Ad:Tech: The blogging panel :

Ad:Tech: The blogging panel

: Denton, Calacanis, Bruner and others talk to money.

: Rick Bruner, now of DoubleClick, honchoed a study of blog audience sponsored by Gawker Media and SixApart and done by ComScore. He presented the first preliminary results for the first time today. This really was an outcome of Bloggercon II. Some big news here.

ComScore looked at 15,000 blogs and their audiences.

35 million Americans, more than 20 percent of U.S. Intrernet users, read from 250 blog domains (that is, some large domains such as blogger.com and large individual sites; that mix does skew things a bit among big and small blogs; the numbers will be massaged, Rick said). That’s up 10 perecent over the proir quarter.

Blog readers are more likely to be broadband users (index of 113 vs total population), college educated (index 114), higher income (index 116 at 100k household income), Asian (index 136… go figger).

: Jason and Nick put together a joint presentation. Who says they feud?

Jason asks for the yucks whether there is anybody who doesn’t know what a blog is so we can make fun of them. A woman raises her hand. “You’re kidding, right?” Jason says. Apparently not.

What not to do: “faux blogs, bribe bloggers, blog when your company is not ready for complete transparency, write blog posts for your CEO.”

Nick: “Weblogs. They’re just websites. You say you don’t know what a weblog is? It doesn’t really matter. They’re just websites.” I don’t fully agree. Blogs have the added dimension of conversation; they have a new dimension of relationship.

Jason says that only 20 percent of a CNET page is content and blogs flip that.

Nick: “Weblogs are not for every single advertiser but for advertisers who want to reach influencers, tastemakers.”

Nick: “Of people who read weblogs, one-third write weblogs or are journalists… The result of that is that any message that is targeted at weblog readers will reverberate beyond weblogs readers.”

: Next: Mike Nazzaro from Intelliseek, which measures “consumer generated content” (Doc Searls would hate that phrase — they’re not consumers; they don’t generate; it’s not content). I’ve mentioned Intelliseek’s Powerpoint slides before so I won’t repeat now.

Companies like this create jargon: They call bloggers speakers and others seekers. Nope, everybody’s both. It’s a conversation. We all speak and listen.

He shows a great timeline chart revealing how the bloggers’ links to the Swifties preceded media coverage and Kerry’s response.

He shows another chart tracking the Subservient Chicken buzz, starting in blogs a week before it hit news media.

He makes a big deal about segmenting blogs into “credentialed news” vs. “non-credentialed news” and regarding their emotions (cynical, inspired…). No, it’s just people, man. It’s just people. That’s the point.

: At sessions such as this, the first question from nervous corporate types is, “What do the lawyers say?”

Jason: “If youi’re a bad person, blogging is very bad. If you’re a good person, blogging is great.”

Nick: “Business blogging is generally a bad idea.”

Someone at Salon asks what’s different about this: It’s just another medium. Nick says yes. I keep adding that one thing is different: It’s a conversation.

11 responses to “Ad:Tech: The blogging panel :”

  1. Karl Avatar

    I could argue Jeff’s point either way.
    I can see Jeff’s point to the extent that the feature which distinguishes internet content from other types of content is that it can be interactive.
    OTOH, some of the well-trafficked blogs do not allow for comment, e.g., Instapundit, Sullivan (letters page), the Gawker Media sites.
    And Denton may be correct in saying that blogs are “just websites” to the extent that other sites have used chat or bulletin board-based forums and other devices to build community and “stickiness” before web-based journals added the features (including comment sections) that turned them into what we now consider to be blogs.

  2. Howard Avatar

    Jeff: I think Nick is right. Blogs are Web sites and the really good Web sites offer opportunities for conversation with forums – some of which have been threaded right into the content areas.
    FWIW, I think what distinguishes blogs are how accessible they make Web publishing. Now, any knucklehead like me can crank up a blog in a few minutes rather than worrying about configuring a server. Like you’ve said before, if the author has something to say, they’re likely to get discovered. The more bloggers that do, the more the media balance of power tips ever so slightly.

  3. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    While InstaPundit may not have comments, a significant amount of the content is user-contributed.
    In that Reynolds is more like Herb Caen than Dan Rather.

  4. Michael Avatar

    Blogs may be a conversation, but the parties in the conversation certainly aren’t equals. I have no say in what content gets posted to this blog. I have no say whether my comments actually get displayed (since you can censor them). I don’t know the identities of any other commenters, but you can identify and track their IP addresses. I can link to you if I start my own blog to try to equalize the power, but becuase of your traffic & reputation, you’re link has more “umpf” than mine would. Blogs may be a conversation; they may be a citizen’s media. But not all citizens are equal in this sphere…

  5. Jordan Avatar

    There is no sphere in which all citizens stay equal for any length of time. If all citizens stayed equal it would be a mass of idiocy since it is empirically evident that some people cannot progress beyond the idiocy stage after having fallen there from the newbie stage.

  6. Hope Avatar

    Greatly surprising that bloggers that have blogs that do accept comments seldom bother to comment on the comments contributed. That is a simple courtesy on the part of the blogger and a basic business-building customer service technique. I don’t visit Instapundit or Sullivan’s (who says he’s a conservative?) blog because if I can’t comment I am not coming and I am certainly not going to do their legwork for them for no pay or recognition.
    Who wants to visit blogs at which they can’t comment? As you say, Jeff, the “conversation” element is key. Otherwise, it just a Web site. Seems to me that magazines like The National Review and The Weekly Standard are blowing it by requiring registration by those who wish to make a even a single comment. Too much trouble. A good blog is warm and inviting to the incredibly lazy but articulate and loyal fan base. I know what I am talking about. I have around 13 readers now. Duly impresed, I trust.
    Hope
    http://humorhangout.blogspot.com/

  7. Hollywood Liberation Army Avatar

    Considering none of Denton’s weblogs allow for comments, in his particular case, they are just websites. If they are a conversation, they are only one way.

  8. Ben Casnocha Avatar

    I guess my big question is whether the “conversations” that are going on are really meaningful in any significant way. Most of the comments on this blog are people with strong opinions stating them, and then other people with strong opinions stating them. Is anyone’s opinion really getting changed? What defines a “conversation”? Dan Gillmor says no to the first question: http://bigben.blogs.com/first/2004/11/do_blogs_change.html

  9. tony Avatar

    i wouldnt say that a conversation where neither party changes their mind is insignificant. a gathering of people discussing opposing views can be hugely rewarding to the audience, whose mind might change, or by the debaters who hopefully will gather information in reading/rebutting.
    and even though i agree with some of the above who complain about the lack of comments/conversations on the blogs of mr reynolds and mr sullivan, i can also imagine the screamfests that would break out beneath many of the posts that either of those gentlemen might type on a given night.
    that cant be good for business.

  10. Hope Avatar

    That’s a good point, Tony, that openness to comments could degenerate into business-killing acrimony. But here we have a civil discussion going. I am still hoping for some analysis of the Blogexplosion phenomenon. Jeff? Jeff? Any comments on that? I read of this—your site—by the way, in the latest issue of Foreign Policy.
    Michael makes good points about the one-sidedness of the conversation. For example, I spent around an hour the other day commenting at the blog of one of my (handful of) readers only to find that my comments had all been expunged, the comments apparently having been taken ill by the owner of the blog. It is very hard to predict what people will regard as offensive. The comments seemed innocuous to me.
    One major frustration of the whole blog phenomenon is that one spends hours writing to strangers whose blogs then disappear without explanation.
    Also, female-run blogs also tend to validate some of the worst stereotypes about women (i.e. that they are self-absorbed dimwits).
    Hope
    http://humorhangout.blogspot.com/

  11. Tom Avatar

    One note about Denton’s sites – so far, Gawker allows trackbacks, which are definitely good for “conversation” – I find that if I link with my own comments to a Gawker post, the traffic is definitely there, and people are interested in what I’ve said about the topic.