
http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2006/06/the_ban_on_rubbish_in_the_new_1.html
In a nutshell, The New York Times went overboard in attempting to control what GM put in a letter to the editor designed to refute the assertions made by a Times columnist. Rather than acquiesce, GM — in a remarkable display of transparency — went straight to the public, bypassing the media, and (and this is the crucial part that distinguishes what they did from a website) engaging their audience. Some comments reflect additional research undertaken by the audience to bolster GM’s viewpoint. Try that with a static website!
June 28th, 2006 » 12:28 pm
Regarding the social aspect of blogging (and thanks to Shaula for the pointer to the blogging iceberg), the majority of bloggers are young people under the age of 19…nearly 53%. My teen-aged daughter and her cousins and friends were all blogging long before I knew what it was via Xanga and MySpace. Blogs and also cell phones have changed their worlds incredibly from ours and in some very meaningful ways. A couple of cases in point. One of my daughter’s best friends moved to another state three years ago when they were freshman in high school. Because they read each others blogs and can call each other for free at night via their cell phones, they have stayed very close friends…something that was much more difficult 20-25 years ago. Another of their circle has just moved to the UK…and now I have learned about SKYPE. The other case is my middle-school aged niece…going through some very “angsty” times. Her older cousins are able to, and do, keep tabs on what is going on with her to be able to guide her by reading her MySpace entries (that I and her mother have had to swear not to read). If the problems seem significant, and the girls have already addressed things with my niece, then they talk to the adults and let us address them.
Ok, so these girls aren’t in the corporate world yet, but they will be soon. A number of them head to college this fall. They will be going into the business world already having been using social media to solve problems and breach divides. It will be interesting to watch their evolution.
June 28th, 2006 » 9:40 pm
Hi again, Shel:
Too true – there’s not much that can be done about the clutter and hot air; the web is an open environment, for better or for worse. But I think it’s going too far to say that control has moved to individuals and communities if, by control, you mean influence. I think that’s over-stating the real world weight of what happens in the blogosphere. (I just know you’ll have an example to counter that!)
Also agree that the way GM used FYI to leap-frog the letters editor at the NYT is interesting, but what did they gain? They got their message out to people who already read the blog and likely support GM in one way or another, so they are kind of preaching to the converted. I’m sure the original letter still had a much bigger reach. Overalll, the GM-generated content on FYI and Fastlane is, in my opinion, what you would expect – positive messages about GM and rebuttals to not-so-positive messages. The skeptic in me wonders how they choose to moderate the comments – I would think they’d let in enough negative comments to seem open to critique, or let in comments which lead them to questions they’ve been looking to answer in public, but leaving out anything too controversial or negative. And maybe that’s just best practice for corporate blogging?
June 29th, 2006 » 2:45 pm
Hi, Mary Ellen.
What GM got was a TON of press! (Do a Nexis search.) GM came out looking great; the New York Times came across looking clueless in most of the coverage.
Neville and I interviewed Michael Wiley at GM and he made their moderation policy clear: Everything is fair game unless it has four-letter words; that policy is stated in its comment section. If the language is clean, the comment goes up. (Read through some comments; you’ll see plenty of critical and negative ones.)
As for whether bloggers wield influence, you’d have to ask Dell about Jeff Jarvis’s influence. Dan Rather, Eason Jordan, and Trent Lott probably have some opinions about blogger influence, as do the good folks over at Kryptonite (the bicycle lock division of Ingersoll Rand). Bloggers pretty much put PriceRite Photo out of business after ONE blogger posted his horrific experience with them. There are plenty more examples.
Have you read “The Cluetrain Manifesto?” It was ahead of its time when it posited that “Markets are conversations,” but it’s certainly true now. I’d also highly recommend “Naked Conversations.”
/shel
June 29th, 2006 » 4:39 pm
Hi, Shel:
Interesting, I will check out that interview.
I would think the main reason the NTY came out looking clueless in the resulting coverage is that media outlets love to bash/embarrass/diminish their competition, especially when it’s The Old Grey Lady. In fact, I would argue this became news only because it involved a news outlet. Kind of the same with Dan Rather – the media was interested in Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and a controversy involving the president, and it was MSM reporting of what the bloggers were on about that was the fatal blow. I think that if Charles Johnson hand-delivered his replicas of the forged documents directly to the offices of The Washington Post, or even the Media Research Centre, instead of putting it online, the end result would have been the same.
When it comes to situations like Dell and Jeff Jarvis, the blogosphere can buzz about it for weeks on end, but it becomes news when a publication like Business Week reports on it. Same for the Kryptonite lock issue – it became news when (guess who?) The New York Times reported on it and AP picked it up. Same deal with Jordan at CNN.
Don’t get me wrong, I am playing devil’s advocate and I’m not saying that the bloggers have no influence. The media have become very lazy and under-funded, and the ‘sphere is an easy and cheap resource for leads, juicy gossip, rent-a-quotes and the like. I think the media’s increasing focus on celebrity news and fluff (a la Brangelina and Tom-Kat) is driving people with a thirst for information about important topics online. There they find a host of wanna-be journalists who have strong feelings about a specific topic or ideology, and no editor standing over their shoulder asking for balance or even the semblance of objectivity. That kind of dialogue speaks to people who share that world view in a way no mainstream outlet ever could (or should, in my mind). I’m just saying that the media are still the gatekeepers of mainstream consciousness. Much of the world has yet to go online, but you’ll find a TV just about anywhere.
- M.E.
July 3rd, 2006 » 4:10 pm
I would suggest that tens of thousands of people, if not more, were influenced to NOT buy Dell Computers by the spread of the Jarvis posts and would have been so influenced whether or not the mainstream media turned it into “news.” And that’s the point. It doesn’t have to be “news” as defined by MSM in order to be influential. And that’s why PR needs to get over the notion that its first avenue of communciation is always with the media.