Online Media Cultist

Web producer, writer, online media cultist. That's how I roll.

Bridging the Blogging 1.0 and Blogging 2.0 divide

Ah, there’s another “2.0″ to throw into the mix, everyone! Blogging 2.0 is now a part of our lexicon, thanks (I believe) to Duncan Riley, late of TechCrunch and now of a new operation called The Inquisitr.

Louis Gray breaks it down as follows:

Blogging 1.0 centered around who could:

* Amass the most page views
* Display the most ads
* Get the most comments
* Attract the most RSS subscribers

But then came along some inconvenient wrinkles to the mix:

* Full RSS feeds took page views away from the blog
* Readers installed ad filters, and didn’t click
* Comments started to live elsewhere
* Every blogger in an industry covered the exact same stories

Louis concludes that in order to be “successful” – a subjective term to be sure – bloggers must worry “less about where the conversation is taking place, but more about whether it’s taking place at all.”

I agree… to an extent.

I think that for most serious bloggers (another subjective term!), the game is to take part in the great Internet conversation, to add something unique and valuable to the mix, and to create a “destination presence” of some sort. The metrics for success around this may vary but essentially boil down to unique visits, page views, ad clicks, RSS readers, and comments. All the basics that are now being dubbed Blogging 1.0.

So even in a Blogging 2.0 world – a world where conversations started in one place are taking place in many others – I don’t see any change to this basic objective. Unless you’re the Mother Teresa of blogging, there’s always some self-serving interest to online publishing, whether it be the pride and satisfaction of adding value to the whole, or more earthly interests like accruing traffic numbers and the advertising revenue that can be driven from it.

Therefore, I believe that web publishers can think Blogging 1.0 while acting Blogging 2.0, so to speak. Engaging in services like Twitter, Friendfeed, and Readburner are great ways to join the new “distributed conversation” while promoting your destination home site, to get PR/advertising-ish for a moment. This in essence is very Blogging 1.0 as well: in order to get traffic you need to get out there, make friends, leave comments around the web, network, guest post, and other basic blogging promotion techniques.

So I think it’s important to remember that there’s some inherent self-interest for the vast majority of bloggers and web publishers. But that self-interest should drive participation in these new social media platforms. As I’ve written in the past, that’s why I draw the line on services like Shyftr, which pull full text feeds from publishers without permission and create conversations around it. That in my view goes past “what users want” and violates publishers’ core interests/self-interests.

Colin Walker says it perfectly: “Engaging in the conversation and being willing to takes those steps necessary will enhance the reputation of any blogger willing to put themselves out there which in turn lead to the secondary benefits we all go on about.”

Mark Evans worries about a potential chilling effect of Blogging 2.0 on professional full-time bloggers, musing that “if this landscape existed a few years ago, people such as such Om Malik, Richard MacManus, Darren Rowse (aka Problogger) or Andrew Sullivan would never have been able to become pro bloggers.”

I disagree – I think that today, even with a great deal of competition and new and complicating communications platforms, it’s as great a time as any to hop into the blogging game. Riley’s new venture is a perfect example: a strong writer with strong opinions (and connections and name recognition never hurt!) has an opportunity to find success in this new brave Blogging 1.0/2.0 landscape.

Finally, Duncan Riley says Blogging 2.0 is “all about the user.” My take is that by serving the user, bloggers can at the same time serve themselves.

Post Metadata

Date
May 19th, 2008

Author
Eric Berlin

Category
OMC

Tags

Trackback URI

Comments RSS

  • 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.
  • You bring up many great points here, Tish. Particularly interesting is your notion of the "serious blogger" diffusing into something of a social networker. I think that's probably part of the deal in playing in this social media sandbox that we're all now a part of.

    That said, I think that if you look at it objectively and dispassionately from a blog publisher's *business* perspective you say: how many page views can I get, and how much can I sell the ad space at? And that's it, pretty simple numbers.

    I do think that participation in the greater social media aspects will help to move that bottom line. But of course, you have to do it with heart and passion. You can't fake this stuff, people are way too smart for that.

    So the game is changing -- it's both easier and more difficult than ever to move ahead.... or something! ;-)
  • Eric,

    of course, we don't have much choice about whether we agree to have our conversations move to other platforms do we? The ex-Googlers will see to that! ;-)

    For me, the issue is really about who owns your brand and how can you control it in a fractured media environment. That's not a trivial matter and it's also undetermined at this point.
  • Hi Sprague !

    Totally agree that the issue of control over one's brand and intellectual property is critical. Now, I understand that many are calling for a "let the conversation go, that's what users want" kind of take -- which I can understand to an extent, but really there must be a balance, which I've tried to explain on at least a surface level in this piece.
  • gregory
    i wish someone would write about how it will be when it is understood that advertising isn't going to feed you... motivation will change, sharing will increase, the whole structure of online society will shift, expand, increase ... not a bad thing, and inevitable...

    but what do you think?
  • OT: why don't you sign-up for DISQUS gregory? I've seen you actively posting on DISQUS-powered posts everywhere ;)

  • gregory
    i wish someone would write about how it will be when it is understood that advertising isn't going to feed you... motivation will change, sharing will increase, the whole structure of online society will shift, expand, increase ... not a bad thing, and inevitable...

    but what do you think?
  • I think most web publishers understand that making money online is extremely difficult. Most do it for the enjoyment of the process, to take part in the greater online conversation, and if a couple of bucks can be made from it, all the better.

    Lets remember too that ALL forms of publishing are extremely competitive. Web publishing at the least is egalitarian -- anyone can do it, which may of course lead some to have unrealistic expectations.
blog comments powered by Disqus
← Online Media Cultist honored by The Industry Standard
Transcending bubbles →




Privacy