Blogs On Target: Missing The Point?

[Chris]

For a few days now, the latest Internet goof-up being linked by news sites and IM’ers alike has been focused on Target.com. Since early last week, people have been finding questionable products featured on Target’s website. As links to these pages make their way around the Internet, the blogosphere was quick with its commentary. However, did some bloggers jump the gun when criticizing Target?

The pages that brought attention to Target.com were for products that some might not expect to see available from a family-oriented business. One such page intimated that Target.com was offering illegal drugs, while another had more of an adult theme associated with it. Links to these pages have been showing up on a number of popular blogs, like BoingBoing.net; and news sites, like Fark.com.

Because word travels around the Internet at an incredible rate, it wasn’t long before a number of notable blogs began taking Target to task for featuring this type of content. WebProNews contributor and blogger extraordinaire Steve Rubel had this comment about Target’s oversight, “Dear Target, a PR crisis is brewing for your company in the blogosphere. Please tell me you're listening.” Steve’s blog entry was not the only one either.

The reason why Target’s online inventory may contain questionable content is because Amazon.com powers Target’s site. This means that two companies share databases, and therefore, inventory. These “questionable” products appearing on Target.com are a result of Amazon.com’s inventory (the product in the “illegal drugs” link above is a book). A better explanation appears on NoahBrier.com, courtesy of Adam Kalsey:

“Apparently this isn’t a test data problem. It’s a problem with not enough product details and the way the ecommerce system’s back end works. The item in question is a book that Amazon carries, but Amazon has no details on the book. Since Target.com is managed by Amazon, many of the products sold by Amazon can be forced to show in the Target.com design; just tack the ASIN from Amazon onto the Target URL. For instance, you buy Isaac Mizrahi cashmere gloves from Target.com even though your local Target [doesn’t] carry this item.

When the book is shown on Amazon, it’s obvious that Amazon is selling a book entitled ‘Marijuana,’ but when shown through Target’s interface it just looks like they’re selling pot.”

Blogger Jeremy Zawondy took issue with what he perceived as jumping the gun and devoted a blog entry toward explaining his position. The entry, called Are bloggers really that dumb, says, “It's a stupid mistake. Are we too screwed up to realize that companies are composed of people and that people sometimes make mistakes?” Jeremy continued with, “I suspect that if someone bothered to tell them about the problem instead of using this as an opportunity to blame their PR folks for not reading blogs, they probably would have fixed it and gone on with life. Making fun of them on your blog is all well and good, but calling this a crisis strikes me as being over the top.”

This led to a bigger disagreement across quite a few blogs over the influence of the blogosphere. Some believe, with some justification, that bloggers do have an effect on company procedure. This train of thought would be supported by the blogs started by the search engines. Since it’s inception, the MSN Search Blog has been used as a good source of public feedback for the company’s search engineers.

However, there are those believe that the blogosphere has no influence. This is evident by many of the comments accompanying Steve Rubel’s blog entry. Concerning Target.com, Robert Scoble, commenting on Steve’s site, had this to say:

“With every hour that a representative of Target doesn't come here or any of the other blogs involved at this point it just demonstrates they don't know how to do searches on their company name on PubSub, Feedster, or Technorati and that they haven't dedicated anyone to watch what people are saying about them online.”

Although, the fact that they haven’t reinforces the belief that bloggers don’t have as much influence as they think, according to the people who disagree with Steve and Robert. How much influence do you think bloggers have?

[jay.kallam]

Enough about blogs already... I still don't understand what all the hype is about. 99% of blogs could disappear tomorrow, and 99% of Internet users would hardly notice. I agree that bloggers don't have the kind of influence that they think they have. People that write blogs are typically the people that read blogs. I can assure you that the large majority of the public still doesn't even know what a blog is, and even those that do know, like me for example, still turn to more reliable sources for news and information.

The inherent problem with a blog is the same quality that makes bloggging so popular: Anybody can do it, anytime, and they can say anything they want. It's like a chat room for people that like to write, but there is no moderator. No one validates what bloggers have to say, and without any system of checks and balances, the majority of blogger information could be ignorantly false, a biased opinion, or simply a lie. Although it seems like a good way to generate links for a website, blogging is essentially nothing more than a high tech version of a tabloid. So, sure, the Target.com information was obviously true and it might seem like a breaking news story... to bloggers. However, when it's all said and done, nobody is going to scan blogs for information because very few people (in the grand scheme of marketing) USE blogs for information. On top of that, THEN you must consider that the subset of those bloggers that actually care about Target.com selling a book about drugs or an adult oriented toy is almost non-existent. Companies react to things that will affect the bottom line, and blog rumors clearly don't.

[acornwebworks]

I think you're being generous. I would have said that 100% of blogs could disappear and 99.9% of Internet users wouldn't even notice :-)

That Steve guy's arrogance really cracked me up. He honestly believes that Target should have noticed his blog...and responded to what he wrote. His blog is important, after all. Everyone knows about it and reads it except for the ignorant who don't know how to search. Hmmmmm. I taught a class in blogging and I didn't point people to his blog. I wonder what's wrong with me?

Do any of you remember that old Doonesbury years ago where the guy who is the minister (I never remember any of the characters' names) set up a daily sermon website and someone asked him about it. He said that it was getting a million hits a day. The other person says "Wow! That's great! How do you know? Do you have a hit counter or something?" And the guy said "No. But it stands to reason."

That's what I think about the delusions of grandeur that some of the bloogers have.

[Chris]

incidentally,,,

target removed the offending product page. :)

[williamc]

Originally Posted by CRich

incidentally,,,

target removed the offending product page. :)

Most likely due to the email they were sent, not to any blog.

[BertMoore]

Perhaps the question that should be asked first is, "How much influence should bloggers have?"

Self-appointed commentators, whether in print/broadcast or online, always believe their opinions must count because, after all, they've expressed them.

As a print columnist and editor of several e-newsletters, I say, "baloney!" Opinions are opinions. They may be right, wrong, fuzzy, confused, misguided, malicious, or even ridiculous.

At least with print and broadcast media, the commentator can be held somewhat accountable by advertisers and public opinion. What controls are there on bloggers?

The Internet allows us to disseminate false information at the speed of light. It doesn't make it any more true, it just makes it false faster.

Should bloggers (or any commentator) command the attention of major corporations or the government? Individually, no (there are just too many of them). Collectively, they can provide a finger on the pulse of what the public is being told (right or wrong). Corporations and government agencies should respond to bloggers (as well as incorrect traditional media reports) on their own sites.

If some bloggers feel slighted because they're not "special" enough to get a personal response from everyone they criticize, maybe it's time they realized that they're just not as special as they'd like to believe.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by williamc

Most likely due to the email they were sent, not to any blog.

and where did the person who wrote the email find the link? probably not from a target.com related search.

[jawn_tech]

incidentally,,,

target removed the offending product page. :)

Drat. I had my credit card ready, too.

I agree blogs don't stand up as tall as one would hope in people's eyes. They do have a place in marketing for customer retention and building a client base. In other ways, their influence is localized to the group that participates, without much clout to the outside world. But when something 'big' starts stirring in a blog, if those bloggers shoot out emails, it has the potential to get the word out...it all depends, case by case. One thing I do appreciate about blogs -- well the internet in general, is the very fact that anyone can set one up (with the right know-how), and share their opinion with the world on a large scale. What gets me is when a whole page of a newspaper is devoted to 3 or 4 "professional commentaries" who make a living at having an opinion. My mailman's view of politics or society is worth more to me than theirs, imho.

Blogs by themselves may or may not have weight. But compounded with other internet outlets of public opinion, surely. I think it's more of a collaberation of the internet community, ie the newsletters, websites, blogs, emails, and forums like WPW that carries weight -- thus getting Target's attention.

[hmoulding]

Blogging isn't new. What's new is the technology people are using. The technology has created a virtual community, and what we're seeing is members of that community acting in the way people normally act to promote that community. You hear about the same stuff when people cheer for their favorite sports team, or carry on about their nation's contributions to humanity.

In fact, what CRich observed isn't new, either. Bloggers have been chest-pounding for some time. Back when Dean was running for USA president, there was a lot of noise and heat being generated since this Dean guy was apparently tapping into these unguessed at reservoirs of activism by using bloggers and cell phones and stuff. And later during the campaign there was that incident with the CBS/Dan Rather/GWBush military service memo, where bloggers went so far as to call the regular media obsolete. I'm sure there were other cases that I've not heard of.

Eventually people will settle down and start treating blogs as what they really are: online bull-etin boards, where the principal content is described by the name.

[cryptblade]

My first year in college I took a intro class to economics and the prof was cool - made econ somewhat palatable. He told us that he fantasized about doing this experiment: have all of us line up early, in front of a bank, before it opens. Every passerby will see what is going on and will likely line up too. Before long, a whole mob will line up ready to take their money out of the bank and a panic will ensue. What's the point? Mob mentality. Just look at the forums here and the alarm sounded over Trafficpower - remember them?

Granted they deserved their bad rep, but the same kind of bad rep could apply to a perfectly good company like Target - if enough mob mentality spilled over.

Do bloggers themselves have all that much influence? Maybe not, but if enough of them build a negative image, it could jade the general perception of the public. If enough of them generate a buzz, the blog buzz gets picked up by legitimate sources and before long, a company like Target could indeed get a messy PR situation on their hands.

Savvy companies will pick up on monitoring blogs and see their potential, much like Microsoft using their blogs to help improve their search engine. If Microsoft has enough foresight to use blogs that way, how long before that becomes how companies interact with customers? I could even see some companies using blogs as an open forum with customers. Maybe a company will use it for market research - test out a marketing campaign and then ask for feedback. It may not work now, but certainly could be once blogs are better known.

I think blogs can become dangerous with a mob mentality. They may not be prominent now, but the kids coming up from college, high school, etc. are probably much more savvy with blogs than most of us here. I know if you have an account on myspace.com, along with your profile, you get blog space to dish out your rants or dirt. Myspace is mostly populated by youngsters - who as they grow older, will be savvy and tuned in to the blogosphere, ergo, blogs will become more dangerous when in a mob mentality.

[urknighterrent]

What's a blog?

Ohhhh yeah, I remember. A bunch of completely unaccountable, opinionated, know-it-alls with agendas tagged to their sleeves whos titanic egos are in part fueled by Googles ridiculous addiction to their links.

Thanks again Google.

[iknowjack]

What we are all doing right now? Expressing our opinions!! Wow what a concept. Ok. Ok. I may or may not know jack... who cares. I think bloggers are a great asset as far as allowing people to freely speak their minds without consequence. Yes... That can be good or bad depending on whether you agree with the opinion or if the person who is bloggin really has a clue as to what they are bloggin about. Is it really any different than conversations with friends, coworkers, or even most biased public newspapers. You are going to hear many sides of every story and you still have to make up your own mind as to what is or isn't true. I personally don't see the problem if you want to read blogs (along with other forms of info collectively) and use the information to help gain information. Just my 2 cents or maybe it was 50 cents.

[janeth]

Originally Posted by cryptblade

Do bloggers themselves have all that much influence? Maybe not, but if enough of them build a negative image, it could jade the general perception of the public. If enough of them generate a buzz, the blog buzz gets picked up by legitimate sources and before long, a company like Target could indeed get a messy PR situation on their hands.

I agree 100%, bloggers do carry weight just because there are so many of them. If I do a search and find 10 people all saying the samething it would tend to make me think it was true.

[csomervi]

So someone said:

"...demonstrates they don't know how to do searches on their company name on PubSub, Feedster, or Technorati..."

Well, I've been in software since 1977 and have used Compuserve in the '80s, and some form or other of the Internet since around 1990 (FTP at first - the Web later when it came along) and I search the Web for (real) information all the time these days, and I've never heard of PubSub, Feedster, or Technorati. (OK - now I have.)

What I have seen of blogs recently makes me think of a large whiteboard and some markers placed out in a downtown public square. If any fool can write something there, then any fool will write something there.

I agree with most of the earlier posters - some of the more vocal bloggers have very inflated opinions of their sites' significance.

And by the way: "What we are all doing right now? Expressing our opinions..." Well yes, but this is not a blog - it's a topic-specific, moderated, registered user forum - such as has existed since before the Web (on Compuserve and the like).

[rlmrdl]

Originally Posted by BertMoore

Perhaps the question that should be asked first is, "How much influence should bloggers have?"

[snip]
At least with print and broadcast media, the commentator can be held somewhat accountable by advertisers and public opinion. What controls are there on bloggers?

The Internet allows us to disseminate false information at the speed of light. It doesn't make it any more true, it just makes it false faster.

Should bloggers (or any commentator) command the attention of major corporations or the government? Individually, no (there are just too many of them). Collectively, they can provide a finger on the pulse of what the public is being told (right or wrong). Corporations and government agencies should respond to bloggers (as well as incorrect traditional media reports) on their own sites.

If some bloggers feel slighted because they're not "special" enough to get a personal response from everyone they criticize, maybe it's time they realized that they're just not as special as they'd like to believe.

Nice points Bert, some thoughts. The whole should issue is not relevant, there is no-one to enforce our influence anyway so unless we can attract enough attention and agreement, the influence will not exist, and if we can attract enough, the influence will be undeniable, its always been like that, the net doesn't change it.

The idea of an accountable media is very thin. Its increasing failures to explain or investigate or even question the statements of the powers that be are a serious danger to our civil society, as someone who spent 25 years inside the broadcast media, I know how that stuff works and right now, it isn't.

The speed of false information has always been stunning, Shakespeare noted that a lie could make its way round the world faster than truth could get its boots on. The politicians and professional liars like advertising agencies have relied on this for a long time. The difference with blogs is that they CAN fact check the lies faster than before. That it still doesn't make a huge difference is a sign of the blogosphere's limited influence right now. Will it be ever thus? Who knows, watch this space.

As for slighted bloggers, exactly, they should get a life.

However, as you say it is a valid point that blogs, wikis, online communities offer an excellent opportunity, along with a decent search engine, to keep an eye on what is being said about you. Most of it is noise, but hidden in that noise is sometimes a rocket heading your way, and the transition can be very fast. Just ask trent Lott.

[rlmrdl]

I'm interested at the level of defensiveness that is being posted here. Lots of time spent tucking into "blogs" and the people who write them. It sounds a lot like shooting the messenger and overlooking the real business effects of what has happened. In defense of blogging therefore:

Note that many "legitimate" websites are now generating RSS feeds. Why did this happen? Because the preferred tool for reading blogs is an aggregator and the number of people using aggregators, and presumably also getting a significant proportion of their information from them, has reached the point where ther NYTimes and WaPo feel that it is in their interest to provide those feeds.

Feeds which, incidentally, strip out the advertising that is the supposed revenue generator for the business. Hmm, powerful media providing revenue free services; are they worried about something perhaps?

There's talk of MS using blogs to garner feedback for their software, but that doesn't need a blog, it could be done right here on a bulletin board. Now enabling its staff to have their own blogs, like Joshua Allen at Better Living Through Software, that's an innovation for a big company, one that is trying to get on the Cluetrain and have a conversation with its customers.

Plenty of slagging off of the quality of the content on blogs. But that quality is highly variable, as are mainstream media stories and the postings on this board, at least one of which was so inflammatory that it was removed. The best blogs make damned fine sources of information, more importantly they make damned fine filters and analysers of that information, just like the "legitimate" media, except that they are fact checked to hell and back by their readers. A bit like Dan Rather.

But its not the content that really matters, its the connections. Someone whines about Google, but google only measures the internet currency you hold, the blogs would not rise to the top so often unless they were actively linked from other people who find them interesting and worth recommending to others. If you depend on Google for good information, maybe you should stop trying to second guess it and see what its flow offers you.

Page Rank is what its about, Technorati does something similar, as does AllConsuming.net and as those whiteboarded opinions are subjected to the relentless and merciless forces of the online marketplace, some of them float to the top and their rate of propagation rises rapidly. Isn't that what SEO is supposed to do?

The successful link attractors make it to the general consciousness. And it doesn't matter that bloggers were wrong about Target selling dope, what they did was expose a business problem in the way that Target and Amazon have configured their online relationship. Bloggers may not have a lot of influence, but the first soccer mum to log into Target and find it apparently selling porn or dope, will damned soon have some influence; maybe Target needs a better way of listening to its own voice on the net. Maybe blogs are the answer.

You have to stand back a little to witness the blogosphere and its dicussions, they are like real world ones, they don't happen at your end or mine, but in the space between us, and the space between our ears. From a human perspective they are nothing new, we do conversation fairly well.

From a networked technology perspective, however, they are new, and from an information ownership and propagation perspective, they are a pointer to a very interesting, and much less controllable, future.

So lighten up folks, better still, start a blog, you may be surpised

[Jim Kukral]

Originally Posted by jay.kallam

Enough about blogs already... I still don't understand what all the hype is about. 99% of blogs could disappear tomorrow, and 99% of Internet users would hardly notice.

Interesting thought, but wrong. Here's a little stat you should know.

"Blogging's share of Web traffic has grown from
2% in 2003, to 5% in 2004." - Forrester Research

Do you have any idea how much 5% of all web traffic is? It's not small, regardless of the stat you take it from.

Still think blogs are hype?

[jawn_tech]

I think any form of communication via the internet should not be taken lightly, including blogs. In this particular case, blogs played the largest role in causing a company to react. This raises 2 questions in my mind. One, can they repeat this at any time, such as going after other companies? And two, is this a demonstration of the strength of blogs exclusively, or rather does credit go much broader in that it is a form of internet communication? No doubt in my mind that blogs acting collectively can create influence, because blogs are made up of people communicating on the internet. What if it was a different medium, such as emails, or forums, or webmasters acting collectively -- could they achieve the same result?

IMO, yes. It's a victory for the internet, and not necessarily one form over another. Even one website can raise a rucus -- recall the two lawyers who operated a news website that took on CBS in the forged documents scandal. Another example of internet communication are the infamous forwarded emails of urban legends that precipitate in sites like factorfiction.com to dispell them. Countless companies issue announcements to dispute their claims, such as McDonald's, Pepsi, etc. I don't think one blog alone could achieve that effect, but it would have to be a collaboration of many -- just like anything else.

[Rigged]

I remember a few years back when a company called eToys.com set up shop and began selling toys online.

There was already a website called eToy.com which was a group of artists in Switzerland and Austria doing some very interesting things with web technology. I was one of their early eToy.TANK subscribers.

eToys tried to force eToy to give up their web address claiming that it violated their commercial trademark and so began the "ToyWars." The eToy.com domain was shut down while the matter was in dispute. The eToy community went ballistic.

The eToy group began a massive email campaign, contacting their entire member list and asking people to buy "Culture Stocks" to fund their legal battle. Simultaniously, they waged a "viral" email campaign (encouraging people to send the email to everyone on their address lists) against eToys to the point where not enough people would buy their products to keep them in business.

EToys went broke fighting the force of the internet and conceded defeat. eToy got their domain back.

You can still visit eToy.com. They have art and cultural activities going on all over the world, funded by loyal stockholders.

Blogs can have the same effect, and are more efficient since you don't have to send the whole message, just a link to it.

Dan Rather resigned last week in part because he released a document on his CBS 60 Minutes show that turned out to be a forgery. It was a blog, "Power Line" that was apparently the first to uncover the fake: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

A company of any size, and a person of any importance would be smart to check the internet for any positive or negative buzz being generated about them.

Blogs (and email) are the force, and if the force isn't with you, you're toast.

With power like that, bloggers have a reponsibility to get the facts straight.

[espectations]

Very interesting points but I can only speak of what I experience and my experience with blogs have not been bad.

Firstly, I could not convince my clients to set up a forum on their site but they were more than willing to post on a blog - note the difference was explained in detail. I think the reason is the amount of work involved - with blogging they do not have to moderate.....human beings are lazy by nature...

Secondly with blogging, we incorporated it into their sites with the same look and feel and they like to log in and do their weekly bit.....it is so easy to use for people that do not want to spend money on CMS systems - please also note that we have in general Technophobes in South Africa being 4 years behind the rest of the world in many ways....

Thirdly and this is a good one - actually was just an experiment - blog set up on 28 February - first sale in real estate in October this year - this gave the estate agent enough income so that we could design his own site which will be done......

Besides the above it served all my sites well from a PR point of view and I got quite a number of compliments on the blogs we run.....they (being the targeted audiences) seem to like what they see.

So let me see - branding, PR, traffic and actual sales - are those not positive points?

BTW we also do RSS feeds and it is all working well driving qualified traffic to our sites - how do we know - well all in the stats....

Just my two pence - as long as it works like this, I will keep blogging!

[activeco]

Originally Posted by iknowjack

What we are all doing right now?

LOL

[stevieod]

Bloggers are so full of themselves it is unbelievable! While it is OK to bleat like so many sheep, it is much like braying out in a empty pasture with only the cow pies to listen. It is time for these people to wake up and figure out for themselves that the mainstream (Life in General) does not and cares not what they blog about. Get a life, or if you are really worked up about whatever you are worked up about, write to people who would care and could do something about it. It is sad however to note that the mainstream publications do not allow public discussions that would interfere with their ad revenue stream. But if there are enough bloggers out there, perhaps the shear weight will push through. In any case, blog if you wish, but make yourselves heard if you truly wish to make a difference.

[cryptblade]

It seems to me a lot of you agree that there are some bloggers who think they are more important than they really are, but that you cannot deny the aggregate effect of blogging.

I think the jaded, anti-bloggers are the ones who dislike the self-appointed, know-it-all, guru-experts who may have jumped the gun on Target, for example.

But that's exactly the point. Blogs ARE significant because we are discussing if blogs jumped the gun on Target. Blogs did jump the gun and started linking and passing the word.

It seems to me blogs are like an online version of that telephone game. You get a group of people to line up and start from one end to the other. You say "Grape juice stains white table cloths" and by the end of the line you get "Staples inside cans make metal sheets sell" There is an aggregate, mob effect with blogs. That's potentially dangerous if left unchecked. That's why companies, organizes, entities need to be wary of blogs - in fact be educated about blogs.

I think most bloggers are blathers, and it seems to me many bloggers are youngsters from teens to mid-20's, and usually talk a whole lot about nothing.

But these are also the ones who like the gossip shows, reality TV (not necessarily the lame-adult network programs), and they also like scandal. Most Americans do - and when Target has a SNAFU like the anal massage thing on their website, within the medium of the Internet, Target is a free target (no pun intended at all, really). Clearly there is no accountability and that is the sad part with blogs. It is, after all, an opinion and even if it slanders a person or company or other entity, an opinion is an opinion and a blogger is not accountable.

But to discount the aggregate mob potential that blogs have is dangerous. I think most bloggers won't care to jump on anyone or thing if they maintain integrity (perceived integrity). Imagine if the blogosphere was as big now during the Enron thing? Imagine if some of the accountants doing the audits ended up talking about it in their blogs? Maybe Enron's fall would have taken more companies with it?

Companies and we as online industry professionals, need to take into account the good potential of blogs as well as the bad.

I maintain that blogs absolutely have a place in companies' portfolio of media.

[flashfast]

It never ceases to amaze me how sex and drugs thrill the mind in this country like no other. Janet jackson losing a strap was front page news. A book on Marijhuana is called 'questionable' content and like a bushfire races away out of control. I only recently tried subscribing to blogs (via RSS software) and after a week deleted all but one.It seems to me that all these words are devoted to the very minutae of life, while real news goes largely ignored. I just wonder that people have so much time to read blogs, and wonder even more at the time spent writing this mostly worthless, puerile and self-indulgent rubbish.

[cryptblade]

It's just occurred to me how much all of this is rubbish. Is the world really, really paying attention to bloggers and really care about what bloggers have to say?

After all, Merriam-webster's dictionary definition of blog is: "online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer"

Most blogs are still just that - an online personal journal with an individual's thoughts, comments, and reflections. Specialized "professional-interest" blogs are good, but hardly prolific and hardly market-moving. Steve Rubel crying wolf that a PR crisis is brewing is his own inflated ego and sense of self-importance. But that's okay because it's HIS reflections and comments - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It's the gossip-mill nature of blogging that has attracted all this attention even on WPW.

I think this all means that companies, while they SHOULD pay attention to bloggers (as they would with customer feedback), should still take bloggers with a grain of salt.

[Rigged]

Merriam-Webster reports that the the word "blog" was the most searched-for word on their web dictionary in the past year. It's their "Word of the Year."

"Blog" isn't in their print dictionaries yet, but will be next year.

I would say that indicates that people are noticing blogs.

Bloggers were invited to attend the presidential conventions along with establish journalists.

That indicates that some bloggers have acheived the status of professional journalists.

Most bloggers are just writing their personal journals and opinions. Some bloggers do good, professional journalism that ends up making news.

A blog is small and insignificant, like a lit match.

[cryptblade]

Originally Posted by Rigged

A blog is small and insignificant, like a lit match.

Nice. I like that. But a lit match is still small and insignificant. It's dangerous in 2 ways - it burns the fingers of the person holding the match, or it starts a fire when dropped into something flammable (dry brush or gasoline). You need a catalyst to turn the match into something dangerous.

Yes there are good blogs out there. Most are rants. These journalists could easily have started their won site - except it's easier and economical with a blog.

The fact that "blog" was a highly searched word means most people DON'T KNOW what a blog is. No one looks up the word "telephone" - we know what it is.

I think blogs are a legitimate communication medium and should be developed, cultivated, nurtured, etc. But it seems a lot of people are jumping the gun. Bloggers and their inflated sense of self-importance, greedy or desparate or both marketers/advertisers looking to exploit and commercialize blogs - i think all are jumping the gun way too early.

[acornwebworks]

I haven't read anything so far that would make me change my assessment that 100% of blogs could disappear right now and 99.9% of web users wouldn't notice.

Yes, there are 'important' blogs run by people acting as true professionals, e.g. checking facts, searching for breaking news, trying to put their finger on the pulse of this or that. And astute readers keep them on their toes.

There are other blogs that some people think are important simply because the person writing says what the reader wants to hear, no matter how biased or silly or downright wrong. These blogs can definitely have power because they reinforce beliefs. Their readers don't bother checking the validity of 'facts' because they want to belief what they read. Their 'importance' is in that they will be quoted as 'reliable sources' when, indeed, they aren't. Newspaper columnists often serve the same purpose. They can make statements that do not have to be backed up by fact, then their statement becomes the basis for other people's conclusions. Their opinion becomes the 'fact'. It is these blogs that can lead to mob mentality...but the mob already exists and the blogs simply cater to the mob's predisposition to certain beliefs.

And then there's the rest of the blogs. (Heck, one forum participant has raved about the traffic he receives from his blog and how we should all do it, but then complains that his traffic never converts to sales and doesn't know how to change that.)

Steve Blake's ego-driven response to Target not responding directly to him reminds me of Alexander Solzynitsyn's "triumphant" railroad tour of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He truly expected to be given a hero's welcome. He truly expected to be elected President. But as his train crossed Russia and he made stop after stop, he was stunned to discover something quite different: almost no one knew who he was and even fewer cared. (He was an unpleasant jerk to boot.)

Blogs can be used as important tools...just like a really good website. Too often they are simply wastes of bandwidth...like a lot of websites.

The importance of blogs is never going to be more than the importance of forums or the importance of websites or the importance of search engines and so forth. Blogs will simply be a component of what's really important...the INTERNET.

As far as this being different when the kids today who grew up with blogs become adults? Don't hold your breath. I remember when it became easy to make a website and a lot of then teens did so. Most of those sites have been left by the wayside and haven't been updated in years. I not only have grandkids, all of whom have their own computers and who are 16, 12, and 7, but I teach people computer skills and I volunteer through work at a local public school helping with kids in their computer lab. Trust me. Most are not 'savvy surfers' and never will be. Most have no interests in blogs and never will. The Internet to them is just like TV and books...something that's there and that they take for granted...and that they want to be entertained by My 16 year old IMs her friends, then they go driving in her car. The 12 year old plays online games when she's not reading. The 7 year old could care less...he prefers playing with his Gamecube and PS2. Kids aren't intimidated by computers but they certainly don't spend time becoming 'experts' and becoming savvy requires actually spending time *learning* stuff, not just *doing* stuff. If all you are doing is spending time going to, say, archiecomics.com to play their games, you aren't going to become a 'savvy searcher' or a computer whiz. It's just like a car...most of us drive them and don't think twice about it, but most of us also haven't a clue of how to fix them ourselves or how to become racecar or stunt drivers. They are a tool. Period. And most of us don't care.

We're on a specialized forum and so it's understandable that some participants would have a skewed view of the world. We are spending time trying to learn specific things for specific reasons. But we shouldn't assume that an elephant is long, skinny and wiggly just because we are blind and are only feeling its trunk.

[flashfast]

Though not wanting to become political I have to take umbrage to this:
"...some bloggers have acheived the status of professional journalists...Some bloggers do good, professional journalism that ends up making news."

Prrofessional journalism? What is that? What makes the news? I'd love to hear from some real journalists but they are gagged by the mainstream media (case in point: Amy Goodman, Greg Palast, John Pilger etc. etc. et al). If a blogger is invited to a presidential campaign, then I'll guarantee they are good at disinformation or spreading the usual propoganda.

But who cares anymore? Recently the US government announced it was legal in military courts to present evidence gained from torture. As a consequence torture now, says the Red Cross, is becoming a pandemic all over the world and an accepted practice - their reasoning? If the US does it why can't we?

So now we live in a state where anyone can be arrested and jailed for years without trial, and be tortured.

Inquisition anyone?