Much is being made of my decision to ban bloggers from the locker room. To me its pretty amusing. In particular I find it amusing that there is a presumption that if a blogger works for a big company, they must be better. The logic extends to the conclusion that if only I would evaluate the different blogs and make a qualitative selection, then big newspaper bloggers would be chosen as among the best. Let me just say, that should I go that direction, that I find quite a few individual bloggers to be far better than those earning a salary to blog . In fact, some of those blogs are written anonymously.
Which leads to my firm belief that newspapers having "bloggers" is easily one of the many bad decisions that newspapers have made over the past 10 years.
Much of what I am about to say can be considered semantics, but guess what, marketing and branding are all about semantics and perception.
Consider this a rule in marketing that could be added to my Startup Rules.
Never, ever, ever consider something that any literate human being with Internet access can create in under 5 minutes to be a product or service that can in any way differentiate your business.
If you feel that you must offer this product or service as a means of "keeping up" or as a checklist item that you must have for competitive reasons, then do everything possible to brand the product or service in a manner that segregates it from the masses. Perception is reality. If you can leverage your existing brand to create the perception that yours is different from the masses in some meaningful way, then you must do everything you can to do so.
Creating a perceived differentiation can take the form of promoting better execution or quality of the product or service, or it may be something as simple as just branding it with a different name than the mass product or service.
Failure to do so will pull your brand down to that of the masses or elevate the masses to a position of being better able to compete with you.
A blog is a blog is a blog is a blog. The NY Times Blogs on their website are blogs. People who have blogs have a hard enough time coming up with a definition of what blog is. Potential or even current readers have no real idea of what the term blog reflect in terms of quality or content.
I'm sure the NY Times, like all major media outlets hopes that because it is branded a NY Times blog, that readers will have the perception and expectation that it will be of a higher quality than say, Blogmaverick.com .
That when readers actually read the blog, they will see that its of a higher quality than say, Blogmaverick.com. It may well be that some do. The marketing reality however is that there is a significant risk that they will not. That rather than assigning the brand equity of the NY Times to the blogs hosted, they will take the alternative path of assigning their perception of what a blog is to the NY Times, there by having a negative impact on the brand equity of the NY Times. That's an enormous risk for any mainstream brand to take.
If I worked for the NY Times, or any other media company with any level of brand equity, I would have done everything possible to define the section of our website that offers ongoing as anything other than a blog. I would make up a name. Call it say.....RealTime Reporting.
RealTime Yankees: Catch in depth, up to the minute reports on the Yankees as only the NY Times world re known staff of Sports Writers can bring up
RealTime City Hall: The NY Times has more journalists covering the action at City Hall than anyone else. Catch in depth, up to the minute reports on NYC politics as as only the NY Times can.
Brand it RealTime. Brand it anything. Make sure you market it as having the characteristics unique to your staff that NO ONE ELSE on the net can bring.
if I were marketing for them, I would be doing everything I could to send the message that "The NY Times does not have blogs, we have Real Time Reports from the most qualified reporters in the world. Like blogs we post continuously , 24x7x365 to keep you up to speed, unlike blogs, we have the highest level of journalistic standards that we adhere to. A copy of which is available at....." You get the picture.
I would also market it as an extension of the print version. All the news that cant fit in print. In the sports world, I think this is where main stream media really has dropped the ball. There is no shortage of speculation and opinions on the net. There is an incredible lack of depth when it comes to game and team coverage.
Maybe its my own prejudice as an insider. I would much rather read any article on 82games.com or even some of the stuff that John Hollinger writes (although I think that the PER stuff is meaningless, i like how he tries to go in depth to analyze performance) than the stream of consciousness riffs that we find on every blog, regardless of host.
When I see content branded as a blog, I'm probably not going there unless its via a link from some other source. If I happen to find my way to a given blog multiple times, Im probably going to subscribe to the RSS feed. Even the, I don't ever consider a blog an authoritative source. I don't ever expect that all sources were confirmed and facts were check. Regardless of who hosts it. That's not a good thing for newspapers. They still have a chance to assign some level of authority to what they produce for their websites and calling it a blog is a huge mistake
Remember, there is TV , and there is HBO. A blog is a blog is a blog
Blogging and Newspapers, a Lesson in How Not to Brand and Market
Recent Posts
- The Ala Carting of Video on the Net - Will it lead to disaster ? (5/04/2008)
- Talking Mavs (5/02/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. A few weeks ago, you posted something about it being better for the music industry to release singles rather than full albums. Do you think there is any chance independent musicians will start putting out singles via blog style post? Blogs are easy to create and manage. It would be easy to use a credit card processing service to receive payment and this would give listeners an easy way to give feedback to the music.
Also, will this blogging boom come to an end? or will it continue to grow? It seems like there are so many pointless blogs out there with poorly written content. Still though, everyone deserves a chance to have a voice.
Posted at 3:11PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Gregory Rueda
3. I never pay much attention to the blogs on those kinds of big news sites. You just hit on the reason why, which I never thought about before.
A NY Times blog? Is there any way these big news companies could wave their virtual arms a little faster, as they are jumping up and down screaming, "Me too! Me too!"
Not that I'm judging the content, I'm not. The message of a newspaper blog is just lost on me. Why not just call them columns. Isn't that what reporters used to write? Or articles?
What exactly a blog is, I won't pretend to be able to answer. In my mind though, it evolved from the need for "everybody else" to have the ability to publish, whether that be individuals or companies who wouldn't previously have had the ability to put content out in any amount, on any schedule they desire.
The big publications already had this capability, so what's the point with the blogging?
Posted at 3:26PM on Mar 13th 2008 by NJ Web Guy
4. Couldn't agree more. Bloggers are they EBAYERS of media.
Posted at 3:57PM on Mar 13th 2008 by MeNoLikey
5. I feel that what differentiates newspapers from the masses is the fact that they have greater access than the general public. Newspapers have talented people, for sure, but there are plenty of talented, smart, insightful people not employed by newspapers. And many blog for free.
So yes. Part of what gives the newspapers their advantage is their greater access. Newspaper reporters get to attend news conferences. They get to ask questions to politicians, athletes and celebrities.
So does a newspaper blogger have an advantage over any other blogger? Yes...because of accessibility.
Except with the Dallas Mavericks. :-)
6. Agree with a lot that's in this post, and you've really hit the nail on the head with your assessment of blogging as a completely commoditized market.
That's why we've created Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com) as a clear point of differentiation to the sports blog. We're not a blog or a blog network, we're The Open Source Sports Network. And while Bleacher Report has some aspects similar to blogs, it also has many improvements on the blog, chief among them the filters for quality and reputation and the fact that every single article gets edited by a competent editor.
Learn More here: http://bleacherreport.com/about
Posted at 4:59PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Dave Nemetz
7. Your premise is that a "blog" is so different from other ways of delivering information that it cannot be used for journalism. I disagree. A blog is just a means for delivery -- a publishing platform. Blog software is lightweight and easy to use, and it has built-in reader-commenting abilities. You can argue that hard news has no place in a blog, and you might have a point there. But it's the perfect medium for opinion/commentary journalism, and it's a great tool for reporters to dump out all the little tidbits they pick up that don't warrant full-blown stories.
8. Blogging isn't true journalism. Period.
Posted at 5:29PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Rebeccalee Coventry
9. A blog is a publishing tool. Period. Newspapers use them because they're in the publishing business. A blog is as credible as the blogger makes it. The fact that most early bloggers were not particularly credible does nothing, in my opinion, to prevent newspapers from developing blogs that are. It's all about the content. Whether you call it a blog or something else doesn't matter. A blog is a blog is blog, and if the information in it proves just as reliable as what's in the newspaper, people will come to trust it just as they trust the newspaper.
Posted at 5:57PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Erik Rolfsen
11. Mark,
I understand your argument, but in the end, you are costing Tim McMahon a job. Mavs fans have expressed that they like reading the blog and gets people excited about the team. I think it is a bit of an ego trip for you this time. Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted at 6:42PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Jim
12. The problem with this whole thesis is the flawed assumption that bloggers are morons trying to steal something that doesn't belong to them. Utterly false. There may be a few who, in fact, are trying to do that, but it's quite ignorant to paint everybody with that broad brush.
As a guy with 35+ years experience in traditional media, I can testify that just because a media company signs your paycheck does not make you bright. In fact, I've met more intelligent, artistic, bright, funny, informed and interesting people via the blogosphere than at any time in my career with traditional media types. So, on its face, your argument suffers.
Moreover, if the blogosphere is generally considered pejorative, it is so, because it was tagged as such by the traditional press, who, like you, feel somehow that these guys and gals are stealing something that belongs to them. That it isn't true seems to escape those who benefit from the "us versus them" view.
As Upton Sinclair once said, "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Frankly, you can ban whoever you wish from your locker room, Mark, and you don't need to defend your actions to anybody. If a few people are giving you crap about it, screw 'em, but please don't let this lead you further down the road of misunderstanding what's taking place around you.
You're an extremely bright guy, Mark, but I gotta tell ya, some of the stuff that you publish here just makes me cringe.
Posted at 6:48PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Terry Heaton
13. I am really glad you wrote this post because normally I agree with you 99% of the time. I thought you were originally dead wrong on newspapers and blogs and now I understand the branding point. The benefit of a blog is not in what you call it but the tools you get with it. SEO, writing instant information, commenting, and builiding a community on the site and around the writer are really whats important for the newspaper. It would be real interesting to see if any smart newspapers try to coin a new word for journalism blogging.
14. Newspaper blogs aren't simply another way to deliver the same content though. Real time reporting can and does happen across newspaper sites all the time. With or without them.
The thing that differentiates blogs from other publishing platforms is _discussion_. That's why newspapers should be interested in blogging. Involve readers, build a community... all that stuff.
Whether or not they brand it something else, shouldn't newspapers absolutely be blogging?
Posted at 6:56PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Matt
15. One example of a blog from a newspaper that works - is the blog for The Columbus Ledger-Inquirer University of Georgia beat writer, David Ching (ching-athens.blogspot.com).
The guy is a journalist, follows the team around as a beat writer and writes stories that appear on the print/online paper daily. The newspaper requires him to have a blog, which he uses to post the overflow of information that he receives: interviews/Q&As that he didn't have space for on his daily practice Notebook, etc...basically the insider stuff that he could not use on the print versions of his stories (due to lack of space)...but usually without much opinion. He sometimes puts out links to the stories on the newspaper site.
To me, that's something that has really worked. He's not giving out much opinion, but mostly the team's whereabouts, things that he couldn't fit on the print stories, and full interviews that couldn't make the cut - things that an average blogger could not do. And he posts frequently and does it well - well enough that his site is one of the most frequented viewed by University of Georgia fans (who like me sometimes even go the Columbus-Ledger site to view his stories even though we have no affiliation or live anywhere close to that relatively small town).
Posted at 9:12PM on Mar 13th 2008 by aureliano
16. Way to go Mark!
I see that DMS has not read this yet. If they have, they would be writing negative assesments under different names every hour or so.
Posted at 9:30PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Jeremiah Boughton
17. What you state is obvious to me. What is sad is that it is not obvious to more people. This is one of two blogs I read. The way I choose a blog is based on the kind of information and the way the person comes to the conclusions they come to. It is ridiculous that you could choose which blogs to allow in the locker room. s if you would WANT to blow that much of your time. On top of all that it would be like choosing which paper to allow inside. You would then have to deal with a whole different set of calls of favoritism. And then wouldn't it in fact be that by the very nature of choosing which to allow in to the locker room?
I think the papers are lost and trying to get into blogging as a "solution" for declining subscriptions and revenue. They will grasp at anything they can.
Posted at 10:01PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Bill Ross
18. Mark,
You may have a point with all this blog stuff, but I think you badly miscalculated your response by taking this stuff public. Not many people even knew or cared that Tim MacMahon had a blog on the DMN website! In one fatal swoop you publicized the one person who was banned from the locker room. There was no fire, no one cared until you started the fire. All you had to do was ban him, not say a word, he might say something in his blog that a few people pickup on but you made the DMN and Tim MacMahon very happy by giving them free publicity. You of all people should know better.
Posted at 10:46PM on Mar 13th 2008 by Jason
19. First, let me say that I totally agree with your assessment as far as the importance for corporate media outlets to differentiate between something called a "blog" and giving it another name within their online pages.
And yet.
It is oh-so you, Mark Cuban, to dismiss everyone who writes under a "blog" format and marginalize them.
This is an incredibly presumptuous post ---
From a blogger.
Named Mark Cuban.
Therefore, the information you disseminate is not to be perceived as "authoritative" and by extension, not to be trusted.
And with your position as NBA team owner and businessman, see how silly that reads?
But.
What could be authoritative about newspapers or Big Box sports media outlets that report news in a manner that largely serves their corporate sponsors and the ideology of the corporation owning the media outlet?
Answer? Nothing. Nada. Nichts.
What's a "good" sports blog Cubes? The gossip-filled link dumps that do the half-naked women thing at least a few times a week? Are they informational or do they just feed your - and all those who read them - inner frat boy (or sorority girl)?
You know, the funny thing about your position as an "insider" is that you appear to be writing this not knowing that many "authorities" at corporate sports media outlets (some NBA writers, too) have their own ---- GASP! ----- blogs; under pseudonyms, of course.
And the funniest thing of all about your anti-blog screed as is that if you check your local Roget's and look up the word, "mediocre." Guess what word you'll find in the list of synonyms?
Mainstream.
addendum: your premise/hypothesis is faulty:
"Never, ever, ever consider something that any literate human being with Internet access can create in under 5 minutes to be a product or service that can in any way differentiate your business."
You can create the blog form in five minutes, but the content contained within a "blog" is created over varying amounts of time.
Just because you give the content a name like "RealTime" at, say "The Mark Cuban Times" the blog format itself that supports the content could be created in under five minutes. And if the content is good enough, it will certainly differentiate your business form others whose content is of lesser quality.
20. Good points in the posting. Would you be willing to offer a few thoughts on branding and attention via blogging for up and coming companies?
Is that something that's qualities are largely defined by which blogger? (Such as you posting a positive for John Hollinger, which makes him look good, whereas a favorable posting from basketbawful carries much less weight.)
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
1. What a hugely incitefull post.
I've always wondered why a big chunk the masses lock onto the idea of blog, blogging, to blog — and all the negative connotation that comes with that. When in fact a blog is a dynamic technology, a media construct and tool that should be used and presented so the unique value added it affords a business becaomes part of their own unique branding or calue added to their audience.
Businesses that position their use of this technology in unique ways will most certainly stand out from the 99% that's merely jumping on the latest hype bandwagon. I think for the 50,000 new blogs that enter the stream every 45 minutes, the majority would be hard pressed to give a clear and accurate definition of what the hell it is that they think a blog is, or even what they're doing with it that helps their business.
Posted at 2:50PM on Mar 13th 2008 by MIchael