Marketing

Yesterday, I shared my list of collected posts about the changing nature of blogs. I’ve been thinking quite a lot about this lately as I prepare for a business blogging workshop at the University of Wisconsin next month.

Here’s the definition of blogs that I usually give in this workshop:

In the simplest terms, a blog is nothing more than a website developed using a lightweight content management system like Movable Type, Blogger, or Word Press. The things that most clearly identify a site as a blog are:

• Content presented in reverse chronological order;
• Ability for readers to leave public comments;
• Links in/out from/to other sites and blogs using a ping called a trackback.
• An RSS feed

Now, not all blogs have all of these things, but by and large, most will.

For the most part, this definition is still okay. But more and more blogs are moderating comments, or taking/leaving them off altogether.   And underlying the whole concept of comments is an assumption that the blogger will respond to the comment, but many say this doesn’t scale when a blogger regularly gets lots of comments. Probably true, but what to do….

When is a blog, not a blog? Or is the definition changing?

As Elizabeth Albrycht discussed in her post, is the definition changing as companies adopt blogging as part of the marketing/business plan? And by this I mean a company actively developing and using a blog to advance its business interests, versus the collateral effect that happens when employees blog and add value to the brand. GM is a company actively blogging as part of the business plan. Microsoft is a company that gets benefit from its employee bloggers.

Another underlying assumption about blogs is transparency. But it is guaranteed that NO company can have the same degree of transparency as an individual blogging about her life or his hobbies. They can be honest about the business and clear about their motives, but they cannot, should not, reveal ALL. Is it still a blog?

What about the blog empires of Gawker Media and Weblogs Inc. These are more like magazines than personal journals. How do they REALLY differ from a Web 1.0 site?

One of the fallacies of blogging is that it brings us all closer. Well yeah sort of but not really. We read a blog and feel we know the writer, not unlike the kinship we feel for celebrities because we read about them in People at the hair salon. But we don’t really know these folks, unless we actually engage in conversation with them. Sure, you CAN build robust, lasting friendships in the virtual world, but for the most part, the closest we really are is acquaintances.

So here’s what I think (Ta Duh). The definition of blog that I’ve been using is fine as it is. But the nature of blogs is definitely changing. And the change isn’t driven by whether it is a company blogging versus a person, as much as it is by VOLUME.

In the long tail, where I happily live, volume is low, and I have the luxury of being able to respond to comments, both privately and on the blog. I hazard a guess that the same would be true of a company in a niche market with a very targeted blog. They could still have a two-way conversation on the blog with customers and other stakeholders. 

But when the volumes rise (circulation and inbound comments alike), blogs seem to become more like magazines. Comments disappear. The communication becomes much more uni-directional – blogger out, with little response to comments. If they still have them, comments are more like the Letter to the Editor in the newspaper. The blog may even add multiple authors, versus the “one guy” it started with. The voice of the blog may get a little muddled, whether one author or many, and it is ever harder to find the point of view.

The blog may still look like a blog, but it quacks like a magazine.

None of this is a bad thing, per se. But it is different, and to some degree, challenges some of the underlying expectations we have about blogging.

As I say in the workshop:

• Blogs are conversations, not speeches. Specifically, bloggers write about, and link to, other bloggers’ ideas. And they create space on their blog for readers to participate – to comment on the action.
• Blogs should be authentic and transparent. There are many different interpretations of what these terms mean, and if we delved too deeply into that philosophical debate, we’d never get to the rest of our session. To net it down, some purists want bloggers to be real people, blogging about their experiences, with “everything” out there for the reader to know. Others put a more pragmatic definition on this, as I do, requiring honesty with the reader. Be clear about your intentions, and never lie. But we draw the line at complete transparency as it is actually impossible to achieve, whether you are an individual or a company.
• Blogs are not overtly commercial – This is inherited from the open source nature of the Internet, and is not that difference from the deep sigh that erupted from academia when the Web went commercial after being a bastion of academia and sharing. But blogs do have a point of view. And as more and more companies adopt blogging as part of their marketing strategy, there is an acceptance that blogs can be used to build brands and create interest in products. No one seems to mind, as long as the blog is also providing entertainment, information and value beyond the sale. 

I don’t have an answer… In fact I doubt there is a single “right”  answer to this conundrum: the more popular a blog gets, the less like a blog it may "feel." However, it something we need to be aware of when we consider adding blogs to our marketing mix.