Comments on: You Don’t Need a Blog

By: Alonzo

Alonzo — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:29:56 +0000

And this is why I love http://www.spokenwhirred.com. Unbelievable post.

http://downloadinsisted.blogspot.com/2010/03/download-ranking-video-ferr.html

By: Brian Schwartz

Brian Schwartz — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:09:09 +0000

Very good points Jim… Until companies recognize the value of social media (all sorts, not just corporate blogs) – their blogs will be just SEO tools, not destinations (or trusted resources – per your quoted stats) for readers, clients, etc.
I’d rather a client outsource social media efforts (if they understand the benefits) than take it on themselves and fail.
You’re right about the paradigm shift – it’s already taking place – their customers, competitors and likely their employees are all using social media.
As for my header (Try Social Media First), you’re right, It should say: “Try Other Social Media First” – My point is microblogs, facebook, et al are easier to commit to when getting started that a big public facing blog that will obviously be outdated when the posts stop.

By: Jim Durbin

Jim Durbin — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:46:00 +0000

I like what you’re saying Brian. Companies shouldn’t start a blog just to have one. But if they’re spending money on SEO, or any online marketing, a blog is a powerful content manager.
84% of the latest poll respondents say they don’t trust company blogs. That’s because most are terrible. This hasn’t changed much since 2005, when 70% of companies reported being dissatisfied with their blog, but 80% said their reason for having a blog was just to “have one.”
You wouldn’t hire an employee or buy office furniture without having a purpose – why would a company add a social media project without a purpose (and just a tip – blogs are social media)?
The question – is not so much if a company should have a blog, but whether a company is willing to “get dirty” with social media. It is a paradigm shift – but one that is happening with or without the company.
You can’t hide from social media. A company may not write a blog, but someone, somewhere, is writing about them. And if they have no voice – they have no input.

By: Brian Schwartz

Brian Schwartz — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:13:47 +0000

@ Walt – Thanks for the Bravo. I agree with the posting on a blog about a post on a blog… just typing that much made my head spin.
@ Tony – I prefer grouchy or snarky, but aggressive or offensive could work as well.
IMO, The main reason most companies these days need a website (from a consumer point-of-view) is so that they can be found. Search engines (specifically google) are the yellow pages of this era.
There are many reasons (from a business owner point of view) that this can be used advantageously to drive new sales from the web. But I know what you mean…
Re: Newsletters and sales force, you’re right, I am too young, I’ll defer to Chuck Hart and Dan Klein, two of my partners at Spoke for those references. I’m sure they remember them and Chuck likely helped build some in his 80’s agency hey days.

By: Tony Patti

Tony Patti — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:24:01 +0000

Your aggressive, offensive approach has convinced me! To use a more obsequious agency. One that knows their place!
Just kidding. Useful websites are so rare that it almost defies belief. The only website I ever did that was worthwhile was the Saint Louis Arch, which was ages ago, when they first launched it. Most companies have no need for a website, even.
You are probably too young to remember Newsletters, but they were the blogs of the 1980s. If you were to substitute “Newsletter” for blog and “Sales Force” for website in your post we would enter a kind of time warp and all be sucked back into the era when wearing skinny ties and Ray Bans was frowned upon in most decent agencies here in Saint Louis.
Just sayin’.