In the Blogging World You Don’t Have Sex on the First Date

by Joshua Porter  |   11 Comments  |  shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/321

Scott Karp is having trouble getting linked. The other day the proprietor of Publishing 2.0 and managing director of research and strategy for Atlantic Media admitted that despite emailing influential bloggers (Dave Winer, Jeff Jarvis, and Steve Rubel), he’s been unable to get them to link to his site.

The reason why he’s had difficulty is because asking for attention is the ass-backwards way to get it. Putting the cart before the horse. Asking for sex on the first date. You might succeed once in a while, but it will probably do more harm than good if you want to be really successful. If that’s his idea of what blogging is, then he’s probably going to be sorely disappointed.

Blogging is like Dating

Blogging is a lot like dating. Like a date, a blog post can be the first step in a meaningful relationship. You’re just getting to know each other, finding out your interests, seeing how the conversation goes. Being cautious at this stage is prudent: it’s hard to know if the person who seems normal at first glance is actually a quack underneath it all.

Similarly, asking for others to link to you can come across like being asked for cash by a beggar. Solicitation is never pretty, as both the solicitor and solicitee usually feel uncomfortable. Here you are trying to get them to do something without any incentive, not even sex! In fact, you’re asking them to give up their most precious resource…a blogger giving a link is one of only a very few ways to give a gesture of attention. Therefore, it is a big deal.

Old Media and Gatekeepers

The lack of attention Karp received from the bloggers causes him concern. He muses on what he calls “gatekeepers” in the blogosphere, a few media moguls who direct the attention of the many. He likens it to the Old Media of ten years ago when there were only a handful of places to get media: a newspaper or magazine, one of the big 3 TV networks, radio, or movies. Karp worries that the most empowered amateurs (influential bloggers) are trending toward this model, they have too much influence, and as a result those less prominent folks with good ideas can’t or won’t be seen. He says:

‘the “system” is starting to feel a lot like Old Media, with the high-traffic blogs acting as gatekeepers for the blogosphere’s attention.’

In addition, Karp sees the gatekeepers as insufficient. He uses tech.memeorandum an example of a gatekeeper who can’t get the word out to enough people:

“If I want to reach an audience of Old Media executives who are wrestling with the painful transition to New Media, I don’t think tech.memeorandum is going to cut it. It’s not that none of them read it – it’s a matter of media fundamentals. Tech.memeorandum is highly efficient for reaching fellow geeks in the blogosphere, but much less efficient for reaching outside of it.”

Why the Chess Team Doesn’t Get Laid

This, of course, is the Long Tail in action. There are only so many BoingBoings, Slashdots, and Diggs. Only so many Winers, Rubels, and Jarvises. Even if you have something interesting to say, if you don’t have a megaphone or don’t get picked up by someone with one you won’t have a very big audience. It’s the lament of bloggers everywhere. It’s the lament of great artists who can’t get critics to see them for the genius they are. It’s also why the chess team doesn’t get laid.

To fight this model is to fight the tide. And more perhaps more interestingly, it’s fighting probability. The more you post, the more you say, the higher the probability that you’ll say something interesting, that others will hear you, and that you’ll create real relationships with fellow bloggers. That’s why Rubel, Jarvis, and Winer are where they are. They’ve written more than the vast majority of bloggers will ever write. They’ve observed, critiqued, and linked for years. They’ve taught us the fundamental rule of blogging…Don’t swim against the tide.

It’s about Relationships

The real problem for Karp isn’t that the gatekeepers are shutting him out or even that there are gatekeepers who can do the shutting out: it’s that Karp doesn’t have a relationship with anybody yet. Nobody knows what he’s talking about, what his schtick is, which way he leans. That takes time. (Even so, he’s well on his way, in two short months of blogging he’s already got more attention than most bloggers ever do.)

Most of the early attention he’s received seems to be the result of Karp asking provocative questions about the relationship between media and authority. He asks: “as Old Media gatekeepers fade, who will ultimately take their place?”. And he quotes Justin Fox: “Are there great new fortunes to be made in telling us what to pay attention to?”. These questions are fundamental to media and the Web.

The answer to these questions will come from the network, I think. Look to the new companies that are thriving: Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Netflix. These companies are harnessing their network of users to provide valuable, personalized recommendation systems that exist outside of any of the Old Media. They’re replicating our individual authority models to the point where content becomes more important than the media outlet from which it came. The amazing potential of Web 2.0 is that it distributes authority at the personal level. The next time you get a movie recommended to you from one of your friends on Netflix, think about how much more valuable that is than some review pumped through the Old Media. Did you know that roughly 2/3 of movies rented on Netflix come from recommendations?

Yes, amateurs are affecting the stock market. And publishing. For every loss in Old Media’s attention machine, there is a gain in personalized recommendation systems like Netflix that won’t ever return to either Old or even the “New” Media. It’s in the people’s hands now.

However, even though Netflix creates a wonderful tool for modeling authority, it won’t be the authority itself. No, authority will lie in individual people whom we trust, who happen to use the same systems that we do.

Gatekeepers No More

On this note, Karp rightly assumes that many bloggers won’t even consider the notion of gatekeepers in the blogosphere. I fit into this camp, as does Matt McAlister, Senior Product Manager at Yahoo:

“Insistence that there’s an editorial gatekeeper required in the media model is going to hold Old Media back from embracing New Media at any truly valuable level.”

To which Karp replies:

“My point is that media can’t function without some type of gatekeepers — otherwise you have complete entropy, with people awash in random information.”

Add this to a comment on a previous post, and you can see where Karp is headed:

“There is so much wrong with the blogger view that the monoliths of old media will be brought down and consumers will bask in the glory of infinite media choice – discussing, creating, tagging, rating (meta-ing) each other’s content in one big solipsistic frenzy.”

Just Regular People

Here’s another view. Instead of gatekeepers, I see people. Where gatekeepers simply keep the gate from all intruders, people are open to having relationships with others. And these relationships are anything but random. They’re authoritative, valuable, ever-changing, and rely on trust built up over time. You know, the whole Golden Rule thing. So instead of looking for the gatekeepers, perhaps Karp should ask himself: if hundreds of people started asking me for links, how long would it take before I started saying no?

Similarly, how long would it take a smart woman to realize that a guy who asks for sex on the first date probably isn’t worth the second?

Check out my latest project: Make them Care!, a book on designing great sign-up experiences. Get reminded when it's published.

Links to this Post

Comments

1.  Peter Caputa 8:22pm, Tue 24th, 2006

Amen, brother! Great post.

2.  Scott Karp 8:33pm, Tue 24th, 2006

Josh (or should I say Porter — what’s with the formality?) — I’m actually not having any trouble getting linked, if you check out Technorati (and thanks for your link, BTW). But I’m glad your mis-reading of my post could serve as a platform for you to pontificate with such a cleverly salacious metaphor. (It’s so much fun to be clever, isn’t it?)

The point of my post (which you clearly didn’t read to the end before your mind turned to sex, but whatever turns you on) is that there are inevitably gatekeepers in any media system. If their weren’t, we’d be living in a state of complete chaos. The questions I posed at the end of my post, which wasn’t in the least about getting links, is whether gatekeepers in new media will have any sense of social responsiblity.

And are “people” new to blogging? Are you suggesting that the Old Media system wasn’t based on people and relationships? The notion that relationships matter is hardly a blinding insight.

Maybe you should do your readers a favor and think more about the deeper implications of the revolution in media.

But then again, (cheap) sex sells.

3.  Josh 9:00pm, Tue 24th, 2006

I know you won’t believe this Scott, but I actually had thought about using the metaphor before I ran into your set of posts…I apologize profusely for any offense taken.

4.  Scott Karp 9:22pm, Tue 24th, 2006

Josh, I’ve done my fair share of rubbing people the wrong way — but I’ve also made a lot friends with people who have disagreed with me out of the gate. There’s a lot of asinine behavior in the blogosphere, but there’s also a lot of magnanimity. (If you go back and read my post, you’ll see I made a special point of thanking other bloggers who gave me the benefit of the doubt, and with whom I became friends.)

It would be fun to have a more sober conversation about the social dynamics of blogging.

I hope you’ll allow me to point out, though, that bloggers need to focus on people and relationships even after they get established. We can always use more friends.

5.  Josh 10:28am, Wed 25th, 2006

Thanks for the reply, Scott. I admit that the way I wrote this post was in bad form, and I appreciate that it wasn’t the best way to make my point.

So let’s have that more sober conversation…

6.  bgrier 5:43pm, Wed 25th, 2006

Read what you said, but to my thinking, the gatekeeper is really the search engine. How you rank in their algorithms can dictate your visibility.

Though, if you do crank out the wordcount, as you said, the chance that you actually say something intersting increases.

good post.

7.  J. Jeffryes 4:35pm, Sun 29th, 2006

Part of what obfuscates the truth here is that there are multiple overlapping trust systems. How do you find information?

1. Google
2. Links from something you found on Google
3. Links from something you already trust

The third is the most powerful, and the most trusted, but the first is the most used. Why? Because at this stage of the internet, you don’t necessarily have a trusted source for every topic imaginable. If you want to know about lawn gnomes, and you don’t already have a blog/site/forum on lawn gnomes bookmarked, you turn to Google.

Part of the idea of blogs is that they become virtuous networks that link based on quality and trust, which creates value for the reader. I’d rather follow a link from TechCrunch than some random blog on Technorati. But there is a limit to the subjects that trusted blogs can link to, because they are run by humans with limited time.

There is also a limit to how many blogs you can read in a day, which makes the focused searching of Google more useful, even if the links it produces are less trusted. Hence you get this battle over blogs linking to each other, which improves their findability in Google, which breaks the whole model of the virtuous system.

Frankly, I’d like to see some kind of “Personal Google” where each of us could have a search engine that stores our list of trusted links, and our list of trusted friends, and when we search returns based on level of trust (ie: how many of our friends or friends of friends trust that link, and how many degrees of separation are between them and us). del.icio.us and Squidoo are steps in this direction, but not necessarily the ultimate form of it.

8.  Michael G. Richard 9:59pm, Thu 2nd, 2006

Great post! Very insightful.

I’m tired of hearing bloggers complain that nobody reads their blog. Just create value, lots of it, consistently, and they will come. Don’t get discouraged after a few months… It’s like compound interest; it’s slow at first but worth it in the long run.

9.  Ric 2:19am, Fri 3rd, 2006

Whatever Scott’s complaints about your misunderstanding, your point (and Michael G’s) about people complaining that no-one reads their blog is somewhat self-serving – maybe they don’t have anything interesting to say yet (like me) – but if you’re looking for attention I’d suggest that blogging isn’t the way to go about it. Scott should read Hugh’s post:
http://www.gapingvoid.com/Moveable_Type/archives/002173.html
- but perhaps he’d just call Hugh a gatekeeper (he certainly gets a lot of link love!).