I read a post on Laurel Papworth’s blog this week where she attempted to justify that there was money to be made in social media based on two valuations of ‘blogs’; The Huffington Post and Techcrunch with combined valuations of $250M *cough*.
There are a few things about Laurel’s argument that troubled me.
Firstly, what and who defines what is and isn’t a blog? The Huffington Post in my mind is much more an online newspaper than it is a blog. Sure, there are blogs on there and it has all the buzzy social media tools you would expect but so does the smh and wsj.
The only conclusion I could draw is that that blog label gets used when it suits your agenda. The Huff gladly accepts its role as the pin up of social media. They would argue that if it gets them more PR and notoriety to be known as a blog then sure, call us a blog. You could even argue that the blog label makes them more valuable and gives them a point of distinction away from the old hat and dying newspaper business.
Take our group of sites at Sound Alliance. Blogging functionality – check, forums – check, twitter and Facebook stuff – check, comments – check, profiles – check… Does this make our sites blogs? Maybe it does but it doesn’t suit our agenda to be labeled blogs so as far as we are concerned we are not.
Secondly, I find the valuations in the post a little bit wild to say the least (I acknowledge Laurel took these from elsewhere). $150M for Huffington Post based on 15 x revenue. If we applied a 15 x revenue multiple to Sound Alliance we would be worth significantly more than the Huffington Post. I hope I’m wrong but that just seems a bit crazy to me. Value is what someone actually pays for something, not a price tag a blogger slaps on something to help sell their argument.
Lastly, right here in Australia there are fantastic success stories in the same space that are being overlooked in favour of global success stories, which let’s face it, are one in a million.
It’s all too easy to defer to these globally recognized success stories like the Huff and Techcrunch. Both are great sites with millions of readers. But how about digging a bit deeper and writing about the sites in Australia who have managed to generate significant revenues off a much smaller audience base? Arguably this is harder to do and is a better and more credible illustration that there is money to be made in social media right here in our own backyard.
2 Comments
Laurel Papworth 22 January 2010, 12:26pm
I didn’t say “blog” - the only time I used the term “blog” was when I bundled it with social media. Or do you not think TechCrunch and Huff are social media either. Please quote me accurately.
If you read my post “social media proprietors” you would see the expansion between one to many of blogs to many to many of forums/wikis etc. I’m quite clear it’s a progression from the limitation of blogs to the inclusiveness of social networks.
Lastly, I have ALWAYS maintained the view that blogs do social networking poorly - here’s a post from 3 years ago.
http://laurelpapworth.com/different-types-of-social-networks/ Articles with comments miss out on the fundamental social networking features of which there are about 12.
I know it’s popular to say that communication not content is King, but accurate content goes a long way to building a worthwhile site…
Don’t worry, I’m used to having people take potshots at me
Neil Ackland 22 January 2010, 1:40pm
Hey Laurel,
Thanks for commenting. I wasn’t intending to offend or take potshots, just open a dialogue
The word ‘blog’ features 8 times in the article.
I didn’t quote you at all.
I just read your post on social media proprietors. A good post which is pretty much what I was trying to say in my first point. I’m interested to know, in your view, how would you classify Sound Alliance media sites?
I’m not sure what you mean by your last comment about accurate content? Were you directing that at my blog, or our media sites generally?
Cheers
Neil