LATEST ENTRY

BLOGS | Noah Brier

Reach vs. Influence

Let's figure out what we're really talking about here: Audience size or the influence you have over them.

October 19, 2006 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 7 COMMENTS

David Armano was kind enough to invite me to a presentation he gave at Digitas about the success of his blog. It was fascinating to be in the audience for a presentation by a blogger to his company about how to build something organically. David had lots of interesting points, especially the idea that once you've experienced the kind of authenticity you do in this online world, it's hard to go back to the bullshit of corporate communication.

One point I did take slight issue with was his depiction of how influence ripples in the blogosphere.

influence ripples

My question, which I also asked David, was whether what he was depicting was really influence or reach? What I was seeing was the sources with the largest reach spreading the widest. David's response was quite thoughtful. He suggested that what he was showing was the combination of reach and influence: A rare occurrence that is the holy grail of media.

The issue I have is that the wonder of the internet to me is the ability to have low-reach, high-influence. In an old media world, such a thing is not overly scalable, but online its an efficient and very real occurrence.

While I don't have the reach of the New York Times, for a small group of people on a small number of subjects, I am more influential (as scary as that may be). In the same way, I read the blogs of many people who are not widely read. Their ideas are what draw me to them, not the size of their audience.

As CK kept repeating, "it's about deep, not wide."

For someone like myself, there's no incentive to trying to appeal to a broader audience. People come here for a very specific reason and if I tried to write on more general things I'd probably attract no one at all.

Before I conclude, let me address one last thing. The question that always comes up with blogs is "how do you monetize?". I think the answer comes in the value of niche. "Imagine going into a room and asking everyone who's visited Yahoo! to raise their hand. Everyone in the room would have their arm in the air I assume. Now ask who's visited NoahBrier.com. Pretend one other person raises their hand. (Come on . . . use your imagination here!) The odds that you have something to talk about with that one other person in the room is far higher than you having something to talk about with everyone in the room."

This is not a brand new idea, niche publications have been doing it for years. But now that the cost of entry has dropped so low, it's awfully easy to enter a new niche and build an audience.

I guess what I'm saying is that a super-targeted audience who listens and thinks about what you say is the influence I want.

So thanks for being that.

PS David: Thanks so much for the invite, I really enjoyed the presentation and am in no way attacking you. Just bringing up some friendly debate.

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1Paul McEnany

That might be the perfect analogy. I hope you won't be pissed when I steal it. :)

October 20, 2006

2Josh

I just stumbled upon your blog last week, so I don't mean to jump in if I'm unwelcome (but you seem friendly, Noah ;-) ), but is it fair to ask if the question "How do you monetize?" is even necessarily relevant? I mean, does it sound too pessimistic to wonder if the first question shouldn't be "Can you monetize?" (Or alternately, "Must you monetize?")

October 20, 2006

3CK

Yes, David's prez was very insightful and it was great meeting you (and I get to meet our friend Paul in Dallas next week - woo-hoo!).

Though I'm a fan of going deep (gosh am I setting myself up!) and I'm a huge fan of your niche posts what I'm finding wild is just how wide one can go by focusing on deep. Let me explain...because I focused on my core audience it's led to being asked to contribute to other blogs (like Daily Fix) and that's widening my reach. Sure, that audience is within the marketing community--but it's far broader.

Same thing with Paul...because he focused on his core audience, BMA recruited him to speak to a larger audience.

Does that mean I'll switch my focus or abandon my base? Not a chance. Just like a good product: If you stay true to it, others will catch on...but only if you focus on what got you there in the first place.

Let's take Barack Obama (sp?), he's focused on his core values and because he's focused so well, he's being prepped for an '08 prez candidate post--but he's continuing to focus on his core product (his values/platform) and that's what is broadening his appeal.

So Noah, stay to the deep--it will serve you well. And in the process it will broaden your reach. Hope more brands follow this advice. And hey, thanks for the plug. And great post, btw.

October 20, 2006

4Noah Brier

Paul, steal away.

Josh, first off of course you are more than welcome to join the conversation. Thanks for stopping by. As for monetization, you're right, the question must not be asked. However, I saw an opportunity to make a connection between influence and monetization and I took it. I do think it's important to understand the benefit someone gets from something, though. In the case of this site, for instance, while there's no direct income at the moment, there certainly will be indirect in the future as a result of the connections I've made and influence I've established.

CK, great point. In a world where so many go wide by being bland, going wide by being focused seems to be a genuine strategy.

And glad you liked the post, thanks for the inspiration. :)

October 22, 2006

5V-+a%S(p#E*rsT=`hE..]gra_Te[

I think it's a good policy to focus on an expertise or topic, with very rare excursions into irrelevant personal tangents. It's very frustrating to go to some high traffic, high influence blog...and see tons of irrelevant junk in it, when you know that the blogger is a leading thinker.

To swim through all the "I'm going to this conference" and "I just got interviewed by so and so" and "I ate such and such sandwich for lunch" is annoying.

I have many interests, and I blog about all of them on VTG. But the vast majority of my posts are on web usability, blogology, ecommerce, MSM vs. blogosphere, and related issues.

I think, and hope, it's easy for readers to skip over what's irrelevant to them. Jakob Nielsen once said that the main purpose of web design is to help users IGNORE most of your content, to zero in on their specific interest or need of the moment.

As far as monetizing a blog, I laugh pretty hard. Nielsen also has asserted that it's pretty far fetched to make any money with a blog. Only the super high traffic make any real money via ads or downloadable product.

What is plausible is to present your expertise in your blog, and attract clients and business partners.

I'm focusing more on developer issues, and plan to remove almost all the so-called "marketing blogs" from my blog roll, replacing them with more technical, how to, bleeding edge innovation blogs.

Most marketing, business, and corporate blogs are a joke.

October 24, 2006

6David Armano

Noah,

It was great to see you at the event, and in no way do I feel "attacked".

I think you say it best yourself:

"He suggested that what he was showing was the combination of reach and influence: A rare occurrence that is the holy grail of media."

My visual does not show deep vs. wide. It shows deep + wide. Why do you think I named my blog Logic + Emotion? They Holy Grail of anything is at the interesection. That is where it gets interesting.

Cheers.
-david

October 24, 2006

7Player

A very small number of top bloggers have influence, influence perhaps in excess of what their actual readership suggests.But the average blogger has zero influence.

October 25, 2006