(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)
Loading ...There is a dialog that is going on in part sparked by Andrew Keen’s book, Cult of the Amateur. He draws the analogy of monkeys and typewriters. This comes from Aldous Huxley that famously said give enough monkeys typewriters and eventually they will write something rivaling Shakespeare. It is just a matter of getting enough monkeys with typewriters.
In many circles there is a bashing of the drivel found in the blogosphere. That perhaps it is driven by quantity and not quality. I think this is in many levels a problem in our society. The idea that “more is better”. This goes for everything from security to money to love to material possessions.
Some of this is more benign then others - more security equals more fear and ultimately more weapons and violence. While, more blogs ultimately results in more voices which means far more views being shared.
It is this quality of the blogosphere that makes more better. It is after all a type of democratization of thought and expression. No need to try and get your letter published in the New York Times or get to speak on TV. Just go to your blog and write. This is what democracy means to me - the ability to share and perhaps even influence.
Here is the one crucial difference that I believe adds even more value to the blogosphere. If you write drivel, no one is going to read it! If you write something that is of high quality and important you will get response and recognition. This is regardless of who you are or how many Adwords you have on your site or any of that other technical stuff.
When I explore the blog world I often come across sites that talk about SEO, Adwords and many other “techniques” for getting your blog out there and read. There are always those that successfully manipulate the system to gain attention and money. But, for me it is the quality; those are the blogs I will bookmark and go back to time and again. Not because they have the right search words to pull them up. Sure, I may read them once, but if it is crappy and poorly written I am not interested.
This then goes back to one of my earlier posts (which, I admit, was written under the haze of a sleep deprived new father) which attempted to argue that conversational marketing holds far greater value then any other form of marketing. It utilizes information already available. It targets those that are already interested in the topic. It is quality over quantity. Anyone can mass email, but not just anyone can do a targeted and focused effort that utilizes the information available.
Write quality and the people will follow. Otherwise I say let the monkeys play in the jungle! Hell, give’em typewriters who knows what wonderful policy they may come up with!!
Filed under: Blog Ranking, Blog Strategy, Blogger Influence, Blogging, Conversation Marketing
Loading ...
I’d rather read one great post than three mediocre ones. A blog full of mediocre posts won’t see me again.
(btw this one was interesting - lol)
Saul
Help me here. It seems to me that you are confusing the idea that blogging offers pretty much anyone the ability to speak out on any topic they choose — and eventually get noticed with the practice of conversatonal marketing itself.
I view the blogosphere as a marketplace of ideas. But as a marketing vehicle, it can be very tricky. It challenges the standard “top down” model in ways that are refreshing and very promising. But, as it has often played out, it often lacks a call to action. Or,used incorrectly, it can dilute a brand promise.
Effective marketing conversations have to be nutured. It canbe a very haphazard thing with everybody weighing in on a topic. So, by nuturing, I mean that pariticpating marketers have to figure out how to keep that conversation going and adress the communities needs. Sometimes that goes against the grain of buisiness. Because business often thinks of Buy It Now.
I totally agree with you Jonathan. It is a “marketplace of ideas” and is a tricky terrain to navigate. In much the same way that the “top down” model is also tricky. You can pour ton’s of money into a campaign and your brand/product can still flop.
My premise is that there is no gate keeper per se. It is, after all, a free market of ideas. But, the better you write, the better you share your views, the more you will be recognized. You are not recognized purely for what publication’s your ideas make it into (say the NYTimes or NBC). You are valued because the community chooses in some way to give you props.
Conversational marketing is an effort at drawing attention to your brand/product but you are limited by the same constraints - quality.
After all I can try and initiate conversation about my product one million times, but this quantity will not out do the quality. If you don’t like my product you won’t link to it, you wont blog about it, you won’t mention it.
It is the commons that is deciding the value not the king makers. And, the average Joe has little time or energy to read drivel (perhaps I am making a broad assumption here).
I think it is dangerous to aproach the blogosphere as a marketing tool. Rather it is about producing quality and being recognized. The most important point being that the cost of entry into the market is close to zero. Emphasizing the value of the content even more - create quality and you have a good chance of being recognized.
Jonathan, did you mean “nurtured” or “neutered” in this sentence, “effective marketing conversations have to be nutured?”
nurtured, damn it. I kept on looking at it thinking something was wrong.
I’m from Rhode Island where we don’t pronounce our ‘r’s.