4 comments

• 

  Charles Follymacher

  3 years ago

  "If you think how many people link to your site is the measure of success, don’t blog. Blog because you want to have a voice in a conversation."
  
  Little bit contradictory, there, Matt. What's the point of having a voice if no one hears you? If you have a need to be heard, you def have to play the game and compete for attention. Or you can just plug along and hope that one day someone influential catches wind of you and thinks you're the bees' knees. Don't hold your breath tho.
  
  I say blog simply to vent. Just for the fun of literary exercise, sending wee messages in bottles. An audience is purely gravy.
  reply
• 

  Seth Finkelstein

  3 years ago

  Seconded. There's a kind a bait-and-switch selling. What is "a voice in a conversation" viewed in terms of implication - it *sounds* as if one *will* be heard. It's not "because some people like to talk to themselves" (look, some people *do* like to talk to themselves, that's fine - but if one doesn't, it's not helpful).
  
  Moreover, regarding "If you run a business, blog because one day, I promise, you will be glad you have a place to respond when the conversation is about you."
  
  If an A-lister flames you (hardly a "conversation"), it doesn't do you any good to "respond" on a page nobody reads. Ever more so if attacked by a newspaper columnist or TV reporter. And why do you need a *blog*, rather than a *web site*, for that unhappy day? It certainly seems like some sort of comparable power is being insinuated, though it's not the best example of that shibboleth.
  reply
• 

  Scott Karp

  3 years ago

  Seth, you are the person I hear most often on the subject of not being heard, which makes you something of a paradox.
  
  That said, I suggest thinking this in terms of media. According to Wikipedia, Media (the plural of medium) is a truncation of the term media of communication. If you're not communicating with anyone, it's not media. So if you don't have an audience, it's not media. Which means if you're blogging because you want to create media, then having an audience DOES matter.
  
  The interesting question is how big an audience do you need?
  reply
• 

  Seth Finkelstein

  3 years ago

  Scott, as I replied in another context, recently I've benefitted from, well, I can't call it a "wave", more like a little splash, of backlash against blog hype. But I regard this as some of the most trivial things I say, though I recognize it channels some widespread frustration with the cliquishness.
  
  The way the paradox is resolved is to realize that "not being heard" is still talking about the blog evangelist sales-pitch, even if denying it.
  
  The basic formulation I use in terms of audience size is that as a minimum I want to be able to reply to a *comparable* audience if attacked. Obviously, a billion Chinese couldn't care less. The problem is that the exponential nature ("power law") of readership means this will never happen for any but a few A-listers, just as a matter of mathematics. I could go into further estimates for activism, but let me stick to that simple point.
  
  This is why I find the shell-game of seeming to promise audience and influence, but in fact offering nothing, then scolding the disappointment, to be such an irritating practice.
  reply