Scoble: poster child for not blogging

Ethan: Microsoft gets a lot of value out of what I do, both on my day job (Channel 9) as well as my evening job (blogging).

Yeah, sometimes I assume my readers have read all my comments. Sorry about that.

>The issue is more whether the benefits of being uninhibited are worth their costs (and there have to be costs).

Well, I look at GapingVoid. He uses adult “non corporate” language all the time. His writing and linking has doubled the sales of a winery and a suit maker.

I look at my friend, Buzz Bruggeman. One link from me brought 400 downloads. One huge four-star review in USA Today brought about 30 (on front of the business section).

So, blogging is very far along the road of proving it has real, tangible, economic benefits.

It has some costs, too, yes. And we’re navigating that road too. One thing. Everyone can comment here. So, if I’m costing an OEM money, or I’m pissing off some CTO, they can comment here and everyone, including my boss, who reads all my stuff (and his boss, and his boss, and his boss, and his boss, and his boss, and his boss) reads my stuff too.

Believe me, if I start pissing off too many people I’m outta there. Gone.

I think Mr. Carr was trying to convey the ideas of responsibility and accountability.

What if a blogger at a smaller company has a bad day and angrily blogs something that financially damages the company.

Should all the investors and employees at the company say, oh I guess he just had a bad day, we don’t mind the losses that come along with that.

Blogging often leads towards speaking off the top off your head and sometimes in anger and that can be damaging to a company. I’m sure that’s obvious to you, so I’m not exactly sure what you complaint against Mr Carr’s piece is?

Mike:

>What if a blogger at a smaller company has a bad day and angrily blogs something that financially damages the company.

What if a receptionist at a smaller company has a bad day? What if an engineer has a bad day? What if a CEO has a bad day?

I’ve seen employees make decisions that cause millions of dollars in losses.

Those are the risks of being in business.

Most businesses go out of business. Why? Cause we’re human and not perfect.

To expect everyone to be a machine is just not right.

Let the first one of you who has never made a business mistake throw the first stone!

Nick Carr always hits homers. But I’d wish he’d take his own advice, and instead of blogging, kick out a few more books.

One of the big fallacies of blog evangelism is what I call the “lottery argument”. If, say, 10% of the attempts worked well, and 90% of the attempts failed miserably, there would still be a large absolute number of gains to point to, to say “Look, look, that person played the games, and won a nice prize” – even if, overall, the odds were horrible.

There is very little which is unalloyed positive – that’s a quack-medicine pitch.

Ethan: Fairly cold – I was vaguely aware of the “60%” issued, but came here today after reading Nick Carr’s post.

Robert

There is a big difference between making a mistake and making a mistake and broadcasting it to the world.

And with blogging, it is the act of blogging itself that can lead to the mistake through the need to express our opinion and blow off some steam.

Words have consequences which is why the wisest of people think about and measure their words (I obviously don’t include myself in this category by the fact that I am currently commenting).

Robert, blogging is great and I love the fact that I feel that I have a relationship with you and others through our correspondance here and in emails.

But a corporation with it’s many stakeholders needs to be a little more responsible and blogging is not the most responsible means of communication. Personal yes, but responsible, often not. That’s how I read Mr. Carr and it seems like sensible advice to me.

The point, as Robert aluded to in his comments above is that everyone at a company could cost their company millions. The receptionist who is rude, the janitor who washes a floor and makes you go a different way, the wife of the CEO who is snobbish at a community play, etc. There is too many people who are trying to create beauracratic rules that everyone should live by. Nick’s post about blogging rules should have started with his last point “call in the lawyers”, since no one would ever be able to blog. Of course, that would mean that Nick couldn’t fill the rest of his entry to make it beefier. Too many companies are worried about images that they don’t really have. These same companies should engage in blogging, imperfect as it is, since it provides openness. In Nick’s world he would prefer that negative comments not be shared, but I submit that those very comments actually help companies more than hurt. If companies or products are inefficient or for that matter stink, then how better to get free feedback than in a blog comment? This is no different than forums, which have existed forever, just in a different format. Eradicate the middle-layers of “protect your a$$” and use this as a way to innovate.

Remember, we are a forgiving world, when a person admits they’re wrong. We don’t easily forgive hypocrisy though and for those who are stone-throwers today might find themselves in front of a firing squad in the future. Let the stone thrower beware.

Jonathan, thanks.

I like what Tara Hunt said: http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/03/how-not-to-blog.html

“The point, as Robert aluded to in his comments above is that everyone at a company could cost their company millions.”

Although technically that statement is true, it is not accurate. The receptionist is an order of magnitude less likely to cause damage to the company then others with more prominent roles, which is why companies often buy Director and Officer’s Liability Insurance and not Receptionists Insurance. (Can blogger’s insurance be far behind?)

I think Robert’s pointer to Ms Hunt highlights that corporate blogging has landed firmly as a PR and Marketing function, just another means of communication with a little more latitude on the rules, but there are rules, even if they’re unwritten as yet.

And the bottom line of corporate blogging as a PR and Marketing function is to make money for the company, certainly no crime there.

But if the liabilities outweigh the assets that blogging brings, any responsible company should and will put the brakes, or at least the harnesses on it. That’s another point Mr Carr is clearly making and it seems to make sense to me.

Fun comment thread going on over here: http://jeffnolan.com/wp/2006/03/27/scoble-poster-child-for-not-blogging/

Nick Carr just said “Jeff, I have nothing against shrillness and antagonism in general. As with any rhetorical gambit, they can be used well or not-so-well. I was writing about corporate blogging. It’s there that I think shrillness and antagonism are probably best avoided. Nick”

Ahh, so if you are an independent it’s perfectly OK to act insane and say insane things. But not if you’re a corporate employee.

Heheh. Well, I’d add to that, not if you’re not willing to take the consequences. Which include getting jumped on by other bloggers.

Thanks for the apology Robert but it’s not really necessary. You are doing the world a favor by reminding people of what a hack publication The Register is. You are right to feel morally outraged that anyone at all takes them seriously, this should be the natural human response.

Andrew Orlowski is a sloppy hack journalist at best, and a liar who fabricates emails at worst. Of course we won’t know because his publication doesn’t feel it’s necessary to clarify where they get emails that are disputed.

While I’m pretty vocal about the shortcomings of The Register as a totally worthless excuse for journalism there are many others who know this but don’t write it. Bravo for speaking up for the truth. Even with their reputation as dubious as it is there are still those who somehow see The Register as legit. I mostly refer to this as a rookie blogger mistake. I can see where this would infuriate you and I’d thank you for continuing to remind people why not to take them seriously.

Let’s put Carr on the other end of it with The Register and see how he feels about it then.

Keep up the good work. You do more good for the reputation of Microsoft by being human than not. It’s human to feel outrage over publications like The Register.

Sure, “shrillness and antagonism” can work well if you’re an entertainer, or a political hack, or looking to carve out a niche as a rhetorical bomb-thrower. There are some narrow roles where that is part of the job. But, overall, especially in a corporate context, those tactics seem to be something that will hurt rather than help.

That’s a perfectly reasonable argument.

Thanks Thomas, here’s another one about Orlowski and the Register: http://www.monashreport.com/2006/03/22/goodmail-esther-dyson-andrew-orlowski-etc/

I’m noticing a trend here.

@26. How is that measured? Surely not in the performance of the stock price or shareholder value. Because if it is….

(Then again, apparently Ballmer’s value is not measured in how MS’s bottom line does, either.)

Scoble, I thought David Richards should apologize for spreading false rumours.

Well, is Microsoft planning legal action against SmartHouse ? Atleast they can have the “infamous” 60% story removed.

Amit Agarwal

Scoble – So what did Raymond of Acer say ? What part was misquoted ?

met: he and I had a nice conversation. You won’t find me talking about what he said. If he wants to blog about it, I’ll link to him. But, he told me enough to know that he wasn’t well reported on.

ok

Robert, I recall a long while back you suggested bloggers shouldn’t blog if they were not in a good frame of mind. Well, I don’t know if you’re in a good frame of mind or not, but it appears so. Carr said your posts have become “increasingly shrill and antagonistic of late.” Have they?

Recently, I’ve slowed down my blogging to expend emotional and mental energy on other pursuits. But that break caused me to come back refreshed and re-energized. I’m wondering if you wouldn’t benefit from a similar blogging holiday.

I know, I know, I’m not your priest or anything, but you are someone I admire. You said it yourself, you are human. People like me have put you on a pedestal and expected you to stay there. Every once in a while it’s healthy to step down.

Those who have earned posts as gatekeepers and critics of this new medium, the blog, have grown arrogant and are professionally disingenuous. Scoble is doing a credible job and obviously has put his heart into his on-going remarks.. Readers can see through most corporate, sterile, buzz-word rich propaganda. Give me a break! Readers of this blog are seeking real opinions and chat about the IT revolution.