Since I started blogging regularly two months ago—though some of my entries go back two years here—I've noticed that there are five categories of blogs.
   Personal blogs are a form of diarizing and sharing, but to a limited audience. You have so-called experts who blog but know nothing other than wanting more references on Google, and it’s quite easy to see through their lack of knowledge—that’s the worst bunch. Then you have those smart guys who blog really cutting-edge stuff—those are the ones I appreciate. Then there are pseudo-journalists, many of whom do a better job than professional ones. Good on them. For corporate blogs: other than the blending of the corporate structure with the public, do they exist for any other purpose when it comes to branding?
   Somehow these corporate blogs are useful, but after visiting Bob Lutz’s GM one, I didn’t learn a thing. There’s no real inside track. This fifth category is probably irrelevant if all it does is communicate the official line; the pseudo-journalists are the ones which may well bring corporation and audience closer together because they go beyond the scope of the original brand. They really do blur the distinction between corporation and audience.
   Which makes me wonder two things: in a good company, there’s unlikely to be much difference in content between the fourth and fifth categories, except for tone. And if the world reaches a higher level of consciousness, will either the fourth or fifth categories be needed? We’ve a way yet before the second one takes hold, but consider the first question: Google will count the number of times Company X is mentioned. Because it owns Blogger, it will spider those sites. But if there is no cause for alarm, does that mean poorly run companies with anti-blogs will be more highly ranked than well run ones?
   I think we need to look at the rationale for web logs before we get too carried away with them. We may be too late. posted by Jack Yan, 1:33 AM  permalink