"What's your audience size?" is wrong question

I’m reading my feeds this morning and see a few people talking about audience size for videobloggers and other content people. Here’s a sample:


Henry Blodget points out that Perez Hilton
has a huge audience, but hasn’t yet been able to sell much advertising to it.

Hugh Macleod applies some new math in figuring out the size of his audience (or other peoples, for that matter).

In the past few years I’ve had some success building audiences, but I found that that’s not really what’s important. It’s not what advertisers REALLY care about.

So, what do they care about?

1. Are you getting content that no one else is? For instance, today over on ScobleShow we have an interview with Rondee. A startup building a conference calling service that’s really great.

2. Does that content cause conversations to happen? If you use Google Blog Search, do you find anyone linking to it?

3. Does that content get noticed in the niche you’re covering? If you’re trying to cover do-it-yourself crafts or robots, for instance, does Make Magazine notice it and link to you?

4. Even more importantly, does it get the most credible and authoritative to link to you? Notice in point #3 I mentioned Make Magazine. In the do-it-yourself movement I can’t think of anything more credible or authoritative. So, getting a link from that matters more than getting a link, from, say, Loren Feldman over at 1938Media. Keep in mind that because Loren is funny his audience size might be bigger than the one hanging out over on Make. But no one will buy an ad on your site cause Loren made fun of it. They might, however, buy an ad if Make links to you a few times a month.

5. Chris Shipley’s Demo Conference proved to me it’s not the size of your audience that matters. It’s WHO is in the audience that matters. She has a micro audience. Usually about 1,000 people. But they include VCs, bloggers, journalists, and other influencers on whether startups get noticed or not. She usually has 60 companies on stage that each paid $18,000 to be there and most people in the audience paid more than $1,000 to listen to them.

6. I’ve been having lots of conversations with my producer, Rocky Barbanica, about the new thing that we’re doing (if you haven’t heard yet, we’re leaving PodTech and starting something new on January 16th — we’ll announce that on the 16th). But I never talk with Rocky about how large my audience will be. No, instead, we’re talking about who we want on the show for the first week. How can we make the quality better? Who is out there who is doing innovative stuff that we can learn from? Epic-FU, for instance, is one show I’m watching a lot. I’ve never heard Zadi or Steve (the two who do Epic-FU) talk about how they can get a large audience (I’ve been on several panels with Zadi). Instead she asks “how can I take my art further?”

And, THAT is the right question.

How can we take our art further?

How come bloggers never obsess about THAT?

back to reading feeds and thinking about taking my stuff to the next level.

Comments

  1. Oh. I’m quite obsessed about that. I’m not a videboblogger, but I’m always trying to get my blog one step further. I’m making big changes now, and I would be glad if you could come and see what I’m doing. And tell me what you think.
    Everything should be up on January 1st.

    Now, I’m looking like a spammer. Oh, bugger.

  2. Oh. I’m quite obsessed about that. I’m not a videboblogger, but I’m always trying to get my blog one step further. I’m making big changes now, and I would be glad if you could come and see what I’m doing. And tell me what you think.
    Everything should be up on January 1st.

    Now, I’m looking like a spammer. Oh, bugger.

  3. Oh. I’m quite obsessed about that. I’m not a videboblogger, but I’m always trying to get my blog one step further. I’m making big changes now, and I would be glad if you could come and see what I’m doing. And tell me what you think.
    Everything should be up on January 1st.

    Now, I’m looking like a spammer. Oh, bugger.

  4. Also, unfortunately, we can’t forget affluence. Car companies make tailored ads for LOGO (the gay channel), which has rather tiny audience. Why spend money on unique ads then? Because LOGO’s small audience has a lot more disposable income than, say, the Country Music Channel’s large audience.

  5. Also, unfortunately, we can’t forget affluence. Car companies make tailored ads for LOGO (the gay channel), which has rather tiny audience. Why spend money on unique ads then? Because LOGO’s small audience has a lot more disposable income than, say, the Country Music Channel’s large audience.

  6. Also, unfortunately, we can’t forget affluence. Car companies make tailored ads for LOGO (the gay channel), which has rather tiny audience. Why spend money on unique ads then? Because LOGO’s small audience has a lot more disposable income than, say, the Country Music Channel’s large audience.

  7. I come from a broadcasting background, and this not much different from how it works in that business. An advertiser generally makes a buy to reach a specific audience. Just like the rest of us, they’re looking to get the most bang for their buck.

  8. I come from a broadcasting background, and this not much different from how it works in that business. An advertiser generally makes a buy to reach a specific audience. Just like the rest of us, they’re looking to get the most bang for their buck.

  9. I come from a broadcasting background, and this not much different from how it works in that business. An advertiser generally makes a buy to reach a specific audience. Just like the rest of us, they’re looking to get the most bang for their buck.

  10. Zadi and I always looked at our show as a combination of passion and definition. The passion was creating something fun and interesting to us. The definition implied identifying an audience that was underserved. In our opinion, 16-24′s are underserved online by all the pranks, accidents, and clips from television shows out there. These people are intelligent, philosophical, and insightful. All you have to do to realize that is see the kinds of discussions they start on our community site at MIX.

    So for example you approached the Scoble Show by saying that I’m going to document and interview all the players who are defining the Web 2.0 business movement, however that period of time may one day wind up being historically defined. Seemed like a lot of people were interested in that. :)

    There are so many talented people who are working very hard, but still need to figure out what their show is really about. That’s what this past year has been for us with EPIC-FU — figuring out a way to talk about the show, and figuring out how each piece of content we cover advances us further toward that definition.

    Once you have that going, you have to be ready to sustain it for a long enough time to let people find out about it. Around March of 2007 we were getting about 200,000 plays each month. Now we’re in the millions, so figuring out that focus and identifying the best places to find the right audience were everything for us.

    We are now in our 18th month of the show’s existence, by the way. So it took a long time to get to this point. Now we have to work to sustain the audience, keep the show fresh, and really break through to that next level. It’s all a grand experiment.

  11. Zadi and I always looked at our show as a combination of passion and definition. The passion was creating something fun and interesting to us. The definition implied identifying an audience that was underserved. In our opinion, 16-24′s are underserved online by all the pranks, accidents, and clips from television shows out there. These people are intelligent, philosophical, and insightful. All you have to do to realize that is see the kinds of discussions they start on our community site at MIX.

    So for example you approached the Scoble Show by saying that I’m going to document and interview all the players who are defining the Web 2.0 business movement, however that period of time may one day wind up being historically defined. Seemed like a lot of people were interested in that. :)

    There are so many talented people who are working very hard, but still need to figure out what their show is really about. That’s what this past year has been for us with EPIC-FU — figuring out a way to talk about the show, and figuring out how each piece of content we cover advances us further toward that definition.

    Once you have that going, you have to be ready to sustain it for a long enough time to let people find out about it. Around March of 2007 we were getting about 200,000 plays each month. Now we’re in the millions, so figuring out that focus and identifying the best places to find the right audience were everything for us.

    We are now in our 18th month of the show’s existence, by the way. So it took a long time to get to this point. Now we have to work to sustain the audience, keep the show fresh, and really break through to that next level. It’s all a grand experiment.

  12. Zadi and I always looked at our show as a combination of passion and definition. The passion was creating something fun and interesting to us. The definition implied identifying an audience that was underserved. In our opinion, 16-24′s are underserved online by all the pranks, accidents, and clips from television shows out there. These people are intelligent, philosophical, and insightful. All you have to do to realize that is see the kinds of discussions they start on our community site at MIX.

    So for example you approached the Scoble Show by saying that I’m going to document and interview all the players who are defining the Web 2.0 business movement, however that period of time may one day wind up being historically defined. Seemed like a lot of people were interested in that. :)

    There are so many talented people who are working very hard, but still need to figure out what their show is really about. That’s what this past year has been for us with EPIC-FU — figuring out a way to talk about the show, and figuring out how each piece of content we cover advances us further toward that definition.

    Once you have that going, you have to be ready to sustain it for a long enough time to let people find out about it. Around March of 2007 we were getting about 200,000 plays each month. Now we’re in the millions, so figuring out that focus and identifying the best places to find the right audience were everything for us.

    We are now in our 18th month of the show’s existence, by the way. So it took a long time to get to this point. Now we have to work to sustain the audience, keep the show fresh, and really break through to that next level. It’s all a grand experiment.

  13. Steve: yes, it is a grand experiment, isn’t it? It feels like I’m diving off a cliff with our new thing. It’s exciting — and scary — to get a chance to reinvent yourself.

    You’ve done an awesome job of reinvention, which is one of the reasons I love your show.

  14. Steve: yes, it is a grand experiment, isn’t it? It feels like I’m diving off a cliff with our new thing. It’s exciting — and scary — to get a chance to reinvent yourself.

    You’ve done an awesome job of reinvention, which is one of the reasons I love your show.

  15. Steve: yes, it is a grand experiment, isn’t it? It feels like I’m diving off a cliff with our new thing. It’s exciting — and scary — to get a chance to reinvent yourself.

    You’ve done an awesome job of reinvention, which is one of the reasons I love your show.

  16. Seth: it goes further than just affluence. To me it goes to “transactionality.” Look at Google’s ads. Advertisers are FAR more likely to pay for something like “gadgets” than “world peace.” Even though “world peace” might bring a bigger audience. Why? Because people searching for gadgets are far more likely to buy something. It’s not the fact that the audience has money, but that the audience is willing to spend that money that really turns on advertisers.

  17. Seth: it goes further than just affluence. To me it goes to “transactionality.” Look at Google’s ads. Advertisers are FAR more likely to pay for something like “gadgets” than “world peace.” Even though “world peace” might bring a bigger audience. Why? Because people searching for gadgets are far more likely to buy something. It’s not the fact that the audience has money, but that the audience is willing to spend that money that really turns on advertisers.

  18. Seth: it goes further than just affluence. To me it goes to “transactionality.” Look at Google’s ads. Advertisers are FAR more likely to pay for something like “gadgets” than “world peace.” Even though “world peace” might bring a bigger audience. Why? Because people searching for gadgets are far more likely to buy something. It’s not the fact that the audience has money, but that the audience is willing to spend that money that really turns on advertisers.

  19. blogging an art? I guess just about anything qualifies.

    Scoble…seems are making the same move lead singers in bands think they can. Let’s hope you don’t end up the David Lee Roth of video blogging.

  20. blogging an art? I guess just about anything qualifies.

    Scoble…seems are making the same move lead singers in bands think they can. Let’s hope you don’t end up the David Lee Roth of video blogging.

  21. blogging an art? I guess just about anything qualifies.

    Scoble…seems are making the same move lead singers in bands think they can. Let’s hope you don’t end up the David Lee Roth of video blogging.

  22. I have never obsessed about the size of my audience or traffic. I like it when my traffic spikes, but I am not focused on it. I write for that one reader who needed to hear a message on the day he reads it. I occasionally get a comment or email from someone who was touched by my words (for a variety of reasons), and that makes my day (heck it can make my year).

    The amazing thing about the internet is once you post something it is out there to be found by the person who is seeking that information or message. It is almost a spiritual or cosmic thing.

    You have a huge audience….but I think it is because you are genuine in your interest about techie things. You have a childlike (I mean that in a good way) excitement and passion for all you study and report. It for this that you now have influence. Some scoff at you for this…. but I think it is an example of how consistency and real passion lead to success in any area. You could not cover all you do if you were faking it. That is the lesson in this whole audience , traffic, eyeballs, followers, etc… discussion.

  23. I have never obsessed about the size of my audience or traffic. I like it when my traffic spikes, but I am not focused on it. I write for that one reader who needed to hear a message on the day he reads it. I occasionally get a comment or email from someone who was touched by my words (for a variety of reasons), and that makes my day (heck it can make my year).

    The amazing thing about the internet is once you post something it is out there to be found by the person who is seeking that information or message. It is almost a spiritual or cosmic thing.

    You have a huge audience….but I think it is because you are genuine in your interest about techie things. You have a childlike (I mean that in a good way) excitement and passion for all you study and report. It for this that you now have influence. Some scoff at you for this…. but I think it is an example of how consistency and real passion lead to success in any area. You could not cover all you do if you were faking it. That is the lesson in this whole audience , traffic, eyeballs, followers, etc… discussion.

  24. I have never obsessed about the size of my audience or traffic. I like it when my traffic spikes, but I am not focused on it. I write for that one reader who needed to hear a message on the day he reads it. I occasionally get a comment or email from someone who was touched by my words (for a variety of reasons), and that makes my day (heck it can make my year).

    The amazing thing about the internet is once you post something it is out there to be found by the person who is seeking that information or message. It is almost a spiritual or cosmic thing.

    You have a huge audience….but I think it is because you are genuine in your interest about techie things. You have a childlike (I mean that in a good way) excitement and passion for all you study and report. It for this that you now have influence. Some scoff at you for this…. but I think it is an example of how consistency and real passion lead to success in any area. You could not cover all you do if you were faking it. That is the lesson in this whole audience , traffic, eyeballs, followers, etc… discussion.

  25. Robert: thanks, we really appreciate the support and encouragement. People in their 30′s to well into their 50′s watch and post comments on our shows, which tells us we’re making content that’s intelligent enough for a broad audience. Our reinvention was the result of having the luxury of being able to make mistakes. That’s what’s missing from the traditional model these days, imo.

    We’ll be looking forward to seeing what you announce in a couple of weeks.

  26. Robert: thanks, we really appreciate the support and encouragement. People in their 30′s to well into their 50′s watch and post comments on our shows, which tells us we’re making content that’s intelligent enough for a broad audience. Our reinvention was the result of having the luxury of being able to make mistakes. That’s what’s missing from the traditional model these days, imo.

    We’ll be looking forward to seeing what you announce in a couple of weeks.

  27. As I say in my 2008 predictions, I think blogging is going to change significantly beginning this year. Blogs (and bloggers) are going to be thin-sliced so that when I automatically get content from Fred Wilson, for example, I don’t get all the music stuff that I don’t care about, but the VC stuff that I do.

  28. As I say in my 2008 predictions, I think blogging is going to change significantly beginning this year. Blogs (and bloggers) are going to be thin-sliced so that when I automatically get content from Fred Wilson, for example, I don’t get all the music stuff that I don’t care about, but the VC stuff that I do.

  29. What you’re describing is the cable television business.

    They can sell niche ads on niche networks for a high CPM. The problem is the market is limited to the size of the niche.

    It’s really easy to fool yourself with how well you’re doing. Early growth is fast, because the community is small and insular. But you hit the top of your market size really quickly and then your growth is limited to the growth of your market.

  30. What you’re describing is the cable television business.

    They can sell niche ads on niche networks for a high CPM. The problem is the market is limited to the size of the niche.

    It’s really easy to fool yourself with how well you’re doing. Early growth is fast, because the community is small and insular. But you hit the top of your market size really quickly and then your growth is limited to the growth of your market.

  31. What you’re describing is the cable television business.

    They can sell niche ads on niche networks for a high CPM. The problem is the market is limited to the size of the niche.

    It’s really easy to fool yourself with how well you’re doing. Early growth is fast, because the community is small and insular. But you hit the top of your market size really quickly and then your growth is limited to the growth of your market.

  32. Robert,
    It is about creating conversations and reaching multiple points of gravity. Gravity causes people to move and pulls objects toward it(readers & other bloggers).

    It is not how many people you reach… rather… how many people of influence (that you care about) do you reach.

    Nice blog post.

  33. Robert,
    It is about creating conversations and reaching multiple points of gravity. Gravity causes people to move and pulls objects toward it(readers & other bloggers).

    It is not how many people you reach… rather… how many people of influence (that you care about) do you reach.

    Nice blog post.

  34. Sorry Robert, Adverting is About Audience Size First, Brand Sponsorships Later

    Robert Scoble posted a message on Twitter this morning mentioning something about how audience size doesn’t matter. Tonight I noticed a full post from Robert on the subject and I’d like to provide my thoughts on the topic.

    He begins by noting that…

  35. Pure numbers are seldom enough. I worry about my target audience. Its not huge – high school CS teachers – but I want to get as many of them as readers as possible. From what I can tell a rather large (even the majority) of my readers are not part of that target. While I am happy they are finding value in what I write getting more of them to read is not something I think about. Its getting the right information for my target and finding ways to let them know about it.

  36. Pure numbers are seldom enough. I worry about my target audience. Its not huge – high school CS teachers – but I want to get as many of them as readers as possible. From what I can tell a rather large (even the majority) of my readers are not part of that target. While I am happy they are finding value in what I write getting more of them to read is not something I think about. Its getting the right information for my target and finding ways to let them know about it.

  37. I concur with Allen on this one, Robert. This seems more like a Blogtopian view of how things _should_ work than a realistic view of how they do. That’s not to say I don’t believe these things should be our focus as writers (or video bloggers, or whatever your medium is). It’s just that I really think advertising buyers in the wider world can’t shake loose the errant thumb of sheer numbers from the scales they use, at least not yet. And perhaps what advertisers care about is, in this era of change, also in flux.

  38. I concur with Allen on this one, Robert. This seems more like a Blogtopian view of how things _should_ work than a realistic view of how they do. That’s not to say I don’t believe these things should be our focus as writers (or video bloggers, or whatever your medium is). It’s just that I really think advertising buyers in the wider world can’t shake loose the errant thumb of sheer numbers from the scales they use, at least not yet. And perhaps what advertisers care about is, in this era of change, also in flux.

  39. I concur with Allen on this one, Robert. This seems more like a Blogtopian view of how things _should_ work than a realistic view of how they do. That’s not to say I don’t believe these things should be our focus as writers (or video bloggers, or whatever your medium is). It’s just that I really think advertising buyers in the wider world can’t shake loose the errant thumb of sheer numbers from the scales they use, at least not yet. And perhaps what advertisers care about is, in this era of change, also in flux.

  40. Heh, yeah ‘behind’ ain’t a big help. Need more people by my *side*, dude. But I appreciate it.

    Maybe this year would be a good year to start a magazine. Heh.

  41. Heh, yeah ‘behind’ ain’t a big help. Need more people by my *side*, dude. But I appreciate it.

    Maybe this year would be a good year to start a magazine. Heh.

  42. Like I said on Hugh Macleod’s post, I write to build relationships and create value for my readers – and I’m definitely way more focused on communication and the quality of my writing than my stats. After all, I’d rather have a smaller number of readers that engage in conversation or otherwise enjoy my work than a bunch of fleeting eyeballs.

    On a somewhat related note, this is similar to my argument for the fact that search engine optimization is not all that important for most – instead, they should focus on creating value and community first, not on google traffic.

    And when it comes to advertising, the niche thing seems to hold – it has not been that difficult to sell ads on my fashion/style blog (and I’m not exactly Vogue here) because like gadget blogs, those readers are much more likely to click and purchase. The point – some niches are just much more likely to attract advertisers than others.

  43. Like I said on Hugh Macleod’s post, I write to build relationships and create value for my readers – and I’m definitely way more focused on communication and the quality of my writing than my stats. After all, I’d rather have a smaller number of readers that engage in conversation or otherwise enjoy my work than a bunch of fleeting eyeballs.

    On a somewhat related note, this is similar to my argument for the fact that search engine optimization is not all that important for most – instead, they should focus on creating value and community first, not on google traffic.

    And when it comes to advertising, the niche thing seems to hold – it has not been that difficult to sell ads on my fashion/style blog (and I’m not exactly Vogue here) because like gadget blogs, those readers are much more likely to click and purchase. The point – some niches are just much more likely to attract advertisers than others.

  44. I don’t think this is a “blogtopian” view it all. In many ways it’s the essence of smart advertising. Size is a factor for truly mass market products, but more important to brands is really the ability to target to the right people (at the right time). If I’m selling dog food, I want to reach dog owners — if you can help me do that efficiently then I’d much prefer using your small niche of dog owners than, say, all of some news site. It’s a smaller, more effective, more engaged audience.

  45. I don’t think this is a “blogtopian” view it all. In many ways it’s the essence of smart advertising. Size is a factor for truly mass market products, but more important to brands is really the ability to target to the right people (at the right time). If I’m selling dog food, I want to reach dog owners — if you can help me do that efficiently then I’d much prefer using your small niche of dog owners than, say, all of some news site. It’s a smaller, more effective, more engaged audience.

  46. I don’t think this is a “blogtopian” view it all. In many ways it’s the essence of smart advertising. Size is a factor for truly mass market products, but more important to brands is really the ability to target to the right people (at the right time). If I’m selling dog food, I want to reach dog owners — if you can help me do that efficiently then I’d much prefer using your small niche of dog owners than, say, all of some news site. It’s a smaller, more effective, more engaged audience.

  47. Although I agree that there are exceptions to the “audience size” issue, it’s still a good proxy for the value of a site in a given niche. Obviously visits to, say, TechCrunch are worth more to advertisers than visits to Perez Hilton’s site.

  48. Although I agree that there are exceptions to the “audience size” issue, it’s still a good proxy for the value of a site in a given niche. Obviously visits to, say, TechCrunch are worth more to advertisers than visits to Perez Hilton’s site.

  49. I agree with the one comment on here that said that blogging was about needing to write something that someone needs to read at one particular moment. It’s not about spikes in readership, its about writing the best thing you can in what ever subject your blog is about.

    I have three on here, giventosound.com and giventoscore.com in addition and whatever the subject, I always write from the heart and advertising or tailoring for sponsorship is not of interest to me.

    If we write it, they will come. Reader spikes are nice but shouldnt be essential.

  50. I agree with the one comment on here that said that blogging was about needing to write something that someone needs to read at one particular moment. It’s not about spikes in readership, its about writing the best thing you can in what ever subject your blog is about.

    I have three on here, giventosound.com and giventoscore.com in addition and whatever the subject, I always write from the heart and advertising or tailoring for sponsorship is not of interest to me.

    If we write it, they will come. Reader spikes are nice but shouldnt be essential.

  51. One other thing, I have no idea who you are, I don’t know if you are a celeb or well known or whatevr and I have never read your blog before, just in case thats important.

  52. One other thing, I have no idea who you are, I don’t know if you are a celeb or well known or whatevr and I have never read your blog before, just in case thats important.

  53. Classic cop-out shell-game tricks. When numbers low, claim readership is better, more elite, more important than all the peasantry riff-raff, when numbers high, claim that you were the first to ‘know’ this, everyone else took forever in ‘getting it’, the morons they are. In short: When low, go elite, when high, claim you were the first to know. Can’t ever lose.

    Counterpoints

    1. Exclusive content? Maybe there is a REASON why no one else has that material. Start-up exec’s running at the mouth on a narcissistic-personality-disorder streak isn’t exactly high-dynamic material.

    2. Conversations made up of what? If it’s just the usual blog drama queen conversations, so much the worse, besides that has a shelf life measured in hours. Quality of the conversation is critical, not just marketing-dweeb manipulated into a fake buzz lather. If a poor conversation, next time around people will be that much wiser, not buying into the reindeer games. And if you abuse the product and conversations for so long, no one will listen, crying wolf too many times (i.e. Realplayer and others of that ilk).

    3. Your niche might not be my niche. There is a whole world out there, limiting it to the blog puke or your narrow field of vision, isn’t the all.

    4. Credible and authoritative? Says who? You? Many differing sources of authority, and they can come from unlikely places. And oft times the MOST credible people aren’t even in the limelight glare, you have to hunt them down. Good journalists know that. What’s authority to you, might not be authority to me.

    5. Size always matters, but returns and results do too, i.e. profit margin’s. Basic economics. Things that stay forever niche, are stagnated and eventually salt-poison themselves out. A body of water, needs inputs and outputs, to remain vibrant. And audiences are fickle, one minute you can have an big audience, the next it’s gone. Hoarding all the toys be not “elite”, it’s childish.

    6. If no one listens, that doesn’t make it art. Media empire always should look at audience size, demographics, programming scheduling factors and advertising results. Quality of product is default. Playing the socialist, “art for art’s sake” games, ‘fund me just because’, will doom you to niche, followed by crash and burn. Quality should be assumed, if you even have to ask those questions, it’s not there yet.

  54. Classic cop-out shell-game tricks. When numbers low, claim readership is better, more elite, more important than all the peasantry riff-raff, when numbers high, claim that you were the first to ‘know’ this, everyone else took forever in ‘getting it’, the morons they are. In short: When low, go elite, when high, claim you were the first to know. Can’t ever lose.

    Counterpoints

    1. Exclusive content? Maybe there is a REASON why no one else has that material. Start-up exec’s running at the mouth on a narcissistic-personality-disorder streak isn’t exactly high-dynamic material.

    2. Conversations made up of what? If it’s just the usual blog drama queen conversations, so much the worse, besides that has a shelf life measured in hours. Quality of the conversation is critical, not just marketing-dweeb manipulated into a fake buzz lather. If a poor conversation, next time around people will be that much wiser, not buying into the reindeer games. And if you abuse the product and conversations for so long, no one will listen, crying wolf too many times (i.e. Realplayer and others of that ilk).

    3. Your niche might not be my niche. There is a whole world out there, limiting it to the blog puke or your narrow field of vision, isn’t the all.

    4. Credible and authoritative? Says who? You? Many differing sources of authority, and they can come from unlikely places. And oft times the MOST credible people aren’t even in the limelight glare, you have to hunt them down. Good journalists know that. What’s authority to you, might not be authority to me.

    5. Size always matters, but returns and results do too, i.e. profit margin’s. Basic economics. Things that stay forever niche, are stagnated and eventually salt-poison themselves out. A body of water, needs inputs and outputs, to remain vibrant. And audiences are fickle, one minute you can have an big audience, the next it’s gone. Hoarding all the toys be not “elite”, it’s childish.

    6. If no one listens, that doesn’t make it art. Media empire always should look at audience size, demographics, programming scheduling factors and advertising results. Quality of product is default. Playing the socialist, “art for art’s sake” games, ‘fund me just because’, will doom you to niche, followed by crash and burn. Quality should be assumed, if you even have to ask those questions, it’s not there yet.

  55. Chris, Chris, Chris. You sure are consistent. Glad to see you just make up your own points and don’t really acknowledge mine. That’s cool. I’m used to it with you.

  56. Chris, Chris, Chris. You sure are consistent. Glad to see you just make up your own points and don’t really acknowledge mine. That’s cool. I’m used to it with you.

  57. Chris, Chris, Chris. You sure are consistent. Glad to see you just make up your own points and don’t really acknowledge mine. That’s cool. I’m used to it with you.

  58. Robert – good post, contrarian, yet very much on point. Your observations are derived from the numbers (hopefully correct in this case). It is interesting that the same people who chase the “Google Ad Dream”, are the same ones who have a hard time digesting the Google numbers. Go figure!

    And where is the Google PR machine in this debate – if there is commentary from Google/YouTube, please point your audience to the their response – or please press them for one!

  59. Robert – good post, contrarian, yet very much on point. Your observations are derived from the numbers (hopefully correct in this case). It is interesting that the same people who chase the “Google Ad Dream”, are the same ones who have a hard time digesting the Google numbers. Go figure!

    And where is the Google PR machine in this debate – if there is commentary from Google/YouTube, please point your audience to the their response – or please press them for one!

  60. Robert – good post, contrarian, yet very much on point. Your observations are derived from the numbers (hopefully correct in this case). It is interesting that the same people who chase the “Google Ad Dream”, are the same ones who have a hard time digesting the Google numbers. Go figure!

    And where is the Google PR machine in this debate – if there is commentary from Google/YouTube, please point your audience to the their response – or please press them for one!

  61. Hi Robert!

    about 2 years ago, Susan Mernit and I were discussing audience and blog traffic, as I was very worried that my traffic was too low for my blog to ever make a difference…

    Susan said something to me to the effect of that it wasn’t how many people who were reading me, but *who* those people are…

    So, honestly, I may *still* have traffic numbers that make me appear far less than A-list, but, but I know that I’ve got some *fairly* influential readers. The proof has been some really interesting freelance work over the past two years (not to mention my short presentation at Supernova and a few other conferences.) For someone with no formal journalism nor marketing background (unless you count 5 years in retail), I can usually generate one link per post and end up on Techmeme. Not too bad for a low-traffic “nobody” :-)

  62. Hi Robert!

    about 2 years ago, Susan Mernit and I were discussing audience and blog traffic, as I was very worried that my traffic was too low for my blog to ever make a difference…

    Susan said something to me to the effect of that it wasn’t how many people who were reading me, but *who* those people are…

    So, honestly, I may *still* have traffic numbers that make me appear far less than A-list, but, but I know that I’ve got some *fairly* influential readers. The proof has been some really interesting freelance work over the past two years (not to mention my short presentation at Supernova and a few other conferences.) For someone with no formal journalism nor marketing background (unless you count 5 years in retail), I can usually generate one link per post and end up on Techmeme. Not too bad for a low-traffic “nobody” :-)

  63. Hi Robert!

    about 2 years ago, Susan Mernit and I were discussing audience and blog traffic, as I was very worried that my traffic was too low for my blog to ever make a difference…

    Susan said something to me to the effect of that it wasn’t how many people who were reading me, but *who* those people are…

    So, honestly, I may *still* have traffic numbers that make me appear far less than A-list, but, but I know that I’ve got some *fairly* influential readers. The proof has been some really interesting freelance work over the past two years (not to mention my short presentation at Supernova and a few other conferences.) For someone with no formal journalism nor marketing background (unless you count 5 years in retail), I can usually generate one link per post and end up on Techmeme. Not too bad for a low-traffic “nobody” :-)

  64. I loved this post. I am new to blogging and still am trying to find my voice. Your focus on increasing the art instead of the audience is very inspiring! Thanks.

  65. I loved this post. I am new to blogging and still am trying to find my voice. Your focus on increasing the art instead of the audience is very inspiring! Thanks.

  66. I agree with you on this one Robert. I know I would be happy with a small sized audience that comments regularly. The best blogs to me are the ones where the community gets involved with the blogger.

    PS. Doesn’t everyone know that bashing “The Scobleizer” is the best way to increase your stats… (^_^)/

  67. I agree with you on this one Robert. I know I would be happy with a small sized audience that comments regularly. The best blogs to me are the ones where the community gets involved with the blogger.

    PS. Doesn’t everyone know that bashing “The Scobleizer” is the best way to increase your stats… (^_^)/

  68. hi Robert
    great post! I have a smallish audience, but I do care about what content I have on my blog, I do care about my art! I would love to have it grow a bit more, but I am more concerned about how it comes off, and who it reaches than its size.

  69. hi Robert
    great post! I have a smallish audience, but I do care about what content I have on my blog, I do care about my art! I would love to have it grow a bit more, but I am more concerned about how it comes off, and who it reaches than its size.

  70. hi Robert
    great post! I have a smallish audience, but I do care about what content I have on my blog, I do care about my art! I would love to have it grow a bit more, but I am more concerned about how it comes off, and who it reaches than its size.

  71. make up your own points and don’t really acknowledge mine

    Do you understand the defintion of “counterpoint”?

  72. make up your own points and don’t really acknowledge mine

    Do you understand the defintion of “counterpoint”?