blog as moneymaker? darn right
).
I guess it sort of depends on who and how you ask, right? I mean, if you were to ask many of the folks coming to speak at mesh, who happen to blog, whether "blogging makes money," many of them would likely say "Not directly, but indirectly? You better believe it."
I mean, think of the untold millions spent on traditional advertising and PR to create just the type of profile and voice that some people have built for themselves and their businesses via blogging and social media. How can you tally the value of creating your own soapbox? In traditional media, I guess overall marketing efficiency metrics are viewed as the most important gauge of the effectveness of spend, but can one really say, categorically, that traditional PR "makes money"? It’s tough. But when put in that context? Wow, blogging "makes money" in spades.
Does it do so directly? Not often. Just like only PR practicitioners, by a tight definition, are the only ones who directly "make money" from PR. But indirectly? Bloggers, their organizations and PR firms Clients, without question.
That’s the way to look at it, I think.
Dave Winer comments here, mesh speaker Paul Kedrosky here, and mesh speaker Scott Karp here. Mark thinks aloud here. Mathew goes deep here.
Certainly food for discussion in the marketing and PR streams at mesh.
Posted in mesh news
1 Comment
Visibility is key isn't it?
Or are we witnessing a paradigm shift in PR which demands from campaigning and promotional strategies the attachment of meaning to that visibility?
Whether its in the form of a well orchestrated PR campaign or a well-thought out discussion appearing on a blog, viewers will continue to judge those opinions against the sidebar of business promotion by way of "paid-blogging" or some form of corporate sponsorship.
Anyway you look at it, consumers are demanding information and knowledge to inform their decisions.
The web has created a monster task for PR efforts, as consumers have been forced a level of saviness that could only be made possible by the contstant need for business to promote and cross-promote itself — I happen to think, towards the propect that no consumer can ever really be satisfied.
Its no coincidence that the same tactics used in boardrooms across the country to lop a competitors legs with intel and dirt to steer away interest, are now the same tactics empowering the consumer age.
I think what it comes down to is the relevance of the web-based discussion to any business, whether that dicussion derives from a blog, message board or gripe site.
A couple of quick thoughts to elaborate further on this point.
The first being that it doesn't add enough value to any type of brand or reputation monitoring effort when there is one comment or opinion shared without any discussion surrounding it.
Whether that dicussion be in the form of agreement or rebuttal, there is a value to seeing different views on a topic which happens to also have an impact on the way a business conducts itself, and delivers its products, services or message.
The second is that perception is reality, and I'm of the belief that opinions have only as much weight in consumers minds if they are percieved as genuine "consumer influence" instead of "wage persuasion."
What I'm speaking about here is that opinion with ties or affiliations to a business that is coincidentally the thing you happen to be defending or promoting on a blog or forum will have less impact on the viewer than a well thought out and independently formed opinion.
Finally, and as much as I hate to say it, I also believe that the perception value towards carefully crafted blogging campaigs which also happen to be connected to PR efforts will eventually carry the same negative overtone as a splog. Some more thought and refinement on PR blogging is needed to ensure this doesn't happen.