Just as we speak of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, perhaps we should also make a distinction between Blog 1.0 and Blog 2.0.
What is the difference? Here's my definition:
The vast majority of bloggers are Blog 1.0 exponents, by which I mean their blogs are a technologically-assisted version of the personal diary (my own blog falls very squarely into this category). We are the latest in a long and entirely honourable tradition stretching back many years and, in the widest sense, embracing much of literature. The form of discourse, if that is the word, is essentially that of the monologue. It is not that we are averse to dialogue or exchange - after all no-one likes to whistle in the dark - it is just that "dialogue" is not our prime motivation.
Goodness knows how many Blog Oners there are around. I read today on www.telegraph.co.uk that "almost four million people in Britain regularly write a blog. Of those who have one, one in five update it at least once a day..." That's an awful lot of bloggers, but are they Oners or Twoers?
Incidentally, I also learnt from the same article that women are "the most enthusiastic bloggers, with 23 per cent blogging daily or more compared to only 17 per cent of men." I prefer not to try to interpret that. I always thought women's place was in the kitchen, right?
So what about Blog 2.0?
First of all, let me say that it's not a question of talent, of intrinsic interest or technical layout. A Blog 1.0 may score well in all these departments and a Blog 2.0 very badly (and vice versa) but that is not the point.
The prime purpose of the Blog 2.0 writer, as you have no doubt already guessed, is to communicate with others (for monetary and/or other reasons). Once you seize this essential point, everything else falls into place:
- A Blog Twoer needs to be focused, in other words to concentrate on a particular subject and audience.
- He needs to be familiar with all the ways of attracting readers to his blog
- He needs to spend a lot of time on the upkeep of his blog and on interacting with / responding to his audience
- He needs to spend a lot of time making courtesy calls to other blogs and sites and generally keeping up with developments in his particular field...
In short, and in a totally non-pejorative way, Blog 2.0 is PROFESSIONAL and Blog 1.0 is AMATEUR.
Barnaby, I enjoyed reading your thoughts on blogging. I never spend much time pondering such profound questions—I'm too busy blogging—but now that you've made me think (I forgive you this once): I agree with your characterizations of the two types of blogs, but not with your labels.
ReplyDeleteOne type of blogger is the diarist, who does it for the pleasure of the writing, which also is communicating. I wouldn't call this "amateur", but rather perhaps "personal" or something similar that does not connote a lack of quality (you being a case in point). And I would not call this Blog 1.0, which implies an early, primitive form.
The second type (like me) blogs for more outward-directed purposes, whether for money (not me so far!), to inform, or to persuade (according to a political, religious, economic, or other agenda). (No doubt I have overlooked some purposes.) You could call this "professional", but perhaps "purposeful" is more fitting. And I agree that such blogs need more focus, because they must target a specific audience. Again, I would avoid the Blog 2.0 label, because this type is not more advanced, and the two types coexist easily in the blogosphere.
Thank you for your thoughtful and engaging communications!
You make a very valid point, Jonathan. Please see my next post which tries to take your remarks on board.
ReplyDelete