Say what you will about blogs and so-called noise and internet fads, whether you like to admit it or not, blogs fill gaps that traditional media - like books, newspapers, radio and magazines - can't always fill. Case in point: Neville Hobson's "Surely, Conventional Wisdom Can't Be Right" post in which he quotes Jeff Jarvis on the topic of books:

[…] "The problems with books are many: They are frozen in time without the means of being updated and corrected. They have no link to related knowledge, debates, and sources. They create, at best, a one-way relationship with a reader. They try to teach readers but don’t teach authors. They tend to be too damned long because they have to be long enough to be books. As David Weinberger taught me, they limit how knowledge can be found because they have to sit on a shelf under one address; there’s only way way to get to it. They are expensive to produce. They depend on scarce shelf space. They depend on blockbuster economics. They can’t afford to serve the real mass of niches. They are subject to gatekeepers’ whims. They aren’t searchable. They aren’t linkable. They have no metadata. They carry no conversation. They are thrown out when there’s no space for them anymore. Print is where words go to die." - Jeff Jarvis.

Okay, that last sentence may be a little harsh, and most definitely doesn't apply to things like fiction, philosophy or history textbooks, but when it comes to business books or relevant commentary on anything with a relatively rapid evolution - like Marketing, technology, science, web applications, audivisual design and yes, even PR - books are relevant for only a very short period of time, when they are relevant at all.

The advantages of blogs is that they address topic with minimal lag time (much like newspapers), create real conversations (check out Guy Kawasaki's blog, or Tom Peters', and you will notice a frenzy of comments following every post), link to each other in such a way that one topic will create either chains or clusters of posts on the same topic, some of which will bring different perspectives to one problem or issue. Other advantages are that they are universally available. You don't need to order them or go out and buy them. Most blogs are free. They are searchable by topic from any computer with an internet connection just about anywhere in the world. Thanks to blogs and wikis, topics, articles, posts and discussions are also archived basically forever. You don't need to keep stacks of earmarked old magazines or books or newspapers in boxes somewhere in the back of your garage. They're all just a click of the mouse away, just waiting to be found again when someone needs them.

Jeff Jarvis' "The Book Is Dead. Long Live The Book" article on Buzz Machine is an indirect testament to the power of blogs in this "new" age of almost unlimited access to information and commentary: 44 comments in the first three days, many of which were long and astute enough to stand on their own.

Speaking of Jeff, check out his piece on the apparent demise of newspapers here. Interesting stuff. On the one hand, content is now available on the web. On the other hand, advertisers (ads and classified ads) have been exploring greener pastures. Are blogs killing newspapers? No. But are they providing a substitute? In many ways, yes. Absolutely. To a certain extent, blogs have replaced traditional news media for an increasing amount of folks looking for either a fresher point of view, or one more in tune with their own. Newspapers can either try and fight this evolution, or roll with it, as did the Daily Telegraph just last year. (Check out how by clicking here.)

Whether traditional news organizations should be replaced by citizen journalism and blogs isn't really the issue. In a perfect world, both can (and should) co-exist. In many ways they can complement each other quite well. The issue here is one of medium. Of vehicle. Of tools. The issue isn't just one of relevance, it is also one of cost and convenience and access. As readers switch to online searches, their choices increase: Do they want to get their news from CNN.com or MSN.com? Would they rather access their local paper's .com site? Will they also look to other sites for insight on certain issues or events? (This could be world news, sports, or business or tech news. It doesn't matter.)

Mediasnackers (a new blog/project that focuses on how young people consume and create media across the globe) points us to a sobering article written by Merrill Brown for the Carnegie Reporter. Here are some of the highlights:

"The future course of the news, including the basic assumptions about how we consume news and information and make decisions in a democratic society are being altered by technology-savvy young people no longer wedded to traditional news outlets or even accessing news in traditional ways. In short, the future of the U.S. news industry is seriously threatened by the seemingly irrevocable move by young people away from traditional sources of news."

[...] " The dramatic shift in how young people access the news raises a question about how democracy and the flow of information will interact in the years ahead. Not only is a large segment of the population moving away from traditional news institutions, but there has also been an explosion of alternative news sources. Some have been assembled by traditional news organizations delivering information in print, on television and on the radio as well as via the Internet and mobile devices. Others include the thousands of blogs created by journalists, activists and citizens at large.

"Clearly, young people don't want to rely on the morning paper on their doorstep or the dinnertime newscast for up-to-date information; in fact, they—as well as others—want their news on demand, when it works for them. And, say many experts, in this new world of journalism, young people want a personal level of engagement and want those presenting the news to them to be transparent in their assumptions, biases and history."

Read the entire article (5 pages) here, and check out a great powerpoint presentation containing fascinating survey data here.

What of Citizen Journalism, then? I was just getting to that. Johnnie Moore touched on the issue this week in his "Public Insight Journalism" post, in which he quotes Michael Skoler, from Minnesota Public Radio:

"Our approach to citizen journalism is different from other news organizations. We are not turning over editorial control to our listeners and web readers in a separate section labeled citizens speak. Rather, we are embracing people in our audience and the public at large as smart, connected, engaged partners who often know more than we do. We bring their knowledge into the newsroom and into our daily reporting. In many ways, this is a more radical shift than simply handing the pen or the microphone to nonreporters...

"Public Insight Journalism has slowly won over most in our newsroom. First, because it regularly makes our coverage stronger. Second, because we are not abandoning the best of mainstream journalismour professional judgment, practices, ethics and standards of reporting but are instead deepening our reporting and judgment through the power of a vast network of sources. At its best, PIJ solves problems we journalists regularly face."

One thing to bear in mind is that humans are social animals. We love discussions. We love dialogue. We crave it. The only dialogue you'll find in a newspaper is the "letters to the editor section". Non-traditional media (like blogs and forums) provide an opportunity to hear multiple voices and points of view at once. It also allows anyone to participate in this discussion by leaving comments behind. (Don't underestimate the power that comes with providing opinionated people with an opportunity to be heard.)

Bottom-line: For many of us who take the time to aggregate/blogroll blogs on certain topics (like say... Marketing or Branding), spending ten minutes here and there during the day to check on what's new or what topics are being discussed is a lot more convenient than picking up a half dozen newspapers and reading a new Marketing book each week. (I don't have the time). Corante, for example is attempting to help business people accomplish that very task: We bring thought leaders together so that our readers can access a wealth of insight and information all from one place. Our editorials serve the purpose of further digesting these topics so that our readers don't necessarily have to browse through twenty or thirty daily posts.

Good blogs eliminate noise. They eliminate fluff. They provide astute commentary on relevant topics almost daily. They can be accessed or bypassed with one click of the mouse. They are instantaneously accessible whether you live in Paris, Houston, Hong Kong or Perth. They often point us to specific studies or resources that are as readily accessible from any internet-accessible workstation on the planet. Perhaps more importantly, blogs tend to be honest. Whether you agree with them or not, they present genuine opinions. They provide a refreshing sense of honesty and transparency. They don't represent big business. They tend to be written with the good of readers in mind, which goes a long way to earning the trust and interest of the majority of their readership. Great blogs provide an easily accessible, well packaged daily dose of wisdom and insight which - contrary to popular opinion - isn't noise or fluff. They educate, inspire and engage.

For free.

One little post at a time.

One opinion at a time.

Check the stats. In our little world of Marketing and smart Business, how many people read Guy Kawaski's blog daily? Seth Godin's? Tom Peters'?

How many of them prefer reading blogs to reading newspapers or books (even if they do all three)? If someone already has numbers, I would sure love to see them. (This presentation is a good start.)

On that fine note, I'll put the topic squarely in your able hands (yes you, our readers). Feel free to add your two cents and continue the conversation (here or on your own blogs - or both) or, "le cas echeant" - as we say in the old country, have the last word...

Have a great Tuesday, everyone. :)

Hi everyone. My laptop problems are finally resolved, which means I can finally post again. (It's a good thing.) Today, we're going to take a quick look at online communities and some of the new tools and trends that are emerging from the digitalization of our hardwired pack behavior. (I would love for Grant McCracken to give us his take on all of this.)

Lois Kelly starts us off with a brief but telling study about communities (online or otherwise), and how our "social creature" nature allows our peers to affect our tastes and purchasing habits. The question, of course, is this:

"Are online customer communities an undervalued marketing approach?

A new research study released today by Communispace, “What Companies Gain from Listening: The Effect of Community Membership on Members’ Attitudes and Behavior in Relation to the Sponsoring Company,” found that:

* 82 percent of the surveyed community members said they were more likely to recommend a company’s products since joining its community.
* 76 percent felt more positively about the company.
* 75 percent felt more respect for the company.
* 63 percent said that membership had increased their trust of the company.
* 52 percent were more inclined to purchase products from the company.

Why do communities affect people so much? One reason may be that it provides a way for people to talk with a company and feel heard: 91 percent said they felt that their community allowed them to give candid feedback and suggestions to the company."

Mike Manuel also points us to a new peer-based reputation system called RapLeaf, which apparently just launched this weekend. Here's some of what Mike has to say about how it works, and why it is useful to us:

"The major search engines, like Yahoo and Google, are crawling and aggregating the bread crumbs of our digital selves, our digital reputations, making this info discoverable to anyone who seeks it, while the vertical search engines, like Technorati and Sphere, are taking it a step further by focusing on blog content and assigning authority and relevancy metrics to that.

To me, RapLeaf's service seems like the next logical step in this progression, where real-world feedback and offline sentiment can now be combined with algorithmic metrics and online measures to capture and represent one's reputation. I think the message this sends to PR practitioners, particularly consultants and agency folks, is the obvious one: that you're the keeper of your reputation, manage it diligently, or face the consequences. Write a bad press release, the world can see it. Send a bad pitch, the world can see it. And if you act unethically, the world can now see that too."

Read his whole post here. It's well worth it.

Along the same lines, check out how network-based models of communications are changing the world of poltics here. (Thanks to Chris Carfi's heads-up, and John Lebowski & Zach Rosen's insights.)

The table that illustrates the differences between traditional and network-based models is as brilliant as it is simple. Definitely spend a few minutes checking it out, as it is very similar to how network-based models affect consumer behavior as well.

That's it for today. Have a great Wednesday, everyone. :)