I guess I shouldn’t be blogging
Comments(8)
Lets face it, I'm no Steve Rubel, Mike Manuel, or Andy Lark and probably never will be in the blogging sense. I have an average traffic figure that rivals … well, no one. I'm a nobody in the blogosphere. And, according to Bite PR's Danny Bernstein, if you don't fall into the category of "best-of-the-best" in the industry, you should take your fingers off the keyboard and keep your thoughts out of the blogosphere. Controversial statement? It sure seems like it.
Now, I don't want to misrepresent or forget Danny's main point: that we, as PR folks, traditionally get stereotyped by the media, public, and Hollywood, and we need to make an effort at countering that view. I couldn't agree more. However, does that mean that only those "A-List" types should represent our industry alone? I don't think so. Danny chimes in with this:
In some respects, I share her [Strumpette’s Amanda Chapel] concern. I believe blogging, as the delicate olive branch of PR, must be handled by the absolute best-of-the-best our industry offers. These are the Tim Dysons, the Richard Edelmans and the Andy Larks.
If we allow this wave of wannabe journalists and self-publishing addicts to control (and ultimately mishandle) what could be our White Album, we will fall … and we’ll fall hard.
Despite seeing his point, it's hard to see how only those higher-level individuals are the only ones that have anything to contribute to the discussion. Just because I don't have a higher traffic level and some amazing reputation in the industry doesn't devalue the thoughts I have to contribute. I've posted some that have quadrupled my daily readership. I'd like to think those thoughts furthered the discussion, debate, and thought among those who took the time to read them. That's the beauty of blogging - joining the conversation and making people think.
In addition, I don't think "every starry-eyed PR professional that blogs believes, somewhere inside, that it can make them some kind of champion of business." I blog because I want to. I blog because it keeps me thinking and, more importantly, writing. I don't blog because I think I'm going to become some superstar. The best example of this is Wet Feet PR's Blake Barbara. I don't think, if you asked him, the reason he started blogging was to become a champion of the industry. He carved out a niche for himself, contributed valuable content, and it raised his industry profile.
I guess the main point here is that it doesn't, and shouldn't, matter who you are or aren't. Everyone is a potential source of alternative opinion and valuable thinking in the blogosphere that all help contribute to better conversation and debate. Just because you aren't blog "famous" doesn't mean you should shy away from the medium.
This isn't meant to be an attack on Danny at all, I just ran into him at Third Thursday and he remembered when I interviewed with him for a position at Bite last summer, which was nice. Through his writing, it's clear he's a smart guy, but in this case I think he's just simply wrong. If one takes his point to heart, it makes them wonder what's up with this "guest column" at Silicon Valley Watcher, a blog, and the contributions to Bite Marks. Who do you think you are, Danny? Tim Dyson? 
Bottome line: It doesn't matter, you're contributing to the conversation in a valuable way. People will always think what they will about PR and the people who work in the industry, and I don't think it matters who blogs or what about because a handful of people aren't going to change those perceptions.
