ryan l.

In an article from last Saturday, New York Times columnist, Dan Mitchell discusses Dave Sifry’s “State of the Blogosphere” and is far from complimentary of blogging on the whole, and I’m shocked. Aren’t you? A journalist critical of the medium that is, in part, increasingly putting journalists just like him out of work? (Note: I tried to find a link to the an article about the NYT laying off 4 percent of its staff, but only found dead links. Makes ya wonder — here’s a link to a re-posting of it.)

“The State of the Blogosphere” presented at sifry.com this week by David L. Sifry, the founder of Technorati, a leading blog search site, shows just how complicated things have become. According to Mr. Sifry’s data, mainstream media sites, as measured by the number of blogs linking to them, are trouncing news-oriented blogs by a growing margin. Bloggers link to The New York Times Web site about three times as often as they link to the technology-oriented Boingboing.net. Only four blogs show up in the top 33 sites.

But it isn’t the data or the rankings that matter most here. More interesting is that it’s becoming hard to tell what is a blog and what is mainstream media.”

And why is it that it’s becoming hard to differentiate? My guess would be because the MSM is being forced adapt to the changes taking place online and in the reading habits of people, just as PR and other fields are being forced to change. We all are.

“Meanwhile, more and more mainstream media sites are blogging. In the end, users are most likely drawn to sites for the quality and trustworthiness of the material presented.”

This is a valid point. The reliability of blog content just isn’t there yet, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t organizations out there striving for said trustworthiness or credibility. I think the blogosphere should try to define itself as a complementary addition to MSM coverage and not a direct competitor since the lines are blurring anyway. I realize this isn’t the easiest thing to accomplish since the MSM is increasingly blogging itself, like Mitchell says, but ultimately, the best way to bring credibility to blog content is to legitimize it. I posted the other day on the change BlogBurst is fueling — that’s probably a step in the right direction. It’s just too bad that the two sides haven’t yet found a middle ground because both add value, as one wise man once said.

Some great news being talked about/reported over at TechCrunch and Micro Persuasion, and probably others. BlogBurst, a service that takes content from pre-approved blogs and syndicates it to publishers like online newspapers and others, looks to be changing the game. The participating papers, thus far, include the Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, and the San Antonio Express-News.

I suppose this is a logical step forward for the struggling MSM, but this makes me want to think bigger than a service like BlogBurst. With so many blog networks popping up everywhere, the 9Rules and Newsvines of the world, why not take advantage of larger groups of already categorically assembled blogs? Obviously, it may be a little early to consider this option because this will probably end up being the beginning of a trial run with blog syndication for the papers, but why not think a few steps ahead?

No links included today, the offensive parties can remain nameless. It’s pretty discouraging when you can’t distinguish lively debate about the direction of PR and social media and a bunch of whining and talking in cirlcles. “My blog can beat up your blog.”

Granted, the on-going debate within the blogging PR community is probably necessary for us all in finding the proper direction and approach to utilizing blogs in communication, but the sarcasm, arguing, and general statements as if they are gospel while simultaneously trying to avoid calling yourself an “expert,” is just plain stupid. Blog experts, A-Listers, whatever. Idiots, gosh!

That’s not to say all comments and ideas are bad, worthless or irrelevant though. We’re all still figuring it out.

BusinessWeek has an excellent piece today on corporate blogging and the various ways it is being utilized by companies, however few.

” … only 22 of the 500 largest U.S. companies operate public blogs from their executive suites. That amounts to a measly 4.4%. Has the blogging sensation passed corporations by?”

Certainly not. One thing that all of use who have a decent grasp on blogging need to constantly remind ourselves is that despite how important, powerful, and understood we might think it is, realistically is far from a mainstream concept. Most people don’t even know what a blog is … just ask your parents.

However, despite the corporate world’s slower than hoped for pickup of the medium, those who are using it are not only utilizing it for marketing and PR purposes, but as a means for communicating and collaborating internally.

“Why are blogs supplanting traditional corporate Intranets? They’re a snap to set up, and cheap to run. That’s why the blog universe — as counted by Technorati, the leading blog search engine — has tripled to 27 million in the last year. They dwarf the number of personal Web pages, which require more technical expertise.

What’s more, blogs are designed to change daily and — importantly — to receive comments from the public. This means that while traditional corporate Intranets are static, blogs generate conversation.”

And that means internal conversations, a great, cheap, and easy step forward — and wikis are increasingly adding to improved internal comms as well.

I think the main takeaway here is that understanding blogging as a tool is important to all facets of a company’s communication efforts–internally and externally–and, just as blogs are great engagement tools for constituencies outside of the company, they bring a great value internally. The role of PR comes in at the point of, first, being familiar with the medium and, second, educating and counseling clients on when utilizing blogging is appropriate and how to go about it, because it’s not always right for every client.

There’s a really great discussion taking place over at TechCrunch about the soon to launch 3Bubbles, a chat interface that can be added to blog posts automatically and enables live discussion.

To be honest, this sounds really intersting, but a few questions come to mind — or should I say concerns. Many of these appear in the comments of the TechCrunch post as well.

First, and most importantly, how many bloggers will actually be able to sustain a live discussion about any of their posts? I know that with my readership being pretty low, with occasional spikes, I wouldn’t be able to use this service very effectively. A couple of people have mentioned that not even all of the Technorati Top 100 would be able to host live discussions. However, that doesn’t mean blogs like TechCrunch and maybe Micropersuasion and others wouldn’t be able to. Hm.

Second, I don’t know about anyone else for sure, but I enjoy having the comments section live within the post. Sure, 3Bubbles can, and most likely will, find a way to archive the live chat discussions that take place, but how many people want to read through innumerable lines of “yeah, but I like 2.0 technology,” and “oh yeah? well I don’t.” That could get old in a hurry.

And third, as one commentor asked, is this a company? For the 2.0 lovers out there this is just part of the wave, but how sustainable is their business model when it’s based on advertising? If you can’t guarantee that the vast majority of bloggers will use the service, and have readers partake, you certainly can’t guarantee, or shall we say ’sell’, advertisers on the idea. Where’s the traffic to justify the placement?

All in all, great, fun idea, and undoubtedly useful for bloggers with mass traffic and opinionated readers — real-time interaction is definitely lacking in blogs — but I’m not sure I’d bet on this as an overly used option. I’d use it, but it would just be another tool built into the blog, like trackbacks, that I don’t seem to get too many of.

Four jobs I’ve had
* Dishwasher for a pizza joint
* Food server
* Front End assistant - Costco
* Funiture pick-up

Four Movies I Can Watch Over and Over
* Braveheart
* Goonies
* Varsity Blues
* Reservoir Dogs

Four TV Shows I Love to Watch
* Sportscenter
* Lost
* Some random reality show, there are too many
* Any show on the History Channel

Four Places I’ve Been On Vacation
* Washington D.C.
* British Columbia, Canada
* Orlando, Fla.
* Seattle, Wash.

Four Favorite Dishes
* Pizza
* Tri-tip
* Anything Chinese
* Eggs Benedict

Four Web sites I Visite Daily
* Yahoo! News
* Technorati
* Bloglines
* ESPN.com

Four Places I’d Rather Be
* Visiting my dad in Washington state
* Austin, Texas
* Eating breakfast at JD’s in Castro Valley, Calif.
* Europe - Never been

Four Bloggers I’m Tagging
* Matthew Podboy
* Colin Crook
* Todd Defren
* Kami Huyse

The Valley seems to be on fire lately, and I know I’m not the first person to notice that the climate in tech right now feels like the boom. New start-ups are popping up everywhere, Web 2.0 has gone from buzzword to backlash, and yet the companies and innovation– sometimes pseudo-innovation–keep coming.

I’ve been in a few meetings lately with companies with technology offerings ranging from established to start-up and it really got me thinking. With so many companies trying to make their way in tech, whether they be 2.0 companies or non-Web-focused, when is it the right time or appropriate for PR to say no to new business?

Every agency wants to diversify their client roster and keep a consistent pipeline of new business, but when is it ok to evaluate a potential new client and say ‘you know, maybe we don’t want this business for reason x, y, or z.’

I think agencies in general sometimes fall into the habit of being so focused on picking up new clients that they forget that not every potential client they pitch, and win, has to be taken on. Sometimes restraint can be useful.