Looking for Something?
New Media Expo Blog
Navigation
  • Archive by Category "Op-Ed"
    • (  »   Page 4)
Browsing Category

Op-Ed

TechCrunch and AOL: Is Selling Your Blog a Mistake?

Author:

When AOL bought TechCrunch back in 2010, it seemed like the perfect pairing. Some were skeptical, but Mike Arrington really seemed pumped about it and encouraged the TechCrunch community to be too, particularly in the post Why We Sold TechCrunch To AOL, And Where We Go From Here. Oh what a difference a year makes, right? I don’t think anyone at TechCrunch in 2010 would have suspected the drama that was to come in 2011. If things don’t change, TechCrunch might even fail.

So was selling the blog a mistake?

Financially, it’s hard to argue that it was. The widely-reported sale price was $25 million (though some believe it was much higher), and while TechCrunch’s popularity means that this money could potentially be made back in just a few short years, the acquisition was still a risk on AOL’s part. So while you can always argue that something was worth more, for argument’s sake, let’s say that TechCrunch did pretty well. I mean, the deal wouldn’t have been signed if both parties weren’t happy with the sale price, right?

What bloggers know to be true, though, is that blogging is about way more than money. I think that’s the key that most companies buying blogs are still missing.

AOL is a large corporation. Their main goal is to make money. Someone like Arianna Huffington has no personal attachment to TechCrunch, and I don’t fault her for that. Why should she? Why should anyone who wasn’t there to build TechCrunch from scratch? TechCrunch isn’t AOL’s baby, it’s blood, sweat, and tears. TechCrunch was…and is…a business investment.

For many of the writers there, TechCrunch is a home. I think most bloggers feel that way. It’s easy to sell a house. It’s hard to sell a home. So when someone says, “We’re going to buy this house, but you can still live here,” it is easy to keep thinking of it as your home.

Only it’s no longer yours, not really.

It’s more like you’re renting the house. You can make it as cozy as a home, but the landlord can come in and paint the walls a color you hate, tear down the deck, or even evict you. Your lease agreement only protects you so much.

When you sell your blog, it doesn’t matter what kind of off-the-record promises were made. Tomorrow, the company that purchases your blog could make decisions that you don’t like, and when that happens, you don’t have any control to stop it. That’s the risk you take when you sell. True editorial independence no longer exists. Even if you have this freedom, it is only because your overlords are allowing it. Your kitchen walls are still that beautiful shade of red you adore because the landlord is allowing it. Tomorrow, the house’s owner could be in a yellow mood. They can change their minds.

And they will, if they think it’s the best choice for their business investment. They haven’t “grown up” with the blog, so they don’t always make the best choices in terms of the community or design or even content. They make the best decisions in terms of money, or so they think. Personally, I feel that any blog ruled by money won’t succeed, at least not to its full potential. That’s not necessarily for me to say, though.Everyone defines success differently.

If you sell your blog, you don’t get to make the decisions anymore. You can dole out advice or even make threats to discontinue your involvement with the blog…but you can’t stop the train once it is moving. Selling your blog is that first chug-a-lug without you as a conductor.

Bloggers can be a stubborn bunch – and I’m definitely including myself in that statement. What a corporation suggests might not be a bad idea, but changes can be scary. It’s really easy to feel the urge to push back whenever anyone suggests that you’re doing something wrong or could be doing something better, especially if you’re already pretty successful. “That’s not how we do things around here.” Well, it is now. When you sell, there are changes that will be made. Even if you think you’re doing the best possible job, outsiders with a different perspective won’t always agree.

So is selling your blog a bad idea?

Yes – if you think it’s going to continue moving forward the exact same way as it is under your leadership. TechCrunch will never be the same. No sold blog is the same afterward. No matter what the terms of the sale, things are going to change. Those changes could be good, if you give them a chance. They could also be horribly wrong, and you could see your baby fail. In my opinion, you shouldn’t sell unless you’re prepared to walk away, enjoy the money, and fondly remember your blog how it was, no matter what it has become.

TechCrunch is not “Too Big To Fail”

Author:

TechCrunch certainly has been dominating headlines recently. I’m having a hard time keeping up.

The quick run-down for those of you also having trouble staying up-to-date: Mike Arrington quit. Or was fired. Or was forced out. No one seems to have a straight answer on that one, but in any case, he’s gone, but he already is sparring with new editor Erick Schonfeld and talking about his next project. Writer Paul Carr quit in what is either a blaze of glory or grandstanding, depending who you ask, by posting his resignation letter on the blog. Schonfeld accepted his resignation in what is either a justified response or unprofessional virtual middle finger, depending who you ask, by posting a response on the blog. Arianna Huffington lashed out at the Wall Street Journal for “shoddy journalism” when covering the TechCrunch drama. By the time I’m done writing this post, who knows what else will happen. There seems to be no shortage of people who want to make news.

The opinion I find most interesting in this crazy story, though, is that of MG Sigler, who has been writing for TechCrunch since 2009. He remained silent for a while, watching the craziness unfold over the past few weeks, but finally felt the need to post his point of view on his personal blog in a post entitled “What Needs To Be Said” – and I find myself agreeing with much of what he writes.

But there’s one part in his post that I keep reading again and again, and it highlights what I think everyone involved is missing:

“Many of you are watching TechCrunch unravel before your very eyes. That sucks. It sucks for me too. But TechCrunch is also too big to fail. One way or another, it will live on. Try as hard as AOL might, they can’t totally f*** it up. That’s just the truth.”

The bold-facing is my work, not Siegler’s. The censoring is mine too, for the record, though that’s not as important. What is important here is Siegler’s assertion that TechCrunch is too big to fail. That seems to be the mindset of most of the people involved in the TechCrunch drama, and even most of the people around the web talking about TechCrunch.

I assure you, TechCrunch is not too big to fail, the same way the Titanic was not unsinkable. Nothing is too big to fail. Ask MySpace. Ask Borders. Ask Circuit City. Ask the Romans.

Was TechCrunch’s sale to AOL a good thing? Is all this drama Arianna Huffington’s fault? Was Erick Schonfeld’s backdoor deal shady or justified? These are all topics we hope to cover in future posts here at the BlogWorld blog, but what I know for certain right now is this: A lot of energy is going into this drama. Imagine if that energy was instead harnessed and channeled into making TechCrunch more successful.

Public problems like we’ve seen with TechCrunch would kill lesser companies. TechCrunch has survived because of their size, and they’ll continue to survive even as employees and ex-employees continue to bicker. But for how long? Certainly not forever, no matter how big they are. Just because they are surviving right now doesn’t mean their survival is guaranteed. When you are wrapped up in your own drama, you lose sight of what you’re doing – providing news and opinions to your community. No community sticks around if they’re ignored. Even the most rabid fans will only put up with shenanigans for so long.

And furthermore, is “just surviving” good enough? Isn’t the goal of any company not to survive, but to thrive?

The fact of the matter is that most TechCrunch readers really don’t care about all  this BS. Sure, it’s entertaining to watch all the drama happening for the same reasons people rubberneck at a car accident, but if TechCrunch can continue to provide the content its community wants, most people don’t give a you-know-what who’s working there. You’ll have hard-core Mike Arrington fans or Paul Carr fans or Huffington haters who will boycott the site, but even the readers who are being vocal will continue to read TechCrunch if the blog focuses on giving the community what it wants.

If they continue to instead focus on the drama, that readership will eventually fade and the site will fail. People don’t go to TechCrunch to see public outbursts. It’s only entertaining for so long before it starts to get annoying. When a company is too wrapped up in internal affairs, it is like a slow trickle of water, which might not seem very powerful until you remember that a relatively small river is responsible for the Grand Canyon.

In my opinion, saying that any company is “too big to fail” is basically saying to the community, “it doesn’t matter what we do because you will never leave us.” I don’t think that’s what anyone at TechCrunch intends to say, but the message is there every time people makes the decision to post nastiness about one another on TechCrunch rather than posting real news. Any community will leave if pushed away for too long. So I hope that TechCrunch stops pushing. Otherwise, the giant will begin to crumble and overtime, it will fall.

Is it Ethical to Edit Your Blog Posts?

Author:

Yesterday, I wrote about the suspect “baiting” practices of a Gizmodo writer who offended nerds everywhere with her tell-all tales of online dating. One of the comments I found interesting was from a reader named Kelly, who wrote:

I don’t know if they are doing this on purpose or not, but if you have been following the comments on the original page you have probably noticed that as time passes the story is being edited and toned down slightly.

eg, the line ” This is what happens, I thought, when you lie in your online profile.” became “This is what happens, I thought, when you leave things out of your online profile.”  And bits where she calls him a ‘dweeb’ have been removed.

There are now comments appearing around the place where people are asking why people are so upset about the story because they can’t see anything that bad in it.  It made me wonder if the slow edits are being done on purpose for this reason.

It brings up an interesting question in my opinion – is it ethical to edit your posts well after they’ve been written?

In some cases, I think it is fine. I’m the self-proclaimed queen of typos, so I’ll often go back and edit a post to correct a spelling error or other mistake. I don’t think anyone is arguing that this practice is unethical. I’ve also seen blog posts edited after the fact to include more information – this is extremely common with breaking news stories. Personally, I don’t have a problem with that.

But in this case, a very emotionally-charged article was changed to be less offensive as the day went on, making her critics seem overly-critical. People who left comments earlier in the day read a much different article and, in most cases, were much more offended.

I think two things need to be said:

  1. It’s okay to change your mind.
  2. We all make mistakes.

Sometimes, after reading comments or others’ opinions elsewhere, I change my mind about what I’ve written. Shocking, I know! I think that’s a mark of maturity, though – to admit that the way you previously thought about something was perhaps incomplete or even incorrect. Even more shockingly, I also make mistakes. We all do. Sometimes, I write something that comes off in a way I did not intend or when I calm down and can see more clearly, I realize that I was too harsh in something I wrote.

So, yes, I think it is okay to edit your posts, updating them to reflect your true, current opinion.

I do not, however, think it is okay to do this in a sneaky way, where your readers are given no indication of the changes made since the first person left a comment.

If your post has no comments, I don’t see the harm in editing a post…but if you do so on such a popular post (hers has thousands of comments), you make your readers look stupid. As Kelly noted, a lot of the later readers were wondering why the first commenters were so upset. By editing the post throughout the day, the writer made it seem like people were ganging up on her in an unjustified way. I don’t think it was fair to the Gizmodo community.

If you’re going to edit your posts (beyond fixing typos and the like), make a note about it at the beginning or end. Explain why the post was edited and, if relevant, apologize to your readers. Don’t just ignore your first published draft. Instead, acknowledge your change of heart or mistakes or write a completely new post updating your opinion. After all, nothing can truly ever be erased online.

Revenge of the Nerds: Why Baiting Your Readers is a Bad Idea

Author:

Not Alyssa Bereznak. Obviously.

I’m not ashamed to say that I’m a bit of a nerd, and right now the nerds online are all flustered over a recent Gizmodo post where blogger Alyssa Bereznak wrote some pretty offensive things about a recent online dating experience. The basis of the story is this: she went out with a guy who she deemed to be way too nerdy for her and proceeded to write an entire post making fun of the guy, even though he didn’t really do anything wrong. The “moral” of her story was that you should research a person using Google before you go out together.

Gizmodo is a popular tech gadget blog, so as you can guess, most of their readers are a lot like Alyssa’s date. The vast majority of comments on the post and the comments I’ve seen on Twitter, Facebook, etc. are negative, and many are extremely negative. There are a lot of things I personally find offensive about her post, but what I (and many others) keep coming back to is this: Why is a post dumping on nerds be allowed on a major tech blog, where most of the readers fall into the nerd category?

Some have speculated that Alyssa’s post was purposely offensive to her readers in order to drive traffic. Maybe that is the case; I don’t know. If that’s what happened, who made that choice? Alyssa? Gizmodo? Again, I don’t know.

What I do know is that baiting your readers in this manner is a bad idea.

Sometimes linkbait works, and sometimes it doesn’t – but if you’re being purposely negative, you’re playing with fire. I fully believe that you should write posts that express your opinion, even if your readers aren’t going to agree. If that makes sense for your blog, do it. But it’s a fine line to walk, because if you’re expressing an opinion simply because you want to drive traffic, that choice is going to come back to bite you. Here’s why:

  • For some people, this will be the first time they hear of you or your blog.

Who hasn’t heard of Gizmodo? It’s a huge blog, right? Well, yes…but there are definitely people who have never heard of it. Maybe this is the first you’re hearing of it – and let me ask you, what is your impression of Gizmodo? Even if you’ve heard of Gizmodo before, this might be the first time you’re hearing of Alyssa. What is your impression of her? The point is, the first experience a new reader has with you is their only experience with you. Make sure it’s a good one – or at least one that represents you well.

  • Some of your regular readers won’t be back.

If you’re being completely honest on your blog and people don’t like you and what you have to say, that’s one thing. Let them go. It’s better to have 100 readers who really “get” you than 1000 readers who feel “meh” about you. However, if you’re writing bait posts, some of your regular readers are going to stop reading your site. You don’t always have to agree with members of your community, but at least respect them enough not to stomp in their faces by making fun of them. The nerds who Alyssa offended and who may very well have been some of Gizmodo’s biggest supporters might not be back – and that’s some pretty hefty revenge for any blog.

  • Traffic spikes are just that – spikes.

Let’s say you have a post that is super helpful and goes viral. You’re going to see a huge traffic spike, which is awesome. When things calm down again, some of those people are going to stick around to read more, and even though it might be a small percentage, that’s how you build a traffic kingdom, block by block. But what if you write a post that goes viral for a negative reason, like the Gizmodo post? When things calm down, what’s the likelihood that anyone will stick around to read more? So not only do you run the risk of losing regular readers, but you also won’t gain new ones for more than a day or two. Spikes are only spikes, not sustainable.

  • It’s ethically questionable.

There’s no law that says you can only write what you 100% believe. Frankly, though, the ethics behind doing something like that are questionable about best. It’s a personal choice, I guess, but I would have a hard time sleeping at night if my name was attached to a bunch of stuff I didn’t actually believe.

Overall, I think the Gizmodo post was a really bad idea. I’m not just saying that because I was personally offended by what she wrote. I’m saying that I think it simply didn’t make sense to be posted on a site where nerds are your fanbase. Was the post purposely meant to bait readers? I don’t know. Maybe. And if so, I think it was an even worse idea. There are a lot of really positive ways to get traffic that take the same amount of effort and have much better long-term results.

Have you read the Gizmodo post? Has it changed your impression of Gizmodo or the writer? Do you think there are any benefits to baiting readers with an offensive post?

Why You Shouldn’t Blog About “Some People”

Author:

When writing opinion pieces, it is often impossible to completely express your ideas without talking about what other people have said on the subject. Personally, I love that aspect of blogging – debating issues where people have strong opinions.Unfortunately, whenever you’re covering an issue that elicits emotions in others, a debate can turn into an argument can turn into mud slinging.

Feelings can get hurt in a hurry, and I think we can all agree: no matter how much you love voicing your opinion, the goal is not to hurt other people. That doesn’t mean it never happens.

It’s one of the most stressful parts of blogging, in my opinion. Whether you like someone personally or not, it can be a little scary to disagree. Will the other person see it? Maybe. Will they be hurt? Maybe.

Should you still voice your opinion? Again, maybe.

What I don’t believe you should do, however, is blog about “some people.” I understand why it’s done and I’ve even fallen into the trap myself, but I think that, in the end, blogging about “some people” only hurts you.

“Some people” shouldn’t have to remain in the shadows in your blog posts.

Who are “Some People”?

First, let me go over what I mean by “some people.” When you have a strong opinion that is in direct conflict with another person’s opinion, I believe that it is respectful to actually name that person and link to his/her site (with the exception being to truly heinous opinions like racial slurs, which in my opinion don’t deserve the traffic you’ll give them). Instead, what I see lots of bloggers doing is say, “Some people think…” I’m sure you’ve seen it too. Even though the blogger is talking about a specific person, they won’t name that person. They just generalize.

I’m not saying that you always have to call out other bloggers. For example, in this post, I’m writing about “some people.” Obviously not every blogger out there does what I’m writing about, but I haven’t chosen to name names. Why? I don’t have anyone specific in mind. I’ve seen people do it, and if I search long enough I can probably find some great examples. But off the top of my head? I can’t name a specific blogger.

If you can, please name that blogger. Many of your readers will realize the person you mean anyway…so don’t call them “some people.”

I’ll say this as well – it depends on the point of your post. If you’re mentioning a comment in passing or giving an example of a situation, you don’t always have to name names because that’s not really what your post is about. “Some people” could be fine in those instances, simply because you don’t want to take the focus away from your main argument. What I’m proposing in this post is that you shouldn’t use “some people” if you’re writing a post in opposition to what a specific other person (or few other people) have written or what other people are doing.

Respect

In my opinion, naming names is all about respect. We don’t have to agree to be friends. Heck, we don’t even have to agree to both be right. Two people can have valid but different opinions. When you don’t name me, though, it somehow makes it seem like my idea is not as important as yours.

You don’t have to “call someone out.” In my opinion, disagreeing with someone is not the same. Calling someone out, to me, means that you’re attacking the person and their ideas, often relying on gossip and hurt feelings without any foundation in facts. It’s not a good thing. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with respectfully disagreeing with an opinion someone else posts, though – and I think part of showing respect is linking back to them.

Naming names instead of referring to “some people” is respectful to readers as well. Your readers might know the blogger you’re talking about, but this won’t always be the case. If you don’t give them the opportunity to check out the other side of the debate, you’re not presenting the best argument possible. Your readers have the right to make up their own minds, and the best way you can make sure this happens is by presenting the opposing opinion as well, and not just as you choose to summarize it. If you really do have a strong argument, you should feel confident allowing your readers to see the opposing viewpoint as written by someone just as passionate as you.

Credit Where Credit is Due

The blog posts that you write aren’t always inspired by what other bloggers are posting, but sometimes they are…and when that happens, that blogger deserves a little credit.

You can’t copyright an idea, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t give someone a little credit if they gave you the idea for a post of your own. That blogger writing about a concept inspired your to write a rebuttal of sorts. In my opinion, it’s just the right thing to do to link back to that initial blogger, citing their post as the reason you’re writing about the topic.

The Coincidental Mistake

In any niche, coincidences happen pretty regularly. Everyone talks about the same news stories, but beyond that, when you’re covering a topic that is more “evergreen,” you might find yourself posting about the same things as other people on the same day. I’ve been accused of copying ideas before, actually, but it was honestly just a matter of happenstance that we both published posts about the same subject with similar messages with a day or so of one another. I just don’t have time to read every blog every day, so sometimes coincidences happen.

The problem is, if you get into a habit of blogging about “some people” without naming names, people start to think that’s just what you do – you talk about people is a very behind-their-back type of way and present one-sided arguments to your readers without giving any type of credit. Then, when it actually is a case of coincidence, it seems like just another cowardly post on your behalf. On the other hand, if you’ve always posted links and have engaged in professional debate with your peers, most readers will give you the benefit of the doubt, not jumping to conclusions right away even if someone else recently posted on the same subject.

Finding the Confidence to Use Names

Without a doubt, naming names in any niche does require confidence. It is much easier to be more ambiguous, speaking your mind without as much risk that there will be any backlash. The truth of the matter, however, is that if everyone just agrees with you all the time, you probably aren’t being the best blogger you can be. Debate is part of what is so great about working online and connecting to people from all over the world.

Reread your post. If you wouldn’t say it to a person’s face, don’t say it online either. There’s no need to be rude. But don’t shy away from voicing your opinion, even if you agree with some pretty popular bloggers. If you do so in a respectful way, any mature blogger out there will appreciate your feedback and the chance for some friendly debate.

Is Chris Brogan a Google+ Expert or Just Stealing Your Money?

Author:

Earlier this week, Chris Brogan announced that he’d be offering a 2-hour webinar for $47. The topic of choice? Google+. Now, it’s inarguable that Chris has been spending a ton of time on Google+, but some are calling foul, given that the platform is so new.

So the question I hope to answer today is this: Is Chris Brogan a Google+ expert or is he just stealing your money?


Before I start, I’d like to note that since this is such a strong opinion piece, my opinions might not be the opinions of everyone at BlogWorld. Furthermore, if you wrote about this debate on your own blog, just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I think you’re stupid or that your opinion is invalid. It’s a little sad to me that I have to even type this paragraph, but there’s some venom in the blogging community about this topic. Also, I’m not trying to “call anyone out” here – I just don’t like when bloggers are obviously writing about someone but refuse to link to them or use their name. It feels a little like talking about someone behind their back.

First, to catch you up to speed, I want to invite you to check out the landing page for Chris’ webinar. In case he takes it down after the webinar happens, the video he posted is on YouTube here. Are we all caught up now? Good. There are two things in particular that I want to talk about now: being an expert and knowing your audience.

Is Chris A Google+ Expert? Is Anyone?

Back in January, I wrote a post about how you shouldn’t call yourself a social media expert, especially if your claims are unfounded. My argument is that although you might have a lot to teach about social media, this is an industry that is so new and changing so quickly that no one person can truly be an expert yet.

Do I think this argument applies to the situation? Yes and no. I wholeheartedly agree with bloggers who claim that Chris is not a Google+ expert because, frankly, I don’t think that anyone can claim to be a Google+ expert. Over on Spin Sucks, Gini Dietrich actually wrote a post called “Beware the Google+ Experts” about the situation, which I was excited to read because the title aligns with my feelings perfectly. Google+ is way too new for “experts.”

Only…well…Chris isn’t actually calling himself an expert. That’s where I think the whole “Chris Brogan isn’t an expert so you shouldn’t pay him” argument falls a little flat (and to be clear, Gini isn’t by far the only one making this argument).

In my opinion, there’s a difference between being an expert and charging someone money for something. For example, in my work as a writer, if a client wants me to write articles that use keywords, I charge extra. I’m not an SEO expert at all – I just know how to insert keywords into an article. I don’t bill myself as an expert and neither does Chris. In fact, in one of his blog posts about this debate, he writes,

I’ve seen dozens of comments and posts and blogs saying “How someone can claim to be an expert after 250 hours is laughable.” What’s laughable is that I’m not saying I’m an expert. I’m saying that I’ve used the service a lot and I’ve got some ideas that I think are worth your time and some money.

So, no…I don’t think Chris Brogan is an expert. I think he’s a guy who has had some success on Google+ and is offering to teach you what he’s learned so far – and that’s all he’s claiming to be. He’s being very transparent about his relationship with Google+ so potential buyers can make up their own minds about signing up (or not). You don’t have to buy things only from experts.

The Blogging Bubble: Know Thy Audience

Chris’ webinar is being offered through Human Business Works, which he writes is “an online education and community company for small businesses and solo entrepreneurs.” As a blogger or social media professional, you are definitely a solo entrepreneur (if you want to be, at least)…but so is my dad, who runs a part-time business as a metal fabricator or my aunt, who has her own beauty salon. Sometimes, we’re caught in this blogging bubble where we forget that there are people out there who barely know what social media is, let alone how to use it. They’re part of Chris’ audience, just like you and me.

Let’s face it – most of us here, the BlogWorld audience, has been exploring Google+ because we’re interested in that kind of thing. This is our industry. It’s what we do. But Google+ is for everyone, and not all of my friends fall into my blogging/social media circle. If I invite my dad to join, he would have no idea what is going on and although he is a smart man, he’s just not interested enough to take the time to learn. Chris’ seminar would make perfect sense for him.

In other words, you are probably not Chris’ target market for this product. Allen Stern recently wrote a post where he voices his opinion that Chris is taking advantage of his fan base – but I think maybe he misses the fact that Chris’ fanbase isn’t just made up of bloggers.

It’s kind of like the Dummies books. Let’s say I decide to pick up the one about blogging. It would be a total waste of money…for me. I’ve spent 5+ years learning that stuff myself. But let’s say my dad decides to pick it up because he wants to start a blog. It would be perfect for him, saving him lots of time. Yes, he could learn everything covered in that book for free, but it would take him a long time. Someone buying a Dummies book isn’t paying for information that can’t be found anywhere else. They’re paying for convenience, because it is a shortcut to learning something specific. Chris’ webinar is for people who don’t want to spend 250 hours figuring out Google+ for themselves because, unlike those of us interested in social media, it’s not their primary area of focus.

Basically, you’re only taking advantage of people if you’re not delivering on your promises. And I obviously haven’t been to Chris’ webinar since it hasn’t happened yet (and I probably won’t go because I’m not the target market), but I’ve followed him for years and got the chance to meet him in New York through my work with BlogWorld. My professional opinion of him is that he’s a trustworthy guy. I don’t think he’s going to bait-and-switch ya with this webinar.

That’s not to say that you should be out there recommending this webinar to your readers. Who is your audience? For example, Kirsten Wright wrote a post called “Why You Shouldn’t be Paying to Learn How to Use Google+…Yet,” and for her audience (which I suspect is similar to the readers here at BlogWorld) I think it’s good advice. But again, her audience isn’t necessarily Chris’ audience – at least, not his whole audience. I don’t agree with the idea that he’s wrong to offer this webinar.

So, no…I don’t think Chris Brogan is stealing your money. I think he has a product for sale and you can choose whether or not that product is right for you. As Chris Pirillo puts it,

I’m largely in the camp of “Let Chris Do What Chris Wants to Do” – which intersects with the “Do What You Want to Do but Don’t Piss in Someone’s Cheerios” camp. I’m not here to claim that what Chris has to share is anything more than Chris’s insights on Google’s new social network, but… hey, how much is two hours of your time worth?

For someone who is interested in learning Chris’ opinions on how to best use Google+, two hours might be worth $47 to you. If it’s not, that’s okay, but it doesn’t mean that Chris is wrong for offering it. After all, we’re all adults here. I have a problem with “experts” presenting products that make outlandish promises to feed on people’s fears, but when the scope of a product is made clear, as I feel is the case with this webinar, I don’t have a problem with someone selling it…and I don’t understand why anyone would. After all, people pay for a lot of weird things. Haven’t you ever purchased anything that others think is worthless but that was important to you?

The bottom line is that the title of this post is a little misleading because I don’t think either option applies to Chris. He’s not a Google+ expert and he’s also not stealing your money. He’s offering a webinar, and you have the option to buy or walk away. You also have the option to promote it or to tell your readers that you think it’s a bad idea – but in both cases, try to understand the product before posting what amounts to a review of someone’s idea. Just like it’s unfair to your readers to promote something that is low-quality or not right for your audience, I feel like it is also unfair to your readers to recommend against something that could be helpful for some people.

I hope you’ll leave a comment, whether or not you agree with me. All comments are welcome as long as they’re respectful! Also, when I mentioned this post on Twitter a lot of people showed interest in reading something where I disagreed with the mainstream opinion out there. If you enjoy that kind of thing, this is my shameless plug for Blog Zombies, a project I’ve been working on for over a year now that’s being released this fall, where I’m going to be voicing opinions that heavily go against the status quo. I hope you’ll check it out if you think you might be interested.

Why Google+ Circles Might Suck

Author:

Yes, you read that correctly. One of the main draws to Google+ is their intuitive “circle” system of listing your friends together into groups. It’s a feature that I see people repeatedly saying is one of the best things about this new social media platform. And while I agree that at first glance, the Google+ circle system had me ooo’ing and ahhhh’ing just like everyone else, as I’ve started to use the system more and more, I’m not sold. Yes, I think the circles might even suck.

Okay, before all you loyal Google fans freak out…I said might. As in “maybe they suck.” Or at least, “maybe they suck for some people.” Google+ is so new that the jury is still out on this one. But let me at least tell you a little about my experiences and how I think the Google+ system is slightly…okay, really…flawed.

A Twitter Approach to Networking

Let’s start at the very beginning.

One of the characteristics of Google+ that I really like is that you don’t have to be mutual friends to follow someone. Of course, everyone is able to control what anyone else sees, but if I like your blog and you have no idea who I am, I can still follow you and read whatever you decide to make public. You don’t have to follow me back. It’s very similar to Twitter in that respect, but with more levels of privacy. Awesome.

I like this because, frankly, I don’t like everyone who likes me. While that might sound harsh on a personal level, the fact of life is that you could be doing things that are really interesting to other people, but that doesn’t mean that other people are doing things that are really interesting to you – and that’s okay. I blog about blogging…and while that topic is relevant to Suzy who blogs about parenting and Donald who blogs about cars, I’m don’t have kids, nor do I care about my car beyond keeping it well maintained. So, Suzy and Donald can follow me, and I’m not pressured to clutter my stream with updates that are irrelevant. Awesome.

But Wait…Isn’t the Circle System Supposed to Cut Down on Clutter?

Yes. Yes, it is. But that doesn’t mean it’s working that way.

When I add someone to my circles, I break things down pretty well (at least, I think I do). Right now, I have a circle for my best friends in real life, so I can update them about plans for happy hour. I also have a circle for BlogWorld folk, so we can talk about behind the scenes plans if we wish, as well as circles for gamers (one of my main interests) and for social media professionals and bloggers. As more people join, I will probably break down those categories even more. But just because I’ve created a pretty well-planned circle system doesn’t mean that others have.

If Suzy the parenting blogger follows me, for example, she might not use circles as well as I do. Maybe she has people who blog lumped into one circle, for example, regardless of whether they blog about blogging or blog about parenting. Or maybe she puts me in a random circle called “people I met at BlogWorld” – which isn’t very relevant unless BlogWorld is going on or we’re talking about the event afterward. In other words, people do not necessary create circles based on the topics they talk about. People are more likely to organize their circles based on the streams they want to see, not what makes sense for updating. My needs for these two ways of organizing people are very different.

The Public Problem

But all of that doesn’t really matter because of what I like to call the “public” problem.

Remember the first point I made, about how I like that you don’t have to be mutual friends? Well, the only way that really works is if people update publicly, at least occasionally. For bloggers, that’s not really much of a problem. If you’re looking at Google+ as a promotional tool, or even if you just use it as a way to gain ideas from like-minded people, allowing everyone to read your updates makes sense.

For example, earlier today, I talked about a project I was working on for bloggers. While it is relevant to my social media/blogging group most (and not, for example, my gamer friends), it might also be relevant to my followers that I’m not following…and it’s not sensitive information, so I want everyone to be able to see it.

The problem is, because I updated it to the general public, everyone saw it, even my gamer circle. It doesn’t matter if I pick Public and add other circles. The fact that I’ve chosen to make the update public means that everyone can see it.

And most of us bloggers what as much to be public as possible. Unless it contains information that is only relevant to everyone in a specific group (like plans for happy hour with local friends), it makes sense to connect with fans by making your updates public. If that’s the case though, if that’s how we use Google+, it really isn’t any different from using Twitter. You aren’t actually filtering anything for any circle.

A Solution?

I don’t like to complain about problems unless I can think of a solution…and while I’m not sure there are easy ones or even perfect ones, here’s what I think would work better than the current circle system:

The solution to the public problem is pretty easy. When you make something public, it should show up only for people who aren’t your mutual friends. They should be your default public group. If you want other groups to see it, you should have to pick public plus whatever circles are relevant. That would make Google+ so much better, with that one little change.

The second part of the solution, in my opinion, would be to have two levels of circles – private circles and public circles. Private circles would be sort-of what you see now – when you follow someone you add them to a circle to create different streams for yourself. It’s simply a way to organize your streams, similar to Twitter lists. I would actually like to see the option, like with Twitter, for you to make these lists known (if you want to) so that other people can follow everyone you have categorized a certain way. I find some of the best people on Twitter by browsing others’ lists.

Public circles would be more of an “opt in” type of system for updates. Where your private circles would be for people you want to follow, your public circles would be for people who want to follow you. You would list off any topics you discuss regularly and people could add themselves to those lists to see updates in those categories from you. That way, as a follower, you can control what you see a little more easily. You’d use your public circles when you posted anything (again, private circles would just be for categorizing your own streams).

This works for two reasons. First, it allows you to opt out when you don’t like specific content that’s showing up in your stream, but don’t want to stop following a person completely. I could sign up for Suzie’s public blogging circle, but avoid her public parenting circle, even though with the current system, she just updated everyone at once. To go along with that, some people are really clogging up my stream right now. I don’t want to miss some of their updates about specific topics, so I continue to follow them, but I wish I could mute them with other topics so I could more easily read updates in my streams.

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly from a promotional tool standpoint, it allows you to show someone you’re interested when they might have otherwise assumed that you don’t care. For example, under the current system, I might add Suzie to my blogging circle, never realizing that she’s actually really interested in gaming as well. I’m missing out on potential conversation with Suzie because I don’t know everything about her. Or maybe one of my gamer friends is interested in starting a blog – they’d be potential fans of mine if only I hadn’t excluded them from my blog-related updates.

With this system, I’d also like to see invite-only circles, which would kind of work the way hidden groups work on Facebook. They’d be for small groups of people who have specific reasons for talking to one another that don’t need to be public. Essentially, it would be a public circle, but one where you invite people to join (and they can say yes or no). For example, my local friends could all be in an invite-only circle so we could make dinner plans or the BlogWorld team could all be in an invite-only circle so we could speak about the event privately.

Again, my solutions might not be perfect, but I really do think that the circle system needs a little more thought. Right now, it is a good start, but I think one of the reasons I’m not completely loving Google+ yet is because it doesn’t offer me the level of control I really want…yet. It’s a step up from Facebook, to be sure, but I think it might still suck. At least a little, at least for right now.

Learn About NMX

NEW TWITTER HASHTAG: #NMX

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Previous Page