Want to be a top blogger? Forget it.
In the Atlantic Magazine, Benjamin Carlson reports on an interesting phenomenon – the professionalisation of the blogosphere, and especially the concentration of readers among the top 50 or so blogs. These, he notes, get some 40% of all blog traffic, and many of them are owned by traditional media outlets. Indeed
the big brands have become so powerful that it’s little wonder that 94 percent of the blogs counted in Technorati’s 2008 State of the Blogosphere report have been shuttered and abandoned.
Here at KoW, we’ve always been firm believers that size matters. Carlson’s corroborating article is fascinating for its contrast with the commonplace assertion that the blogosphere is democratizing media production.
Technorati’s 2009 report is online, meanwhile, and makes for interesting reading. I was particularly struck by the overlap between bloggers and the professional media – some 35% of the 2,900 bloggers in their survey had worked for the traditional media at some stage, a far greater proportion than the fewer than one percent of the US population who have done likewise.
What’s the relevance to security studies? Together with Carlson’s piece, that stat suggests that information distribution remains concentrated through some key nodes, despite the diminishing technological necessity for it to be so. The tail may indeed be long, but the head is large – an important finding for those who seek to shape media discourse.
[h/t Richard Sambrook]
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
But, democratization refers to *participation*, no? Does increasing participation change how the audience looks at the information presented? I know that I read news articles, listen to television news, and search out information in very different ways than in the past. I mean, maybe ordering Christmas presents on Amazon changes how you view the traditional news media? Big head, viewed differently? Okay, as usual, I am better at asking questions than having any ready answers!
That the audience from traditional media sites follows personalities online is to be expected. It’s the chance to “talk back,” to create, to connect, and potentially, to influence that are so interesting! I agree, though, that looking so much at the tail might confuse the issue, and obscure larger points. One way to look at it might be to ask how new media has changed the way that those top 40% “do business” (I don’t mean the financial pressures, I mean, has it changed the top dogs in how they view and present information?)
Endlessly fascinating topic. Well, for me!
Hi Madhu – yes indeed, it does refer to participation. Participation has certainly been democratised. The contrast I observed is that consumption has not become as eclectic as production – anyone can now write stuff that no one will read. That means the distribution of information is not democratic, since people won’t necessarily find the best or most useful, only the stuff they’re in the habit of reading.
No doubt, as you say, new media has changed how old media operates – now they hire bloggers rather than columnists, or redress their columnists as bloggers. Good way of cutting overheads, I suspect.
Ken, it’s worth pointing out (as I think Madhu may have been doing) that participation includes commenting. That means two things. First, bloggers control only a part of the writing underneath their name, and therefore only a part of the information received by their readers.
Second, the writers get instant (and often fairly blunt) feedback from their public. That’s double edged, of course – no one wants abuse – but it does make for more tailored writing. And although the blog may be sponsored by an old media brand, they tend to be personalized and without a formal writing style (compare, for instance, the Economist magazine and their Democracy in America blog). That makes for more freedom to adapt in the face of advice and criticism.
Tom Wein – Yes, that’s what I meant to say, but you put it much better than I did.
Kenneth Payne – Yes, the distribution is not democratic in the sense that all blogs are not equally read, but how could that be given the number of blogs, and unless the outcome were regulated? And it is up to a person to define what is most useful. Blogging is a process that includes the text, the comments (if the exist) and the presence of the hyperlink. Perhaps the professional reads around and links to a newbie? So, even if a person reads, say, the Guardian blogs regularly, there is no way of knowing what influences the individual more: the authors or the comments beneath (unless you ask the person, directly). It’s an interesting discussion, anyway, and a darn good post!
Ignore Technorati.
To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies “they would say that, wouldn’t they ?”
Try searching for “Kings of War” in Technorati and you will find that KoW and other well respected and influential blogs no longer exist according to Technorati
After years of financial failure, they changed their business model and ranking algorithms to concentrate on the big US based mainstream media run blogs, together with an attempt to jump on the Twitter bandwagon, so their “2009 survey” is obviously biased as a result.
You are better off using say the Bloglines feed aggregator to get an idea of the relative number of subscribers i.e. regular readers, and their search facility, which turns up a few of the other blogs which may be citing your blog articles.
Technorati got progressively worse, and is now useless for this.
You are much better off analysing your own web server statistics , for glimpses of search engine keyword search phrases and for visits from the mainstream media and the security / military / industrial / political complex from around the world.
This is an imperfect art, but better than what Technorati now offers you.
We’re there alright – authority of 531, whatever that might mean, and a ranking of 2917. Bubbling under, pop-pickers…
For comparison, Tom Ricks is at number 755, Danger Room at no. 264, Defence of the Realm at no. 5071. Does it mean much? Probably not (though I’d be lying if I said I wouldn’t sell my grandma to break into the top 2,800).
As for the survey – I’d say a survey of some 3000 bloggers is better than no survey at all.
Ken, stop reading the stats. Just keep doing your groovy own thing.
That’s the sort of attitude that’s kept us outside the top 2,800 for far too long… ;)
Another interesting measure is to compare the number of subscribers in the Google Reader. That strikes me as more accurate than Technorati. You can find that number by searching for a blog in the Reader’s subscribe field. Of course the number of real viewers is much higher than the subscribers.
Thanks for posting this about blogging. It gave me a lot to think about which I will blog about later :-)