How to get linked from the A-list
Robert Scoble is a genius. I will say this over and over. If there's one thing he knows how to do is to create a brand of his name as the A-list blogger of the people. His trademark 'Who are you' opening question, his disarming laugh, his simple 'everyman' questions (most of which he knows the answer to I'm sure) and his ability to stem the flow of negativity with brilliant stunts all contribute to his power.
But this post is not just to suck up to Robert - I'd like to ask a question.
His latest post (and stunt) is a thread where he asks the question "Do A-lister bloggers have a responsibility to link to others". In it, he asks that question and then opens the comments for everyone to spam a link to their own stuff.
One of the commenter’s, though, raises a very interesting point.
I know that back in my Z-list days (I am now on the Y list for those keeping track) it was/is hard to get a post you think is fantastic noticed by hardly anyone. But is that because the A-list is so hard to break into or because the tools for mining the long-tail are so poor?
Does Google Juice matter? Does being on the A-list matter? Whose A-list are we talking about?
I've said it before and I will say it again. Personal Relevance is more important than Popularity.
People who care about what I'm saying should find it - irrespective of how many incoming links I have.
Why? Maybe because I am not as popular as Robert but I still want to be heard. Don't we all? But more importantly because a local school does not need (or want) Robert's audience. They want an audience of locals. And locals should be able to discover that content without knowing what RSS is.
But this post is not just to suck up to Robert - I'd like to ask a question.
His latest post (and stunt) is a thread where he asks the question "Do A-lister bloggers have a responsibility to link to others". In it, he asks that question and then opens the comments for everyone to spam a link to their own stuff.
One of the commenter’s, though, raises a very interesting point.
Krishna Kumar Writes:
The PageRank algorithm is probably one of the key factors in this whole argument about link sharing. While the initial search engines used the “content” of your web site or page, nowadays (because of content spammers) authority (determined by incoming links) matters more.
The problem is that if a newbie or Z-lister has something really important to say or has some great idea, he or she will not get the necessary audience to propagate that idea.
I am not sure how this can be resolved because the commercialization of the Internet along with SEO businesses have changed the rules of the game that unfortunately now negatively affects new ideas.
And yes, a tech-savvy person can get his or her idea spread, but what if the person (non-profit, medical field, etc.) has no clue about Google juice and stuff like that.
I know that back in my Z-list days (I am now on the Y list for those keeping track) it was/is hard to get a post you think is fantastic noticed by hardly anyone. But is that because the A-list is so hard to break into or because the tools for mining the long-tail are so poor?
Does Google Juice matter? Does being on the A-list matter? Whose A-list are we talking about?
I've said it before and I will say it again. Personal Relevance is more important than Popularity.
People who care about what I'm saying should find it - irrespective of how many incoming links I have.
Why? Maybe because I am not as popular as Robert but I still want to be heard. Don't we all? But more importantly because a local school does not need (or want) Robert's audience. They want an audience of locals. And locals should be able to discover that content without knowing what RSS is.
Labels: a-list, attention, Media 2.0, personal relevancy, popularity, robertscoble, RSS
11 Comments:
I just thought of the perfect analogy to this. For some reason this remind me of High School; just becasue a girl is popular, doesnt mean shes going to be fun on a date .
Ashley is very insightful. PageRank doesn't matter as much as it once did. Google has been devaluing that and switching to more niche oriented algorithms.
Add to that that most parts of the world aren't as competitive as, say, "Microsoft tech news." So, it'll be fairly easy to get up on Google about various search terms. Even for Z listers.
Also, if you have something really unique and high value, the word-of-mouth network passes that along very rapidly.
In November a new company did a video. Called "Will it Blend?"
That was not a known company. But in six days they got six million downloads and 10,000 comments.
If you're good, the world will talk about you.
I think the premise that 'word of mouth will spread' is only sometimes right.
If what you do is WOW enough to get lots of attention quickly then it spreads from z-list but most times the things we have to say are only incrementally better or fresh. That does not mean our voice does not count.
I know there have been many times when I thought that an A-lister has missed the point but it was hard for me to really have an impact on the conversation.
Thanks for noticing my comment.
The point I was trying to make is that the content of your posting is less important than its popularity.
For example, let us say a student group at a university does a serious study about cancer causes and produce an academic paper. Unless they know how to market it using SEO techniques, that information will never be found.
The second problem that unless you have enough content and links, you are not taken seriously. Which basically means that your earliest blog posts are usually never read at all, regardless of how well written or researched they may be.
Hi Krishna - I know that's what you were saying. I used your comment to illustrate the real problem - that good content is not being found if it is written by z-listers. And I think that needs to change with better tools.
Do think it's possible to find good content without relying on some level of popularity measurement?
I think it is very difficult practically to find good content that one can trust without using some kind of popularity or authoritativeness measures.
In fact, to go back to the student research, unless they find a professor or someone authoritative to back them up, their ideas will not even find favor in their own community. It takes time to convince people and prove what one is saying really makes sense.
On the web, the same concept applies. Unless one spends enough time writing content and marketing yourself, one's ideas will not find any takers.
The internet is not the only network in town, word of mouth has been around a lot longer.
Passion is the key for spreading information, just ask the heretics.
Find the most passionate person about your chosen topic and convince them of the merit of your idea/data. That person will not give up in their quest to ensure your signal isn't stopped.
As an example, with a study on cancer causes, locate the leader of a local cancer support group and show them your idea/data. Repeat with scientists, journalists and health professionals.
If they fail you, turn to the blogosphere, podcasters and citizen media.
Try locals first, but if they fail you, go global. There's a lot of journalists looking for a good story these days.
If you find a blockage, route around it.
But if you're getting feedback with serious questions, track them and address each one, or the signal will slowly turn to noise.
@Martin - Sounds good - I am assuming you got measurable ROI fairly quickly then?
@Scientaestubique - I understand that advertising needs to be targeted. But if we assume that the most common form of advertising is AdWords or Federated Media type networks then we can assume most online advertising is well targeted now. So that assumption made - my question is "does it work"
@Pascoe - Interesting stuff - sounds like you are in the industry? What do you do?
So are you saying that you think Touchstone has a targeted advertising revenue opportunity? :)
@scientaestubique - I have two major issues with word of mouth.
1. It is very hard to turn people into advocates. There are people who spend their entire careers trying to network and create genuine advocates - only the few are able to do it.
2. Its hard to listen to word of mouth (aka the grapevine) when there there is a torrent of word of mouth networking. When im exposed to everyone's opinion about every possible thought, it's hard to hear through the noise.
This is also not to mention that people can be biased and esay swayed. Who do I trust? When do I trust them? I mean, isn't Digg "word of mouth"??
@ Chris
Most online advertising is still not well targeted, it's robotic. An article on the polluting power of four wheel drives will often have ads next to it, advertising four wheel drives.
@ Ashley
There's different kinds of word of mouth, and the important element is trust. I don't get into Digg because I don't have any trust relationship with most Diggers.
There are particular people who are skilled at spreading information, if you haven't read it, check out The Tipping Point.
Touchstone is about personal relevance, and so are trust relationships.
Trust is key and it can't be automated, simulated or faked. It can however be networked, syndicated and topical.
@Scientaestubique - Touché :)
Although with Digg you can follow only the diggs of your 'friends'.
Post a Comment
<< Home