Over a year ago, I had the opportunity to step into the rarified boots of Darren Rowse for a week while he was one vacation. During that week, one of my more popular posts was one called “how to market your blog in 2007“. While watching the nerd fight (albeit between two wealthy nerds) going on between Fred Wilson and Mike Arrington, I couldn’t help but think *once again* how Mike Arrington is using blog / nerd fights to his advantage.
In a Machiavellian way, he should get a big pat on the back (but being thoroughly schooled in Machiavellian transactions, he’d be watching closely for a knife as well).
Andy Beal summarizes it much better than I ever could, but this is the two second summary.
Fred Wilson, wealthy venture capitalist, decides to take a few bloggers (who were journalists at one time) to task about the breadth of their coverage. He admits that the companies that aren’t receiving pub are the ones that he has a direct connection to.
Mike Arrington decides to jump in with both fists (wrapped in tape, dunked in glue, covered with glass shards) to defend one of the bloggers who are on his staff, by deconstructing Fred’s arguments, and then proceeds level with some personal attacks by calling him out: hypocritical, wrong, and conflicted — which should be no surprise, because that’s exactly what the title of the post is.
What happens now?
A storm of blog / nerd controversy as all the feeder blogs chime in, and Techmeme temporarily pushes said story to the top (because Techcrunch is the gorilla pimp of all tech media, according to Techmeme, and scores almost 50% more on the juice scale than its next competitor, CNET — which would merely be, for example, a monkey pimp, small and suitable for grooming other gorilla pimps).
Mike’s said this more than once, and it bears linking to. When he writes controversial stuff, he wins.
I’ll repeat that.
When he write controversial stuff, he wins.
In fact, the MORE that a big blog writes controversial stuff, the more that they will will win, compared to any given competitor; factoring in the X-Factor, which is the meanness quotient, and it multiples their overall winness (or, pwnage, if you’re WOW/CS/Halo-inclined).
And that’s why when I read stuff like this, I read it with a grain of salt.
I mean, it doesn’t really matter so much what the facts are, so much that everyone’s watching now.
Joe - we’ve found that the “hits” - the blog posts that generate a lot of discussion - are the ones that drive all stats, including, indirectly, monetization. The problem is knowing what’s a hit and what isn’t before it actually happens. Given that we are all rushing into new territory, I think a little leeway is appropriate.
Now, yes, its important to throw out the usual biscuit about blogger integrity, and so on, and so on. But the takeaway message is clearly this:
Engage your community. Don’t be afraid to get physical (in a metaphorical kind of way), and call people out. Don’t afraid to be negative. But be prepared to fight for your opinion.
And the bigger you are, the more effective it is (because people know about you). But even if you’re only a chimp-sized pimp (and not a Gorilla-sized one), its also effective, particularly if you call out a larger sized one and they actually respond.
{hint: it really works if what you’re saying has a ring of truth to some people}
February 18th, 2008 at 10:24 am | Permalink
Almost a year ago I wrote “controversy creates cash”:
http://www.centernetworks.com/word-of-the-week-controversy-sometimes-creates-cash
And it’s still true today. Which story pays better:
a. story about a startup
b. story about some (made up or real) controversy
ding ding B is the winner.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am | Permalink
[...] Hung’s take on this is a worthwhile read, and I do practice what I preach. Is it all just about controversy? Engage your community. Don’t be afraid to get physical (in a metaphorical kind of way), and [...]
February 18th, 2008 at 10:28 am | Permalink
[...] bookmarks tagged negative Blog Marketing Rule #42: He Who Is The Most Contro… saved by 2 others qdiddy10q bookmarked on 02/18/08 | [...]
February 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am | Permalink
Tony (and Allen) I agree with the controversy analysis, and actually don’t see anything wrong with a little controversy.
Maybe I am not in the majority, but I still feel that controversy needs to have some balance of opinion.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
[...] behind the furore that I’ve been thinking about a fair bit. Tony Hung puts his finger on it in this post, and Andy Beard mentions it in his as well. It’s the old “truth vs. traffic” [...]
February 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
[...] behind the furore that I’ve been thinking about a fair bit. Tony Hung puts his finger on it in this post, and Andy Beard mentions it in his as well. It’s the old “truth vs. traffic” [...]
February 18th, 2008 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
Andy — thanks for stopping by … balance is a good thing. Unfortunately, things like “balance”, “thoughtfulness”, and “nuance”, are things which are many rungs down from “sensational” and “headline grabbing” … as I’m sure Allen would agree. :)
Cheers
t @ dji
February 18th, 2008 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
I am sure I must get as many links “Andy Beal” as “Andy Beard” - I even caught Brad Fallon with a blooper the other day linking to one of Andy Beal with “Andy Beard” as anchor text.
I actually had a “first” comment from Michael on my blog, a shame he was in denial a little on the controversy angle.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
I really want to stay out of this because I could write for days about it :)
February 18th, 2008 at 10:35 pm | Permalink
Being controversial is fine. Having a point of view if fine, but I am very uncomfortable with the fact that people online seem to think it’s OK to tear someone to pieces at the drop of a hat. It’s also important to develop a set of personal standards and stick to them: being pleasant should be a golden rule for all of us on the Web.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:55 pm | Permalink
Patricia - the issue with your suggestion (which I like) is that unless everyone agrees, it won’t work. Same as with my feed for a buck. You know that one blogger won’t do it and it will force others back in.
In this particular case, Arrington could have responded with a comment on Wilson’s blog. But we know what that gets and we know what it gets with the way both gentlemen handled it. :)
February 18th, 2008 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
@Patricia — that sounds so polite, you almost sound Canadian. ;)
Like Allen, I agree with you in principle; unfortunately, the promise to be polite and circumspect goes out the window when a) people can be asshats without any specific consequences — particularly when they can do so anonymously (not the case in this circumstance) and b) there is something to gain from asshat-ery.
Now, neither Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Arrington were asshats per-se, but I use the term as an extreme example, insofar that changing the tone of your posts to something less-than-pleasant can be, in many circumstances, a totally rational thing to do.
Thanks for stopping by!
Tony.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:08 pm | Permalink
@Andy — I have to admit that in my own mind, I have made that very mistake more than once. :)
Luckily there are very few “Tony’s” in any part of the blogosphere that I might inhabit, very much “Hung’s”, or anything that sounds like “Hung”.
t
February 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm | Permalink
tony - what’s the deal with getting comments via email before they show up here? is it a caching thing?
when we meet, i want to hear you say “asshat” in public :)
February 18th, 2008 at 11:21 pm | Permalink
@Allen — not sure what it is. Could be caching, or my spam-catching plugins working over time.
I’ll be happy to say “ass-hat” to you whenever we run into each other btw … not directed *at* you, of course.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:24 pm | Permalink
thanks, i know - asshat, assclown those are good terms to use in public :)
nite all!