Quality of content and relevance to subject - the two most important things that make a good blog, according to Paul Gillin's survey of 297 communications professionals.
That's got me thinking.
What makes a good blog to you, might be a complete turn-off for me. A friendly, informal writing style which informs or poses questions seems to bring people in. That is certainly what I want to see on other blogs and I'm can't be bothered to read those that are mainly composed of links with little other substance. That's a portal, surely.
I welcome debate on this blog and I've already had some great comments and discussion. How would I convert these comments into a campaign, though, or use for research around client/customer viewpoints?
Also, does quality beat quantity? Much of the reading suggests we've not yet solved the conundrum of measuring the feedback received through blogs for effectiveness or engagement. Since research increasingly tells us that blogs are the most popular and influential social media tool, I can see the need to harness them a lot more effectively (and to start using them as a business tool).
References:
http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/new_media_new_influencers_and_implications_for_the_public_relations_profess/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a member of the public with no connection to the PR profession, I personally don't make much use of blogs. I would possibly read blogs written by, for example, my favourite sports personality during a major tournament or a political correspondent during a major news story. I am certain that quality beats quantity though- poor grasp of facts and bad spelling and grammar are all a major turn-off.
ReplyDeleteBlogs are not just for PR, though. Most people just use them for keeping in touch with friends
ReplyDeleteI agree with the fact that it should be a informal and not formal as many people will not like to go through the formal way of communication, should be interactive and a person have his / her view point as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are describing is categorisation of publics. Traditionally, PR identifies target publics and tailors content to reach them through the channels they prefer to use. The Internet as one mass channel appears to have one mass public and in this context it confuses the breakdown of publics into the neat little boxes they used to live in. What is required is a better understanding of how publics can be classified online, in order to ascertain what they would consume. I am not an industry expert but I imagine there are companies out there providing this service. In turn, the content a company places online can be designed for targeted parts of the web, rather than attempting to appeal to the whole. As my father used to tell me 'you can't be everything to everybody all of the time!'.
ReplyDeleteContent is all but has to be created with a degree of authenticity and commitment which can be beyond PR practitioners looking to tap into what they see as an easy channel. There seems to be a big gap opening up between blogs written for small groups - typically a bunch of friends - and those pushing to rival mainstream websites or old media products. Blogs going for a big audience will inevitably start to assume some of the pressures and overheads carried by the mainstream media - legal costs, subbing, quality control, moderation worries etc. It was interesting to see that blogger Guido Fawkes apparently released his Damian McBride story (revelations about an adviser to the UK Prime Minister)to national newspapers first.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that Global Villager. That's a really interesting and insightful take on the likely progression of blogs to following the traditional paths of media.
ReplyDeleteWe're all assuming that the gatekeeper role is a disappearing one but there still has to be some control when someone is blogging or contributing to forums in their professional capacity because personal opinion is not always at one with a communications strategy's aims or organisation's business ethics.