Stumble It!
Johnnie and I have been having many interesting conversations with companies and brands
about how best to digest the blogopshere. One request that often crops up is for the total number of bloggers (often in one geographical area) interested in a defined subject. At first hand this sounds like a very reasonable request but the more you think about it the less sense it actually makes. The search for 'clean' definitive figures is built into traditional command-and-control marketing, but in an era of consumer control it's like nailing jelly (or snowflakes) to the wall: tricky and of dubious value. Our reports are a...
..good start for companies and brands who wish to learn more about what the blogopshere means for them but the idea of an exhaustive lists or definitive number is a very different matter.
In today's Guardian, Mr Technorati - Dave Sifry - points to way in which the blogosphere is becoming more distributed: "More people are using blogs as a sort of conversational medium, as opposed to the long-winded 'here's my 500 to 1,000-word essay' medium." Which means that it is going to become more difficult - not less - to 'define' conversations.
While for any given subject, brand or issue there is very likely to be a hardcore of 'fans', some of whom will be more influential than others, there will also be a much greater number who are just passing. This may be because of their personal circumstances (such as a purchasing decision) or trends (such as the World Cup) or a recommendation (peer-to-peer). Now while those people aren't going to show up in any definitive survey their value to an organisation could be very high.
Like a lot of blog-related gubbins, the best-answer-to-date is a mixture of the blindingly obvious, the very subtle and the slighty scary. Only by reading, interacting and making valuable offers is it possible to really get to grips with what's making a web community tick. Everything else is like hearing about a party from a friend. Interesting and useful but at some point you just know you are going to have to grab a bottle and head along yourself.
Interested in clients' wanting to 'quantify' the blogosphere and the response viz 'conversations'. Good call. It's about quality not quantity. You can tell a lot about what someone/people think by listening to/reading what they say, not by counting how many times they say 'fish' or whatever.
Just like a 'normal' conversation, too, an online conversation takes it own path, has a kind of organic growth, is unpredictable. Question, do we think that the nature of online conversations will change/develop over time?
Posted by: kevin mclean | February 17, 2006 at 04:03 PM
You're right it can be tricky, but for most practical purposes it is possible to measure who is influential and who is not.
However, with a few topics I have found it close to impossible.
Posted by: Flemming Madsen | February 17, 2006 at 05:05 PM
interesting - which topics and why?
as a blognovice researcher, fascinated to read how 'influence' and 'authority' are defined online (your 'business blogging' pdf excellent)
can 'truthfulness' or 'honesty' also be taken into account - these being important qualities that we use in 'normal' (F2F) conversations?
Posted by: kevin mclean | February 20, 2006 at 12:10 PM