June 15, 2004
Letter to the Editor
Upon reading this Advertising Age article on the new Nike blog/"special advertising section" created by Gawker Media, I was moved to write a letter. The article, for the most part, was good. It points out this blog-like subsite as a potential model for marketers to follow as they explore the new media outlet weblogs offer. (It's certainly better than Dr Pepper's blog for Raging Cow milk drink.)
However, the reporter (or possibly the editor, since assumably the article was reviewed by someone before it hit the Web) seems to be confused as to what is a blog and what is a service that allows blogs to be created. Below is the letter to the reporter, which I CC'd to the editors, clarifying a rather misleading section of the article.
Hi Kris [Oser, the reporter]:Posted by Andrew Huff at June 15, 2004 11:34 AMJust read your article on the Gawker-produced Nike blog. Overall, it's a good story, certainly one your audience should pay attention to, but there are a couple of things wrong or misleading in the following passage:
"...The top four blogs, Blogspot, Typepad, Blogrolling and Bogger, reach 5.5 million people per month, according to ComScore Media Metrix. But Google's BlogSpot, which leads visitors through the creation of a blog, grew 56% in the last six months, according to ComScore.
Gawker gets between 500,000 to 700,000 unique visitors a month, said Choire Sicha, editorial director of Gawker Media, which operates six blogs.
But that won't worry Nike: For the footwear and apparel giant, the blog experiment is a drop in a marketing ocean..."
First, the BlogSpot, TypePad, Blogrolling and B_l_ogger (mind the 'l') are blogging services, not blogs themselves. And BlogSpot is a hosting service for Blogger-powered weblogs; both are owned by Google.
Second, your explanation of BlogSpot's function is misleading. BlogSpot doesn't "lead visitors through the creation of a blog," it is a service that allows users to create a blog for themselves.
Third, comparing Gawker's visitor numbers to those of the top four services used by millions of weblog authors is misleading. Of course it doesn't worry Nike that Gawker's numbers are lower than those services -- it's a faulty comparison, akin to saying that my cellphone usage numbers don't measure up to thase of Sprint, Verizon and Cingular.
It's worrisome that AdAge could report so effectively on a marketing in a new media but simultaneously show such a misunderstanding of the media itself. I can only hope that this article was rushed to press without the usual editorial attention.
Sincerely,
---Andrew Huff
Editor, Gapers Block
http://www.gapersblock.com
The top blogging site, the World Wide Web (WWW), gets millions of visits a day!
Posted by: jima at June 15, 2004 01:52 PMWell-said correction.
I'm surprised more corporations haven't set up blogs already. It seems like a fun way to have a site not get old and stagnant.
Posted by: Dave at June 16, 2004 10:07 AMon a completely unrelated note, the word assumably always sounds/looks wrong to me, in the way that supposably is wrong. in fact, someone asked me about it once, and i told them that, off the top of my head, i thought that assumedly would be the correct word. it turns out i was wrong. dead wrong. bill-murray-as-the-voice-of-garfield wrong.
Posted by: alison at June 16, 2004 08:29 PMAlison: I originally read your Bill Murray fragment as "Bill Murray as the ass of Garfield wrong." I chuckled to myself as the joke. And then realized, of course, that I'd misread it. Dammit. But I still liked the joke.
* * *On a more topical note: I'm glad that you wrote this letter, Andrew. In reading me3dia.com and other blogs, I've noted that bloggers have reported on the confusion in the greater media community as to what blogs are and how they fit into the greater spectrum of publishing. I explain it to friends who want to understand as "self published journalling," which, of course, is a limiting definition as many blogs are not journals. But it's the best I can come up with.
Posted by: bran at June 17, 2004 07:06 AM