Doc Searls and the Power of the Long Tail

posted a blog stating that anyone in the long tail end of the blogosphere can have as much impact as any of the top bricks in the blogging pyramid. For this, he has been called deceptively cruel and he seems to be taking this criticism to heart, wondering if his statements are filled with with more Cluetrain idealism than actual truth.

Doc Searls, is just about the most egalitarian guys I know. He has encouraged more new bloggers than anyone I know and he is constantly giving people advice on how to become more visable and popular as a blogger. Doc, by nature is a generous guy.

First, Doc is very wise to take all criticism to heart and to constantly rethink his views. Second, for anyone who knows Doc, it is clear the guy does not have a cruel fiber anywhere in his body. But third, there seems to me to be overwhelming evidence that the nature of the blogosphere gives everyone a chance to be heard, and as the blogosphere continues its relentless expansion, this statement remains even more true.

So many examples jump to mind. There's Thomas Mahon, a Saville Row tailor who was nearly out of business before he started English Cut, a blog that caught everyone's attention and reversed his personal financial fortunes. . It happened for Grace Bonney an unemployed publicist whose Design Sponge blog has made her a powerful influence in her field. There's Patrice Cassard, a game developer who's La Fraise T-Shirt blog has moved him from unemployed status to downright wealthy. There's also the brave Dutch and Norwegian video bloggers who jumped from obscure to the top of all rankings for being there to record and post the tsunami as it broke over the beaches in Phuket as well as the camera phone blogger who showed the world what happened when a bomb exploded in the London tube. This event was repeated just a few weeks ago bu a phone blogger in an Alaska Arlines Passenger jet that sprung a leak at 30,000 feet. There's also the case of the anonymous EA Spouse who complained in a blog about her husband's awful working conditions in an obscure little blog. Electronic Arts ignored her comments as they wended their way through the blogosphere.  The company continued to ignore it right up until they settled one of its two employee abuse law suits for $15.4 million--all because of an obscure, anonymous blogger.

I hate the term A-Lister.  In fact, the first time I heard the term, I posted a protest to none other than Doc Searls when I first heard the term two years ago.  He has since convinced me that he hates the term as much as I did.  I have given up avoiding its use, since it has become so commonplace to blogging vernacular. The key point is that Z-listers become A-Listers every day. To remain an A-Lister however, you really need to invest the time and demonstrate the dedication that people like Doc show consistently, over time.Doc blogs a zillion times daily. He addresses issues that interest lots of people and very often he adds value and insight to the conversation. He is always transparent, authentic and wonderfully human.

Doc, you are an A-Lister in my book and you should take that as a compliment.

Comments

[/pd]

why do people want to be an "a-Lister" kinda thing ?? Is it all about an 'ego' dose ??

There are people out there, who have one or two who read their blogs and in my opinion, they are the long tail of communications....

[Jack Krupansky]

BTW, is it considered *okay* to be proud of being a Z-lister?

You know, kind of the status that goes with being eccentric or a reclusive hermit.

I'm waiting for Technorati to list a "Z" next to my blogs.

-- Jack Krupansky

[Shel Israel]

Jack,

I think people should be proud of what they write, or they shouldn't write. If I had a political blog and I only had three readers. They happened to be the heads of the US, China and Russia. Would that make me an A lister or a Z-lister?

[/pd]

Good Point Shel, !! thats exactly the point !!

[Jack Krupansky]

Shel: Your question is a good one, but maybe it's also a question of definition.

My suspicion is that most people interpret A-lister as meaning huge popularity - *everybody* wants you at their event. Similarly I suspect most people interpret Z-lister as meaning somebody who is mostly ignored by and uninteresting to most people.

This brings us to the classic search engine question: is relevance measured by numeric popularity or by qualitative impact. By the Google measure, your 3-reader blog would be classified as... ummm... "sucks". But by a non-quantitative measure of "real impact", you'd be an A++++-lister.

Alas, in today's blogosphere (e.g., Technorati), your 3-reader A++++ quality blog would be a very clear Z-lister.

It's also the old quality vs. quantity conundrum... would you rather be in Apple's position or Microsoft's. [Let Robert address that one!]

Finally, the conundrum we face is that a true Z-lister, someone who for whatever reason is valuable only to a very limited audience and hence is a clear Long Tail resident, gets widely dinged as lacking in popularity even though their limited number of readers gain significant value from the Z-lister.

The conundrum comes into play if a valued Z-lister overreaches and misguidedly attempts to go for A-list, with the result that their their value to their Z-list audience may completely evaporate (e.g., their ability to be responsive to comments from all of their readers and to give their readers special, focused attention).

Imagine your 3-leader blog if the whole world knew the "confidential" advice you were offering to those leaders. The value of that advice might (although not necessarily) become absolutely worthless.

Maybe we simply need to distinguish the hard-core, limited-audience Z-lister from someone who has A-list potential but simply hasn't been discovered yet. Then, the point becomes to "focus on your intended audience" rather than "Gee, *every* Z-lister has the potential to become an A-lister and *should* spend their effort trying." I wouldn't say that this advice would be "cruel" per se to the focused Z-lister, but I would say that it would be a disservice to that Z-lister's focused audience (e.g., the three heads of state who seek and need confidential advice).

-- Jack Krupansky

[Niti Bhan]

Jack,

Let's take your thought one step further - more than the question of "is it a matter of distinguishing the hard-core, limited-audience Z-lister from an as yet undiscovered someone who has A-list potential" is the question of the choice of topics or the writer's area of interest/focus. Prior to the Z and A list debate is the question, what topics have the potential to be A listed? Politics, Sex, Religion, Blogging, Business Basics, Marketing, Branding, PR etc any topic that cuts across lines and will appeal to the mass or broader audience. Someone writing on a topic that by it's nature has a broad appeal, could in theory, be an as yet undiscovered A lister. (or Lister, if one tends towards bad puns, a pox on me)

On the other hand, if the blogger is a specialist in organic chemistry (for example), writes cogently and reaches his/her wider audience - within the limits defined by the Long Tail of other organic chemists or students etc - then one could say he/she is an "A lister" within the subset of "Chemical writers" or "Organic Chemistry" or even, "Science" but never have the 'potential' to be an 'A lister' as per current definitions simply because the topic is not one for popular consumption.

It is this divergence that is taking place as the number of specialized blogs grow, where spheres of influence are defined by topic, and then you have the larger set of the blogospheric Universe (as in a Venn diagram).

IMHO, the issues being discussed, therefore, apply only to those willing/wishing to write for popular consumption. Not to the organic chemist, who may be the thought leader in his field. The question then becomes, how do you define 'A list potential' and what, indeed, is 'A list potential'? To the chemist, it is being cited by other blogs/journals in his field, not being ranked in Technorati.

Bringing this back to your statement, "Finally, the conundrum we face is that a true Z-lister, someone who for whatever reason is valuable only to a very limited audience and hence is a clear Long Tail resident, gets widely dinged as lacking in popularity even though their limited number of readers gain significant value from the Z-lister." demonstrates that what is in flux is the means by which quality or performance is being evaluated. That is, perhaps the time has come to relook at the metrics used to qualify a blog's value. And that this measure, clearly articulated, would take the pressure off those seeking to benchmark themselves against metrics that are inappropriate for their particular circumstance. Sort of like a 105lb woman trying to compete in the WWF.

[Jack Krupansky]

Niti:

Maybe what this gets it is the *structure* of the so-called Long Tail. Previously I might have thought about it as a ladder or hill, and the goal was to climb higher. But, that wouldn't recognize either your organic chemistry community with it's special interests, or Shel's 3-leader blog.

Question: Is the Long Tail even *relevant* at all the the A/B/C/D-lister discussion (climbing the ladder/hill to success)? Or, should we really talk about the Short/Long Tails for *each* distinct community? If so, each distinct community (Politics, Health, Entertainment, Inside Blogging, etc.) should have its own pecking order, based on popularity, merit, voting, or whatever scheme is "accepted" by the media?

Shel: reading your post again a little more carefully, I see that you use the phrase "the blogging pyramid", to which I would respond that it looks like we're headed towards a multi-pyramid blogosphere, with distinct communities. Maybe there's one pyramind "reserved" for the Blogosphere pioneers, but is not pyramid relevant for any Long Tailers at all?

I also read you saying "The key point is that Z-listers become A-Listers every day", which I think I would disagree with. What the given examples illustrate is that Z-listers have a shot at having 15-days of of "fame" or *temporary* A-list "guest" priviledges, after which they do the Cinderella thing and turn back into their Z-lister pumpkin selves and continue to sweep cinders possibly for the rest of eternity, hoping that maybe they will be boosted back to A-list "fame" again if only *their* flight depressurizes or a bomb goes off near (but not in) *their* train. Maybe you have some examples of people who went from the Z-list to the A-List say six months ago and are now recognized as "true" A-listers? How big might that list be?

There would seem to be certain qualities that go with being a true A-lister, and so few Z-listers will really have a solid shot at A-listdom.

But, that's okay, I think. It just means that the Blogosphere is seamless with actual life. There are plenty of stories from real life of nobodies who rise up and become very successful, whether in politics, sports, entertainment, writing, art, business, etc. BUT, that's not to say that *everybody* has the same shot at durable success.

Somebody: Tell me, how is the Blogosphere "megaphone" (whatever that really means) conceptually any different than a new artist or musician or writer or entrepreneur using snail mail to send samples of their work to agents?

-- Jack Krupansky

[Niti Bhan]

Jack,

Your question:
"If so, each distinct community (Politics, Health, Entertainment, Inside Blogging, etc.) should have its own pecking order, based on popularity, merit, voting, or whatever scheme is "accepted" by the media?"

First, I would ask, what would be the function of a pecking order in a community? Why is it necessary? If, for example, a blog whose function is to provide a 'face'/persona, as a website for a business or profession, then it serves it's purpose if a reader contacts the writer for paid work, if a reader requests the writer for contributions to other, more widely read, locations, or if it serves to provide a collection of the writer's thoughts. How does a pecking order help in this scenario?

However, if the blog's function is to increase reach and readership, thereby attracting opportunities for revenue generation through advertising or merchandising, then, indeed a 'pecking order' or ranking by popularity is most helpful - to the advertisers, marketers and others who seek to leverage this location's prominence and influence in their sphere of activity in order to propagate their paid messaging, viz., a Gawker or a Gridskipper

Perhaps, as a newbie, I have not wholly understood the issue, but the answer to your last question would be, none. There is no conceptual difference between using one medium of communication - a blog versus snail mail, as per your example given above with respect to 'attempting to reach an audience'- except for one crucial difference - you don't need the addresses for your readers to reach them; they, however, need yours, to locate and read you.

[Jeff Clavier]

Isn't it the case that these bloggers you are listing became visible b/c of the repeated "promotion" offered by more popular bloggers, which therefore demonstrates that it is difficult to rise to proeminence without being referenced by the "gatekeepers" or already being famous (the Guy Kawasaki or Raz Ozzie syndromes).

[Jack Krupansky]

Jeff C.: I agree with your gatekeeper thesis 99.999%, but since I'm a hard-core Darwinian, I also believe that truly mind-boggling merit will push you up the hill even if you don't *want* to go up the hill.

If you are a truly amazing writer or have mind-boggling life experiences, people really are going to notice and old-fashioned word of mouth will push you up the hill.

Sure, there are plenty of non-merit techniques to advance up the hill (e.g., higher-up bloggers who throw you a crumb on occasion by linking to you), but we should acknolwedge and commit to four things:

1) Popularity is *not* a measure or substitute for merit and true relevance.
2) True merit is intensely viral and inherently irrepressible.
3) Non-merit popularity *is* highly value by a bazillion people, whether we like it or not.
4) Unfortunately, because of #3 we can't restrict or limit the implied "value" associated with mere popularity.

If I personally haven't risen to "prominence", most likely it is quite simply because I've never written anything of truly notable merit. Not to mention the fact that I somehow manage to live a life of such charmed existence that nothing so bad has happened to me that the gossips feel the urge to spread it on the new grapevine called the Blogosphere.

Let me end with a provocative assertion...

Cluetrain Manifesto Thesis #7 (Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy) is in fact a *fraud*. The thesis is true as far as it goes: linking enable subversion of an existing hierarchy. But thesis #7 does not subvert the *concept* of a hierarchy. What the manifesto *doesn't* warn us of is that all linking does is replace one hierarchy with another. And here we are, mostly in agreement that the A-list mentality (based on linking) is horribly flawed.

I wonder how many other theses in the CT manifesto are as flawed as thesis #7.

-- Jack Krupansky

[Shel Israel]

Jack

I wouldn't have phrased it as "higher up bloggers who will throw you a crumb," but I would expand on yourcentral point. More highly rated bloggers can send you a brief traffic spike. It's great story telling, on valuable and/or interesting topics, that will get some of that traffic to keep coming back to you.

[Jack Krupansky]

That's one of the problems I see with the current Blogosphere: an obsession with "stories" to the exclusion or detriment of truth itself.

In fact, I have a web page entitled "Truth and Stories" in which I posit the alarming fact that so many people do in fact prefer misleading stories or gossip over "boring" truth. That's made clear from the James Frey "incident".

I call it my Theory of Truth: most people would much rather hear a "good" story contrived from half-truths or worse than listen to boring, factual truth.

Personally, I certainly hope that I never fall prey to giving "stories" priority over truth.

Lapsing into "story mode" is only a hop, skip, and a jump away from fantasy, fiction, deceit and even outright lies.

Unfortunately, our society does place a far greater "value" on "stories" than truth. To wit, the James Frey book is still up at #11 on Amazon.

So, here on Tuesday morning, February 14, 2006, the naked truth is that the Blogosphere does a far greater job of mirroring the uglier parts of our society than it does of improving upon them.

Even if the Blogosphere is a megaphone, mere amplification (including counting of links) does *nothing* to assure that we're filtering out dis-truth in favor of truth itself.

-- Jack Krupansky

[hugh macleod]

There's a meme I like to spread whenever I'm at a blog conference, and I hear someone kvetching about the "A-List".

"Oh," I'd say, "you're just talking about the Normal A-List. There's also soemthing much more powerful than that, called the 'Secret A-List', but only select Normal A-Listers are allowed to know about it..."

Then I do my best Dr Evil imitation... ;-)

[Shel Israel]

Dear God, Hugh, please don't let anyone list me as Normal!

[grace]

this will seem so silly, but just wanted to add that i'm not unemployed. i'm currently a consultant with conde nast.

thanks

designsponge (not even a z lister) ;)

[Shel Israel]

Grace,

It's good to hear from you and congrats on the Conde Naste gig. You are an A-Lister in my book.