Roger Simon has a post concerning how much circulation his blog is getting (one might call that a vanity post...huge circulation is not a problem here). It led Roger to think about the whole "blogosphere" phenom and how it might eventually sustain itself. I had a couple of comments about the phenom myself:
1) The network of blogs quickly "raises" the visibility of good information from an obscure source to a small blog to high-circulation blogs to (very often) the MSM. Here is the chief value of a large network of blogs; it applies Metcalfe's Law to the news, without requiring any help from an unsympathetic news media. However, it needs to be an organism or an ecosphere with many cells, not just a small set of uber-blogs. Excuse me but this reminds me of 1 Corinthians 12.14-26. Think of the networked blogosphere in these terms:
For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
2) The financial problem for blogs could work out in a variety of ways, depending upon which part of "the body" you are. Lowly blogs, like mine, will have to subsist on volunteer work. Uber-blogs can exist through sponsorship and branding. In between blogs can use some of each.
Article comments
1 - Mac Diva
Very few blogs will ever be successful enough to be a source of sustained income. And, I don't think they should be. Blogs are very poor sources of information. I want people to get out of this echo chamber and read other, more reliable, sources. If someone gets most of his information from blogs, that person is likely an ignoramous.
Furthermore, researchers have learned that the relationship of small to large blogs is often that of minnows to big fish -- predatory. Larger blogs regularly take material from smaller ones without attribution. (I already knew it because I see material lifted from my blog without credit pretty often.) Coming to the notice of larger blogs may not be the boon people think it is.
I haven't noticed that any gods are involved in blogging at all.
2 - Eric Olsen
attribution is absolutely essential to making the ecosystem work
3 - Bill Wallo
The notion that "very few" blogs will ever be successful in terms of sustained income is an interesting one, but it may also miss the point. I like Rebecca Blood's concept of blogging as a "coffeehouse conversation in text," and if we are to take anything from the idea that there are now 3 million blogs out there, half of which are being updated regularly, then that means there are a lot of people talking in this "coffeehouse."
Yes, very few of them will be making big bucks from their blogs, but that is true of many aspects of the media industry. You can find many talented amateurs toiling in obscurity with independent comics, alternate presses, and freelance filmmakers all investing sizeable amounts of time and money to create something that may not make much of a return on their investment. So what? That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of interesting things happening in those media endeavors: it simply means that there isn't a lot of money to be made there.
One shouldn't confuse the fact that a particular media outlet is a relatively low budget affair with whether it is worthwhile or informative. Blogging as an activity is interesting because of the alternate voices that it gives a platform (it's the whole "Cluetrain Manifesto" thing in action again). Do I get most of my information from blogs? Of course not. But I often get interesting perspectives on information from blogs. And that's the conversational aspect of it in action.
Is a person who reads "only" blogs likely to be an ignoramus? Well, perhaps, in the sense that one needs to form an independent opinion based not simply on a blog post. But blogs in general seem to consume massive quantities of "outside" material. The blogs I enjoy frequently direct my attention to new material that I might otherwise have been unaware of. Again, not so much different than the "coffeehouse conversation" where somebody would tell me about the great book on international politics they just read.
I submit that the real problem here lies not in blogging itself, but in the perception of an individual blog as some sort of news source per se. Blogs are conversations about news, and that is a critical distinction.
4 - Mac Diva
Bill, most blog readers don't follow the links.
Nick Denton and I have gone back and forth on the money issue. Despite being one of the few people successful at making money from blogs, he is dedicated to the one person/one blog concept. It is basically an employer paying an employee -- not very well. His people move on when they get a better offer, real employment with benefits, from Big Media. The other money maker is, of course, porn blogs.
In regard to 'the alternate voices,' they largely aren't there. Most blogs are by uninformed people echoing other uninformed people. I can tell you what is on any 'blog for Bush,' including the blogroll, without looking at it. As someone who does have a mind of her own, I know I'm atypical for a blogger. The 'coffeehouse conversation' largely consists of a Right Wingers breathlessly echoing Drudge and calling folks ass hats. Perhaps the relatively few blogs by well-informed people, the cream of which disproportionately come from Big Media (Kos is the latest to let the cat out of the bag) redeems the blogosphere. Perhaps not.
5 - Robert T DeMarco
I find this thread interesting and thought provoking. The simple fact that it gets me to thinking is the real benefit.
As far as commercializing a blog its pretty simple, if your stuff is good, interesting, thought provoking, or emotion provoking the audience will find you even though you might be in the "blue nowhere" right now. If you attract a large enough audience then someone is going to want to do something with you, and pay for it. So, the money follows.
My main point here is simple. How else would you ever be able to come out of the "blue nowhere" if it wasn't because of your hard work on your blog? And my next point is, its probably easier than hitting the lottery (if you are talented), but not as easy as hitting the pick three.
Good luck.
bob
6 - Bill Wallo
Actually, I get a kick out of the Denton-sponsored Defamer website: interesting spin on Hollywood gossip. I pay very little attention to most of Denton's other endeavors (well, okay, I've tried Kinja, and I'm not sure about it yet).
But here's really my problem with your argument: while I can generally agree with the notion that the "mass" of stuff out there is crap and that many of the folks running blogs don't really have much to say, that is true of everything. Does the fact that the majority of movies aren't very good require that the movie industry be "redeemed?" Does the fact that much of modern music is trite and sadly unmemorable mean that music itself is worthless? Of course not. You simply have to sift the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
If we break it down politically, there are folks on both sides of the aisle whose blogs are remarkably crappy. The same is true of all kinds of blogs, regardless of their content.
All activities have those who do them well and those who don't but still try to play. Believe me, all you have to do is spend a bit of time in screenwriting circles to see (a) how many of those 40,000 scripts registered each year are really, really bad and (b) how few of the people who write those really bad scripts understand how crappy they really are.
I agree with you that blogging isn't without blemishes, but I guess I think you're holding it to too high a standard. There are some really good blogs out there, and that doesn't change simply because they may not make much money or because there are a lot of other blogs that aren't any good.
7 - Mac Diva
Bill, I think I've taken on the role of debunking because there is so much cheerleading for blogging in the blogosphere. Many bloggers have very inaccurate beliefs about blogging. For example, they don't realize that only about four percent of Web users regularly access blogs. Someone needs to inject reality.
I blog, but I don't have any illusions about. It is a way to try to get a little information out in an informal context. It is also a break from my 'real' writing. But, most of the 'we're all wonderful; we're gonna get rich' stuff in the blogosphere is balderdash. Most bloggers last about four months. Blogs are becoming a significant source of clutter on the Internet, because they are so easy to begin -- and end.