DISQUS

Thanks for this wonderful post! The whole moaning and wailing that's been going on among the journalism community about democracy dying with newspapers has been bugging me for some time, and I couldn't put my finger on just why. You've summed it up quite beautifully.

and one more thing: a lot of times I throw out ideas to think about--use a lot of "could" and "probably" and "might' and "may. My views are just something to think about in the face of all the happy-happy-joy-joy-lets-all-hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya stuff that goes on in the tech community. IMO, dissenting opinions aren't a bad thing--they just give us more to think about. And I like to throw ideas around and think about them. Maybe you think that's a *bad* thing and we should be all marching lockstep together. I don't.

Hi Mark,

Hmm....I think you could have read a bit past my headline to see the bigger picture of what I was saying. Google doesn't do a very good job of linking ads to text on a geographic level. So, many folks with hyperlocal businesses do not see the value of advertising on the Internet. This has a big effect on local news organizations, whether it be broadcast or newspapers. We also do not truly know click through rates on stories perused on aggregation sites. Noone--not google, not any other aggregators either--have revealed whether or not they are indeed sending traffic to other sites. We pretty much assume this. So, there is a chance that readers are perusing Google's aggregated pages and then just clicking the ads (where google makes the money) and not actually clicking through to the stories and then clicking ads on those pages. This was part of Gatehouse's objection to Boston.com linking to their stories--that they weren't getting the traffic--and we never saw any traffic logs to prove the case either way (whether or not Boston.com did or didn't send traffic to Gatehouse, or if, as Gatehouse contended, that the eyeballs were staying on Boston.com)

So, if we can't see any traffic figures to demonstrate that aggregation sites send traffic, and if the amount of traffic translates to real dollars to the sites, then how can we say that the aggregators with ads aren't making money off the aggregated content and therefore not increasing the earnings of the site of origin.

This isn't like search, where many people do indeed click through--although there are high bounce rates lots of times (and then that goes to the "value of page views" discussion). Aggregation functions a bit different than search, so we really need to see some stats to know what's what. And we aren't seeing stats. (disclosure: I work for an aggregator that does not put ads against content.)

Mat--

you should take a look at Dan Kennedy's post on this--he knows the Boston media scene better than anyone and has good insights (and PDFs) I also spoke with Dan, who got me thinking that Gatehouse *may* have a point if the only content Boston.com is aggregating on one of their hyperlocal pages is only Gatehouse's content, and they're selling ads against it. Plus, we'd have to look at Boston.com's logs to see if they are indeed sending traffic over to Gatehouse's site. We can't just automatically assume that...

Now, from a reader's perspective, if I go to a page on a newspaper site--like the Boston.com pages-- that is supposed to be showing me hyperlocal content, and the only hyperlocal content it's showing me is from another msm outlet (be it newspaper or TV), I'm going to think one of three things: that there's no independent hyperlocal content (blogs)in the region; that the paper is lazy/greedy and doesn't want to link to independent hyperlocal content; that they can't find independent hyperlocal content because google sucks for geotagged content. The page is going to have no value to me because it is only another msm outlet.

and yes, I work for a hyperlocal aggregation site--Placeblogger.com. We do NOT have ads next to our aggregated content because we do not want to get into an issue of making money off of other people's content. We are, though, still trying to figure out our revenue model beyond getting grants to continue our work.

Aldon....

you make a very good point about parental involvement and having discussions with parents about the positive aspects of the Internet. Far too often I hear from community folks and from parents about needing to protect their children from "online predators" but no corresponding discussion about how online communities can facilitate civic engagement. Even though there was much made of Obama's positive use of technology, when it comes to parents and their kids, the emphasis still seems to be on the predator thing. IMO, it's mostly because the parents themselves have never delved into online social communities, even for professional networking (which was mentioned last night on MSNBC's "On the Money") So, the thing may be to get the parents to start using the most simple and relevant tools so that they can actually experience how life online works. Then they may become not only open to the possibilities of online civic engagement, but better protectors of their children in online environments.

lol! I was just thinking something similar today when I was reading about a networking seminar (that I decided not to attend.) Seems like the same ham-handed techniques of f2f networking have mutated to fit social media. Stilted networking, where it's all about trying to sell you something vs. getting to know the person, is, I discovered, why I hate so many "business networking" events. And why I'm also bugged by people who "follow" me on twitter just to use my twitter stream as a billboard or leave a link to their blog in a comment on mine. yuck!

yeah, I'll admit...I'm a sucker for some good linkbait, and this was a big, fat juicy one! besides, I needed a little typing practice this morning ;-)

ah, this "strategy" of internal linking has grown in part from the rise of business blogs. Yes, there's a propensity to do this kind of linking on newspaper blogs, for what I think are obvious reasons. However, when advising a business on how to blog (something I've had a lot of experience doing in the past year or so) there's a lot of resistance to linking to "competitors," and a desire to keep eyeballs on one's own blog, which may or may not be a page within a business's website. As a consultant, I can present all sorts of information about how linking out to others helps to stimulate traffic and adds value to your reader's experience, but the desire to be *the* expert and *only* source is far stronger.

For a publication like CNet though, there may be another reason for linking internally that has nothing to do with maintaining their authority. As Keith Fox, president of Business Week, revealed when he discussed their new social network, linking internally has a lot to do with keeping people on a site to prove engagement and to sell more ads (see NYT article on Business Exchange) If they can keep you clicking around their content, there's a better than even chance that you'll click out on an ad at some point (probably out of frustration.)

Ultimately, IMO, it's about translating that "authority" they assume they have (like BusinessWeek) into money. Monetization, more than influence (which is what one gets from links), remains the bugaboo for most online pubs.

I'm another of those who totally agrees, Chris! And it's one thing for those of us who work in social media to try everything...and weed it out. It's another for small business people to be trying everything and finding they're spending more time on social media than they are on their businesses. In my consulting, I've found this to be common, and also for many to just throw up their hands and walk away from *everything.* So, one of the best, and most important thing for some of us is to try things, weed them out, and then have the knowledge of the community to recommend various apps to clients. It's good for us to know both the pros and cons of a service as well as its community. Only then can we do the right thing for ourselves and our harried clients!

Hi Chris,

I've really enjoyed reading all your posts in this series--super valuable info....

One thing though about upper management. Upper management may have unrealistic goals for their social media. They may be expecting tons of comments and lots of "readers" (interpreted from page views) pretty early in a social media campaign. They may not understand the amount of time it may take to build traffic and interest. So, it's important to help upper management understand the time it takes to develop soc. media and to set realistic goals. Don't allow upper management (or p.r. firms or marketing firms with no soc. media experience) to set numbers-oriented goals.

And always ask them if they've seen a change in their business! If they've seen a change in their business (more inquiries with a few converting to sales) then they have made their impact. Doesn't matter if they have 1,000 readers/commenters a day or 100 or even 10. It's more a matter of the overall effectiveness, not numbers.

Umair is right-on with "user generated context"--it's something marketing has acknowledged in its support of word-of-mouth marketing. W.O.M. extends out to messages on boards, blog posts, and other postings on social networks. When it is positive, it becomes a value-add for the product: someone's giving you an endorsement and situating your product in their community. That person is giving your product a context. In marketing, more "context" (which translates to w.o.m.) then becomes more product loyalty and product sales. It's letting users create the context, not the advertisers, and by doing so, the users let other users know the value.

Now, if newspapers could realize what they produce is product, and that blog posts don't "steal" their content, but, rather, add context and then link back to it, then we can all sing kumbaya. But it's probably not that simple.

There are so many bloggers out there who've never heard of Jason, and who really don't care whether he "retires" and goes back to email or not. They're too busy trying to keep their small businesses going, and blogging works for them on a lot of different levels.--and yes, sounds like a whole bunch of drama for sure.

Hi Aldon,

It's very sad to hear what happened to Lori. Sometimes its not that the angel doesn't touch us, but that our own hurt, self-directed anger, shame, and fear keeps us from realizing that touch is there. It's a terrible place to be. Glad that you can understand and know what is around you, supporting you. The ability to understand is a gift in and of itself.

Hi Fred,

When I recently went thru a long spate of writer's block, and could only comment, my friend Amy Gahran suggested I try coComment to keep track of it all those comments and to post them back on my blog. I haven't tried it yet, but it seems to be a viable option to letting all those long comments slip away. For compulsive commenters, this is probably a good thing. Another friend of mine just copies the urls of the blog links he leaves comments on, then at the end of his commenting run, creates a post. This gives his audience a way to go back to the blogs he's been to (that may also happen with coComments--I still have to try it out.), so that system spreads a bit of linklove along with creating a post he can use to go back and see if there are follow-up comments.

As for long comments from other people on my blog, sometimes I bring them out of the comments and into a post with a bit of commentary from me. Usually when someone leaves in the comments a great link to one of their blog posts or an article they may have written, I'll pull that out of the comments and put it on the front page as an update to the post. Or even use it in a follow-up post. This then sends some traffic back to the commenter.

Personally, I'm going to give the coComment thing a try this week. I've broke the block for the moment, but it's a nasty elusive critter, and who knows when it will come back and squash my blogging!

Hi Jason! wow! I haven't been by to comment in awhile! --first, congrats on all your new ventures with Webomatica....

now, to the movie....

Yes, this is a great little "noir" film. One of Spacey's best performances. But where's Palmintieri these days? He had a good short run playing the tough guy in the '90's, but haven't seen him in a long time. And I remember laughing my butt off as this one unfolded. A similar laugh to the one I got from Fight Club, but it didn't cause the queasy feeling that happened with Fight Club.

Hi Eric,

Well, in the time I've been blogging (somewhat longer that Lous, although not as long as, say, Mary Hodder) there have been some serious changes, esp. in linking strategies and "link love." Technorait (which is very broken these days) used to give more weight to permalinks (as in blogroll links) over post links. People used to hound A-listers for links so much so that the term "link whoring" was born. Links were everything to bloggers. But now, chances are that in order to find who's linking to you, you have to consult a number of sources as well as a crystal ball....

So, you are quite correct about the subjective nature of the term "serious blogger." Folks that you mention, such as Andrew Sullivan, might be great "bloggers" if they started today because they bring their previous print journalism and scholarly reputations to the table. There are women who stake a blogging claim with nothing more than the term "mommyblogger" and have instant community--something that wasn't there 4 years ago. We've also seen innovations like Twitter drive traffic while adding nothing to countable links leading to rise in rank. Same thing with RSS subscriptions--great to have readers but those readers don't necessarily count towards links and rank, nor do they generate new traffic (that is, unless someone twitters a link to your blog.)

So, I'd have to agree with Duncan: nowadays, blogging's more about the user--or, shall we say "lurker" or "reader" vs. the blogger who will provide linklove to you. Hence, it can be said that it's about the reputation you build via an aggregate of blogging, tweeting, having your comments searched via Disqus, and your social networking profiles. Maybe that's 2.0--then again, maybe that's just the diffusion of the blogger identity into that of "social networker." Just a thought.

Hi Chris...

Well, being someone who does "social media consulting" I'd have to agree with you on some of your points...

For awhile now, I've seen how the folks grounded in what might be called "legacy media" (advertising, journalism, p.r. and the like) seem to do pretty well when they add social media to their skill sets. I find the "legacy" folks coming to me for advice when they hit bumps in the social media road. But, they never actually want to pay me for my knowledge. In fact, some have even treated me like it's my responsibility to just hand over everything I've learned to them....

So, I'm careful about how I speak of what I actually *do*.

Now, since I don't have a "legacy" media background, I'm something of a maverick. Subsequently, I end up working with a number of maverick thinkers who are like me, and who I've met through networking. For some of them, I do jobs that could be classified as "community management" (like Connie Bensen suggested)--for others it's stuff related to the various aspects of social media.

So, while being a social media consultant is, in some ways, like being, say, an email consultant, there are ways in which you can display your skills that can lead to all sorts of interesting jobs. But it's not easy, it takes time and f2f connections to build a reputation. Then there's maintaining the reputation, lots of what could be called "old-fashioned sales," and constantly keeping up on new things. Oh, and living where the cost of living's not too high. That helps too :-) Still, I'd agree that I'd never advise anyone to go into *just* social media consulting. It has to be part of a bigger picture.

I found out about this one yesterday--perhaps a lot of people don't want to get involved in this particular slugfest because, either way you land, the fall-out won't be pretty.

I've met Feldman. He got pissy with me, I walked away, he apologized (he probably doesn't remember--I'm small potatoes and not some hot chick that would be all that memorable.) I was surprised and said "that's ok."

I've met Shel too--several times. He's been cordial in that older-generation p.r. guy kinda way.

O.K. folks to know, but, well....they are who they are...sorry to see things blow up this way. Whenever something escalates like this, no one looks good.

The only thing we should be taking away from this is to make sure you've picked up all the domains that could be a variant of your name. Esp. if you're kinda up there and could get parodied.

Bravo, Paul! Yours is one of the few commentaries from the trenches! and good to point out that, if you've got to a point where you've managed to, as you say, "net" some "legitimate self-employment" you can say you've got some success. I've done that, and while I'm not living high on the hog and couldn't live in the Silicon Valley or NYC on what I make, for having built *something* from this blogging thing in the first place is pretty darned good.

Heck, I could have really disappointed my folks and pursued an acting career ;-)

Matt,

Agreed. making it in blogging probably does indeed have the same or at least a similar amount of stress as making it in any high-volume, hyperactive business (I'm reminded of friends who used to own a gaming company.... or any start-up....)

and I too liked Doc's response. You should check out dana boyd's and Renee Blodgett's as well.

Now that it's midnight, I can write mine ;-)

Hi Matt...
Actually, I found some grains of truth in the Times article. Sure, it had its link-baiting hype potential, but then again so have all those other articles over the past 2-3 years in pubs like BusinessWeek and New York Magazine that shrieked "you too can make big bucks from blogging!" (and then went on to profile Arianna Huffington and Mike Arrington and Josh Marshall and the scant few others that make big blog money....)

Thing is, when you *are* doing blogging as a career or career path (as I have for the past two years--with a modicum of success) it *is* a lot of stress. It's sometimes a lot of long hours for not a lot of pay. It's having no boundaries in your life because you have to get a project completed, or a client's in need of something ,by an insanely short deadline. It's trying to come up with the right "conversational tone" for a marketing campaign. It's trying to write in a way that's going to get the eyeballs of the 18-34s while getting the jobs and respect from the 34-54s.

It only gets easier when you've put together a decent reputation and people are willing to take a chance with you (but it's still pretty tough.) Even then, the standards are high because you are working in a field that is brand new, that has no hard stats to back it up, and that many are looking to be the savior for industries with failing business models.

It won't kill you, but the stress will get to you if you're looking to be Arrington or Marshall or to go viral like Coke and Mentos or Lenovo. If you keep perspective, though, and not measure your success by the successes of others, then you'll be ok. Easier said, however, than done.

oh, academia's *definitely* struggling when it comes to understanding social networking--not to mention most of what's happening online. When I read this story this a.m., I wasn't just horrified--I thought about a prof I met last week at We Media Miami, who is from Ryerson, who was talking about how she teaches media literacy in her class. ...and what I've discovered is that there are pockets of professors in many universities who are teaching about the ups and downs of Facebook in their classes. But that the universities, overall, have no understanding of life online. So, we get really bad stuff like this happening. I sure hope Ryerson sees their way to not expelling this kid.

I've been catching up on all the TED scuttlebutt--including your post--and what I found most odd and out of touch was the panel with Queen Noor and Sergy Brin, where "court jester" Robin Williams came out and made the joke about bad connectivity at Web 2.0 cons....

oh how amusing! (and a really *old* joke among web2.0 peeps...)

One of that panel's concerns was that "the masses" are "confused" by the new media landscape. But, since working with both NewsTrust and Placeblogger, where I'm seeing and hearing lots of the voices of the masses, I'm thinking more that it's the elites that are confused. Maybe that's really what's going on at TED and why lots of folks aren't getting invited.

Hi Chris...

one of the reasons that many people now require registration is that there was, for awhile, some hysteria over "incivil" and anonymous comments,and there was a general feeling that registration would help this. It was thought that moderation was slowing down conversation, and that instant registration would make it so that comments wouldn't need moderation...

Lots of hyperlocal journalism bloggers, as well as some big-namers like Kara Swisher use registration vs. moderation. And, for what they do, it does keep down trolls and keep conversation moving better.

As for Mashable--personally, I didn't appreciate being dumped into Mashable's social network just because I left a comment. I don't mind registering for a blog--mostly because those registrations don't end up in search. My Mashable profile, which I didn't find out until I did a search on myself, was something that I had to fill out and keep up to date with my other profiles. Now, it's just another search result I have to manage.

If the blogger feels that in order to control civility (and comment quality) that they need registration, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with being enrolled in a social network just because I left a comment.

Interesting thoughts, Nick....

A few years ago, at my first blog conference, I noticed all these people standing around talking to one another...and I thought it was so great that so many met each other thru their blogs! Turns out most of them knew one another from other places (like f2f places), and reading their blogs was just a way of keeping in touch with each other...

Then things changed over in blogging, and we started meeting other people through our blogs. But that's only for the adventurous...

Funny thing about soc. networking, though...I don't see many of us meeting new people through the social network--unless it's through another person (kinda like in blogging.) Sure, we can keep in touch better with people we've met once or twice. But how do we know if they really *are* reading our status updates, or comparing likes and dislikes among our various and sundry apps? We don't. And we don't really meet new people because all the strangers in social networking sites are either preditors or identity thieves or some other kind of person who will hurt us (or at least spam us.)

Frankly, I'll never get bored of the Internet--there's plenty of things to do and lots of cool people to meet one way or another. But soc. networking sites? I'll probably get bored with them quicker than I ever will with blogging. At least on my blog, I've got my own really huge soapbox ;-) (and a great google page rank to boot.)