Business Week runs a cover story on blogging, updating their observations and predictions from a similar piece in 2005.

Image:Business Week: Beyond blogs

Some interesting components to this article...

The magazine article, archived on our Web site, kept attracting readers and blog links. A few professors worked it into their curricula, sending class after class of students to the story. With all this activity, the piece gained high-octane Google juice. Type in "blogs business" on the search engine, and our story comes up first among the results, as of this writing. Hundreds of thousands of people are still searching "blogs business" because they're eager to learn the latest news about an industry that's changing at warp speed. Their attention maintains our outdated relic at the top of the list. It's self-perpetuating: They want new, we give them old.
I find this point fascinating.  It's not a first-time encounter, either.  A couple of years ago, I spoke on a panel at a American Marketing Association meeting.  One of the Professors on said panel was using the Forbes story "Attack of the Blogs!", ten months after it ran, as part of her research and citations.  I was surprised since that Forbes story had been debunked in so many ways.  There was another surprise there, though, in that the blogosphere -- err, now, social software realm -- changes so quickly that any mainstream media piece written on the topic becomes quickly out-of-date.  

This is the point BusinessWeek is on, that their original article continued to serve as authoritative, even when it clearly no longer was.  Blogging hasn't changed the fact that out-of-date information is cited and referenced in the world, though it may have reduced the likelihood of out-of-date reference materials.  In the last few months, I have been presented with a 2003 TCO study on Notes vs. Exchange and asked to respond to it, no matter how many times and places that IBM responded to it or it was discussed on the blogs of that era.  Sometimes, that first hit on Google isn't the best one, even with the most "google juice".

Another interesting segment of the BusinessWeek article...
Rubel drops a bomb. He doesn't blog much anymore. He lets his popular Micropersuasion site sit fallow for days on end. That would have been sacrilege when we wrote our article. Back then he was posting a dozen times a day--even from bed.

What changed? Two big things, he says: technology and media.
The "pressure to blog" was a lot greater a couple of years ago.  I felt it tied to my job success, tied to the market perception of Notes, and tied to my ego.  Today, I blog when it's relevant, and thanks to RSS and sites like PlanetLotus.org, you are all still here when I do.  Well, most of you.  The demographics of blog readership have changed, and overall readership on edbrill.com has grown a lot more slowly in the last couple of years.  I attribute this to the breadth/depth of bloggers out there now -- edbrill.com is no longer sole source for Lotus-related straight-from-the-vendor coverage, now you have dozens of IBMers and hundreds of other bloggers to read from.  I don't even write about Quickr or Connections very often anymore, since there are other sources on those products and they are not directly related to my job.

Does that make this site less relevant?  No.  Interacting with the market is immensely useful, regardless of the frequency.  Input from the blogs helps every single day in getting my job done. Now so do other inputs, like Twitter and the like, but overall, the content coming in is making for more informed and more useful decision-making ...even with the occasional distraction or dare-I-say fun in the process.

Good article, read the whole thing...

Link: Business Week: Beyond Blogs >

Post a Comment