Forbes: Attack of the Blogs

October 28 2005

Look, Mom, I'm in Forbes magazine!

Ed Brill, an IBMer who works on Notes marketing and publishes his own blog (edbrill.com), responded on July 23 last year to Radicati's bearish Notes report. He questioned whether she had ties to Microsoft and referred readers to two other blogs with far blunter assertions.  ...
Radicati fought back by responding on her own Web site, but the smear job hovers online, appearing when you Google her name or start with Brill's mostly diplomatic site and then work your way through its links. One step away is IBM itself, which has a Notes site that once linked into Brill's. That link has since been taken down. Radicati says IBM ignored her pleas to stop Brill from linking to the hate sites. IBM says it has nothing to do with Brill's blog.
One important point to re-emphasize, from Radicati's response at the time:
[W]e believe that the comments on Ed Brill's blog represent his own personal opinion and that of his friends, and do not reflect the opinion of IBM Lotus' management.
Well, either they do or they don't -- I'll take the published comments on their website as their formal position on the discussion.

There's not much point in otherwise commenting on the specifics of that fifteen-month-old incident, or even many of the specifics of the article.  Others have done that already this morning: Dan Gillmor, Steve Rubel, Neville Hobson, Chris Pirillo, Boing Boing, AmericaBlog, BL Ochman, Jupiter Research, many others.

Instead, I want to talk about the value of blogging.  I had no idea what my blog would become three years ago when vowe encouraged me to start one.  My early entries tended to be more random and varied.  In the last eighteen months, though, this blog has become a voice within the collaboration software marketplace.  I tend not to hold back -- one of the incredible values and core tenets of the blogosphere.  My competitors dislike this.  My customers and partners mostly like this.  I've been willing to admit mistakes, to make corrections, to change decisions.  I've shared wonderful news and events, and challenges and disappointments.  Is it "fair and balanced"?  Not always, but I make no such representation.  I say things that sound like a shill, but I also say things that have brought criticism from colleagues and partners.  Such feedback has helped make me a better writer, to the point where we're now at 15,000 hits a day and growing...with readership from customers, partners, competitors, analysts, reporters, friends and family.  It's made me a better professional overall, too -- Blogging has helped me do my job better, and while I emphatically do NOT claim sole credit for a product that hundreds of talented professionals work on every day, Notes/Domino revenue has been growing double digits for a year+ now.  Certainly, the voices in the blogosphere have helped me, and the entire Lotus team, improve our market position.

I think the simple lesson that is completely missed in this article is, "the truth is out there".  Are there bloggers that write libelous, slanderous, hate-filled vitriolic and useless sites?  Sure.  But they can publish newsletters and buy radio time and stand in the town center and give a speech with all the same content.  Blogging is no different than any other media -- readers need to assess the credibility of what they read, not just what they are reading.  I'll stand by my credibility -- and yours as commenters on this site, or bloggers yourselves-- head and shoulders above anyone who writes one-sided stories, condones anonymous attacks, and tries to silence the truth.

Link: Forbes: Attack of the Blogs >

Ed Brill Rose Hall/Montego Bay, Jamaica Category:  In the news  Add/View Comments [23]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Wild Bill http://www.billbuchan.com | 10/28/2005 10:55:31 AM

    And speaking as someone who had contact with Mr Lyons during that indicent, and have a stream of eMails from him over this, I can confirm quite impartially that he had written the conclusions on this story long before trying to get facts to fit around it.

    A very strange form of "journalism".

    And what benefit to the Radicati organisation - all it does is remind everyone what a hopeless job they did on the basic research, the reaction to it, and the hopeless denials.

    I much prefer Richard Swart's take on this:

    { Link }

    What connection does Dan Lyons have with Dr Sara Radicati, I wonder ?

    ---* Bill

  1. 2  Alan Lepofsky http://www.alanlepofsky.net | 10/28/2005 11:26:34 AM

    When reading this article, here are the lines that stood out most to me:

    - "logs started a few years ago as a simple way for people to keep online diaries. Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns. "

    - "The potential for brand damage is really high,"

    - "Some companies now use blogs as a weapon, unleashing swarms of critics on their rivals."

    - " Dry treatises on patent law and trade policy don't drive traffic (or ad sales) for bloggers and hosts; blood sport does."

    Ok, so Daniel Lyons gets a cover story on Forbes, which tons of people are now talking about, including it being discussed on the CNBC. Am I missing something, or has this story generated so much attention because of the exact same "blood sport" that he accuses bloggers of? Would a Forbes cover story about how useful corporate blogs are for disseminating product information to customers, or where developers can interact directly with users have gotten as much attention for him and Forbes? Bad news gets more press than good news, it's a shame, and something that needs to change.

  1. 3  Bruce Elgort http://www.bruceelgort.com | 10/28/2005 11:26:36 AM

    { Link }

  1. 4  Jack Dausman http://LeadershipByNumbers.com | 10/28/2005 12:03:23 PM

    Well, I certainly am not one to shy away from the Radicati controversy ( { Link } ). Though, I think the entire topic is quite funny; it always mystifies me that she even bothers to continue to struggle so hard. She's just wrestling with a tar-baby and it's making a mess.

    Ironically, it's also the vitality of blogging that continues to generate so much discussion about Radicati. The very Internet vehicle that she has derided and denounced is rolling right over her protests. Yes, the truth is out there.

    Jack

  1. 5  Paul Mooney http://www.pmooney.net | 10/28/2005 12:08:36 PM

    We are playing into the game by commenting my friends (myself included)

    { Link }

  1. 6  Richard Schwartz http://www.rhs.com/poweroftheschwartz | 10/28/2005 12:47:39 PM

    Wow! I can't believe that I missed the fact that the main article continued on to additional pages. I based my initial response mainly on the sidebars. I'll stand by my analysis so far, I'm sure, but I may have to re-think a bit and post something even more comprehensive.

  1. 7  Mean dean http://www.blogs4god.com/node/626 | 10/28/2005 1:15:14 PM

    Must be a slow news week to come after us bloggers huh?

    Since you were named by name, feel fee to use my parody graphic of their cover.

  1. 8  Gregg Eldred http://www.ns-tech.com/blog/geldred.nsf | 10/28/2005 2:48:34 PM

    @Alan, apparently someone at Forbes didn't read this:

    { Link }

  1. 9  Ben Rose http://www.jaffacake.net | 10/28/2005 3:57:04 PM

    Dear Ms. Radicati, unfortunately Mr. Lyon's blog doesn't allow me to post a comment there but I figured this location would get sufficient attention.

    I'd just like to say that, as a regular reader of edbrill.com, I take great issue with you calling us readers "sickos" and hope never to have the displeasure of reading any of your well researched words again.

    Incidentally, I'm neither an IBM employee or a consultant

  1. 10  Chloe http://www.watermelonpunch.com/blog/ | 10/28/2005 4:36:59 PM

    "The potential for brand damage is really high,"

    That's so silly. I would never criticize a brand that I liked, not even for money.

    And believe me, nobody's offered me money to complain about brands. I wish someone would! haha.

    THe potential for brand damage is really high if the brand is CRAP. haha!! I think they're going about this a little backwards.

  1. 11  Volker Weber http://vowe.net | 10/28/2005 7:14:12 PM

    I started a little DanLyons page on my wiki: { Link }

    It would be great if everybody would contribute to the link cosmos around this story (and of course other nonsense written by this aspiring author).

  1. 12  Dave http://www.weblayouts.net | 10/29/2005 8:42:31 AM

    He's definitely off base.

    However, there is a grain of truth in his stance -- the 'Net certainly always has been a breeding ground for contentious vocal minorities to go off the deep end on whatever their pet topic is. If that is how you view blogs, you could probably find some material to support it. Not necessarily on Ed's site, but perhaps some others.

    The problem is not that Dan Lyons has a vendetta against the Domino community - the problem is that he reaches a much larger audience than the blogs, and we can post all we want refuting him, but we are preaching to the choir.

    If you really want articles like that to stop, you need to publish rebuttals in print.

  1. 13  Ed Brill www.edbrill.com | 10/29/2005 10:38:42 AM

    Where exactly would such a rebuttal be published? Do you really think Forbes is going to open its pages to such? (Though I think it is quite quite ironic that podtech.net is going to have a podcast featuring Steve Forbes on Monday -- talking about the value of social software. Hysterical.)

  1. 14  Axel  | 10/29/2005 10:48:41 AM

    I do see blogging more the Hany Suleiman way. Don't take it very serious. And huge readership doesn't say much about impact on industry or relevance. Its fun. Ok. I admit that for some people its an effective marketing channel. But with the exception of blogs with actual technological content its more a fun thing for the reader because people are simply so self-exposed when they try to be journalists without having a proper formation for that profession. :-)

    I mean - whole a wiki - for the brand new revelation that 95% of software "analysts" papers are 98% horse hockey :-)

    I think the growth of Domino comes from very low levels. I do believe that in this much more difficult time the quality of the admins and developers is simply higher. The half hearted had to leave business and only the fanatics (in one or another way) are remaining. And blogging is an important communication channel under Domino experts, because there are far less books /articles than in Java/J2EE or .NET.

  1. 15  Christopher Byrne http://www.controlscaddy.com/ | 10/29/2005 2:02:13 PM

    My thoughts on this topic are well known and I am very sad he did not (mis)quote me by name:

    { Link }

    { Link }

    This next link is my "inteview" with Mr. Lyons:

    { Link }

  1. 16  David Bell  | 10/29/2005 8:31:23 PM

    I just read the interview link in @15, amazingly Nathan predicted that blog attacks were the real motive in April of this year with a comment to Chris's post.

    <snip>

    Comment posted by Nathan T. Freeman 04/15/2005 03:48:27

    Chris, something to consider...

    Based on the questions he asked you, and the questions he asked me, I personally don't think any longer that this is about Lyons grinding his "Notes sucks" axe. I think this is a mainstream media journalist looking to attack blogs. He's doing it via the "Lotus community vs. Radicati" route, but I'm starting to smell that the real motive here is another reporter who resents the fact that anyone with a web site can now carry as much weight as Forbes.

    </snip>

    Hey Nathan, what lottery numbers should I pick next week ?

  1. 17  Randall Shimizu  | 10/31/2005 2:55:01 AM

    "W]e believe that the comments on Ed Brill's blog represent his own personal opinion and that of his friends, and do not reflect the opinion of IBM Lotus' management."

    It's really presumptous and for Radcati to say that Ed does not speak for IBM. After all Ed is one of the principal strategists for Lotus.

    The Forbes article is equally if not more offensive. The article basically says that freedom of speech is a weapon........!! It's really sad how civil discourse has degenerated over the years.It was not long ago when individuals could disagree and still act ina civil matter. Today a lot of people act offended when you have a position they disagree with.

  1. 18  Randall Shimizu http://is-perspectives.blogspot.com/ | 10/31/2005 2:56:17 AM

    "W]e believe that the comments on Ed Brill's blog represent his own personal opinion and that of his friends, and do not reflect the opinion of IBM Lotus' management."

    It's really presumptous and for Radcati to say that Ed does not speak for IBM. After all Ed is one of the principal strategists for Lotus.

    The Forbes article is equally if not more offensive. The article basically says that freedom of speech is a weapon........!! It's really sad how civil discourse has degenerated over the years.It was not long ago when individuals could disagree and still act ina civil matter. Today a lot of people act offended when you have a position they disagree with.

  1. 19  Nathan T. Freeman  | 10/31/2005 3:58:18 AM

    If I knew the numbers, dontcha think I'd play 'em? ;-)

    I am SO glad I made a comment about that somewhere. I had said that to several people on IM at the time, but didn't think I'd actually gone on record anywhere about that prediction.

    Folks, the thing to do now is blow this outside the Domino blogsphere. Lyons picked a bigger target this time, and it's the Instapundits of the 'net that should be encouraged to respond to him. And indeed, it has been...

    { Link }

    Note to Lyons: it's one thing to antagonize the Domino community. But now you're picking a fight with the big boys (and girls). The people that created the Blogosphere. The people that create grassroots efforts that, say, keep leading Congressmen from getting re-elected, or get national news anchors fired.

    Note to Steve Forbes: You might think this is going to generate online traffic for you, and you'll probably be right, but looking out more than a couple of months, you're going to lose print readers, and that's going to cost your bottom line. Dan Lyons just became a liability for what was once a respected and insightful business magazine. Don't go the way of the rest of the MSM.

  1. 20  Axel Janssen  | 10/31/2005 7:57:30 AM

    [quote]

    Blogs started a few years ago as a simple way for people to keep online diaries. Suddenly they are the ultimate vehicle for brand-bashing, personal attacks, political extremism and smear campaigns.

    [/quote]

    Maybe this man fears the fact that with blogging he now suddenly faces lots of competition in the production easy to digest stories with lack of seriousness.

    Blogging remains a easy listening thing. Sometimes its good to get pointers about new buzzwords (for me buzzwords is not negative) like Ruby on Rails. Buzzwords are nothing else but proxies to new ideas.

    Without blogging I wouldn't buy Ruby book. But with this pro-Ruby smear campaign on Javablogs... Of course, I will try to get into the steps of this new dance.

  1. 21  Dave http://www.weblayouts.net | 10/31/2005 10:28:20 AM

    @13 - I'd start with the newpapers. And I would submit a response to Forbes. If they don't print it, you will have an even stronger argument that their choice of what to publish is an unfair representation of reality.

  1. 22  Roberto Boccadoro  | 10/31/2005 12:02:23 PM

    I agree with Nathan's comments. When a blog reaches 15.000 hits a day then is surely becoming something "authoritative" on a given subject. Applying this to Ed's blog it is pretty clear that this undermines the power of the "traditional" sources of information like Forbes.

    I stand 100% with Ed ( no surprise I guess ): "readers need to assess the credibility of what they read, not just what they are reading." and is very clear now that Ed has gained a lot of credibility, together with all the people that contribute to his blog.

  1. 23  Dave http://www.weblayouts.net | 10/31/2005 3:56:04 PM

    @22 - Yes, Ed has credibility. But you can't base that off the numbers. There is no logical correlation between web traffic and credibility. For example, Forbes.com receives 433,000 unique users/day, and much of this discussion has focused on their lack of credibility.

    It all comes down to the content. I think the point here is that blogging has changed some things -- as Ed implied, you have to read everything with a critical mind to determine its credibility.

    Saying that a blog is credible because it is widely read is no better than saying a magazine is credible because it is widely read.

    Saying that Ed, specifically, is credible because you agree with his statements and respect his knowledge is quite valid.