PR Flacking / Reputation-Credit Blues

Why so much obsession with your audience and diffusion? It can be amazingly uninteresting. You constantly talk in ho-hum tones... is it not enough to blog for yourself and hope that what you have to say is interesting to someone? If you persist to talk about how lame it is to be in the long tail, people have no incentive to read your words.

Why so much obsession with your audience and diffusion?

Joe, seriously, wasn't it clear? For many reasons, I want to reach a substantial audience. I'm not happy shouting to the wind. I find my marginalization very frustrating and discouraging.

No, very specifically, very directly, it is NOT "enough to blog for yourself and hope that what you have to say is interesting to someone".

To me, that's like asking "is it not enough to stand on a streetcorner and rant and hope some passers-by listen?".

It takes time. It takes effort. Why do it if there's no effect? That is my view of it. If someone is happy writng a diary or chat, I don't criticize them. But by the same token, I shouldn't be criticized for not being content with diary/chat.

Regarding the long tail (or powerless masses), what I'm trying to do here, per the inside view of net-politics phrase in my header, is to document the struggles of someone who is not one of the A-listers powerfully at the top of the curve.

Recursively, if nobody is going to read it ... well, that sort of says it all :-(.

Nobody likes an obsequious complaining beggar... I think that's most of the gist of joe's point above.
haha.

I understand the annoyance, of course.
I mean, I know where you're coming from.

But it sounds a bit like you're trying to play one game by one set of rules, and trying to win an entirely different game in the process.

Sorry, Finkelstein - if you want big hits, you have to pander for them. ;)

Also, your post kind of insults anybody who is reading your blog. haha.

It's kind of like when I've been on dates with guys who were self-deprecating about themselves - in doing so, it was tantamount to insulting me for being with them - insulting my taste - basically like saying "I'm not good looking, you must be desperate".
Or WORSE, I've had a few cases where it seemed they were pretty much saying "I'm not good enough for a homecoming queen, so I'm stuck with you, but I'd rather the homecoming queen."
They may as well say those things.

And if you want to date the homecoming queen (IFEA)... first off, stop fighting with her buddies. Then spiff yourself up, throw money around (that always helps), and try to act cool.
Telling her she should come to her senses and fall all over you is not going to work.

I found it interesting your wording at the bottom of that (the linked e-mail):
"I couldn't participate under those circumstances."

Do you mean "I wouldn't want to participate under those circumstances." ?

If you don't like the way the homecoming queen behaves, you don't like her friends, and you don't want to be what she would like in a guy - don't complain that she's not your girlfriend! ;)

And for the love of pete, don't take yourself so damn seriously.

People are repelled by gravity, and attracted by levity, believe it or not. :)

Nobody likes an obsequious complaining beggar

Spare links? Spare links?

Also, your post kind of insults anybody who is reading your blog. haha.

The readers of my blog are obviously the coolest bestest people in the world. But the unfortunate fact is that there aren't nearly enough of such exemplary specimens (which is of course a determination that can always be argued, but I assume the question has a *nontrivial* answer).

Do you mean "I wouldn't want to participate under those circumstances." ?

Actually no - that makes it sound like it was just distaste, which isn't correct at all. Rather, the situation was that I'd inevitably lose if I did participate under those circumstances (i.e, free-fire trolling-zone with me as one of the targets). There's an objective aspect that's more important than the subjective aspect.

Anyway, let me recap. I've done done a lot of free-speech work and gotten very little credit. From this I derive blogging doesn't work for me. Is the answer:

a) DON'T TALK ABOUT IT! S*M*I*L*E! Nobody likes a whiner! - Well, so much for the unedited voice of a person. More relevantly, this is in fact proving my point - I cannot, through a blog, get much credit, and it's even worse because I then get second-order negatives atop the first-order negatives.

b) Suck, suck, suck, up to the A-list - I'm just not good at it.

c) Quit.

Thanks for the response, but, regrets, I find it all very disheartening.

I feel your pain.

It's hard to get the attention of the A-list, and it's even harder to get the attention of the general public. Heck, it's hard to get the attention of the B-list.

What I'm finding, though, is that it's incredibly hard work getting noticed in the blogoverse. The whole trackback mechanism is incredibly labor intensive, and there's not enough time in the (or my) day to keep up with it all.

That may explain why it's hard to penetrate the A-list. They probably don't have time to link to or to read everything they want to.

Don't get too discouraged though, you are being read.

A question to ask yourself is this: How important is the audience to you?

In my case I started blogging because I'm trying to develop my ideas in a public forum before I try to pitch them to legislators next year when they're in session, and blogging is the only way I can get access to the widest body of critics.

If your primary goal is getting noticed, then the audience is a primary goal. In my case the audience is secondary. Being ignored doesn't hurt as much.

Hi again, Seth... to be clear: I'll continue to read your blog as long as you continue to write. I was just trying to express how painful it is to read your blog sometimes. You have the occasional post that is great stuff and then a few posts about how no one's reading the last post!!!

I will continue to read for the occasional post... and also because you are an interesting creature in the blog zoo... about a million times more reflective than any other... fuck the A-list.

Here's another way to measure popularity... simply looking at the number of subscribers that syndicate you through bloglines... clicking on my syndication for you I see that you have 105 subscribers in bloglines. I have about 4.

Thanks Randy.

Joe, I understand it's painful to read. Imagine how much more painful it is to write. And even more so to experience! :-(

Exactly - I put in the time and energy to write what I think is a great post. Nobody (practically) reads it. I think, and write, "Why bother?". I'm not creating that long post to be a diary-entry or to chat. There is nothing wrong with dairy or chat. But I was aiming for more.

Yes, I know I have more readers than those even worse off than me. But even that amount is a huge amount of effort and (not very good) promotion. And it seems clear I'm not going to get to a higher level.

It is *extremely* frustrating, especially given the blog bubble-blowing and the associated attacks on the peasantry when the outcome doesn't live up to the hype.

> Nobody likes an obsequious complaining beggar
Spare links? Spare links?

hah!

The readers of my blog are obviously the coolest bestest people in the world. But the unfortunate fact is that there aren't nearly enough of [them]...

So you value quantity over quality?
Typically American. haha.

> Do you mean "I wouldn't want to participate under those circumstances." ?
Actually no - that makes it sound like it was just distaste, which isn't correct at all. Rather, the situation was that I'd inevitably lose if I did participate under those circumstances (i.e, free-fire trolling-zone with me as one of the targets). There's an objective aspect that's more important than the subjective aspect.

That sounds like distaste to me.
Indeed, it sounds a lot like "sour grapes".
And unfortunately that points out more negative about you than it does about them, regardless of how petty & immature they sound, from what you've described.
Would you aspire to be admired and treated well by delinquent 10 year olds? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

Anyway, let me recap. I've done done a lot of free-speech work and gotten very little credit. From this I derive blogging doesn't work for me. Is the answer:
a) DON'T TALK ABOUT IT! S*M*I*L*E! Nobody likes a whiner! - Well, so much for the unedited voice of a person. More relevantly, this is in fact proving my point - I cannot, through a blog, get much credit, and it's even worse because I then get second-order negatives atop the first-order negatives.

I think my point is, it sounds like you need a freakin' attitude adjustment.
I'm not saying be fake and act confident... I'm suggestion you develop some confidence for real!!

b) Suck, suck, suck, up to the A-list - I'm just not good at it.

Why would you want to be good at being an obsequious twit? I don't think you'll get more respect that way.

And I'm reminded of this...
ciderpresshill.com
(where I commented: "Or you can write what you want, in terms of content, and respect yourself and be respected by the few others who’ve happened to find you, and maybe or maybe not become a popular blog, depending on how wide an audience your content naturally could attract.")

c) Quit.
Thanks for the response, but, regrets, I find it all very disheartening.

Like I said, I think you need a massive attitude adjustment.

I mean, seriously, the way you're talking, it sounds like you need some self-esteem therapy and some assertiveness training. You're one step up from suicidal talk! haha.

And I don't care how smart you are, or how knowledgeable you are about something, or how important the stuff you publish is... Presentation of your work is BIG.

I'll be frank and point out the design of your blog as a rather huge flaw.
I get highway hypnosis here!
Reading everything in an extreme shade of pale. haha.

And you mention something like function over design, I say bullocks. And I think most corporations and publications that are "popular" or "profitable", would agree with me... Or they wouldn't have advertising departments and advertising agencies would be out of business.

Aesthetics appeal to people!
And unless you've got theeee most exciting (read: emotionally contraversial or inflammatory) content, a lack of aesthetic emotional appeal is a big detriment to a web site.

And I'm not saying that my web site is any marvel of web design, even though I'm an artist by trade. haha. And I know you're not. But damn, I'm sure there's some template you can find that would be more appealing! Or if it's really important to you, pay someone to design you something.

Or I guess beg someone to do it for you, in your case, since I doubt that's beneath you. haha!! ;)

Sorry if I seem brutally honest... But you've opened yourself up to it. And sometimes the truth sounds harsh when someone's trying to help a bit.
I've learned that those who would simply commiserate in negativity, are not as truly supportive and helpful as those who honest and forthright.
In other words, it's not that I think life is fair or the world is perfect, but joining your pity party doesn't seem very productive or psychologically healthy to me.

So you value quantity over quality?

I value objective effect. For example, the Presidential Daily Briefing has only one reader. But he is not reading my blog.

That sounds like distaste to me.

Again, there are both subjective and objective elements, but the objective aspect is the key problem. The existence of the subjective component can unfortunately be used as a kind of moralisitic distraction, along the line of, hypothetically,

"So, you don't want to be trolled and smeared all the time? NOT VALID. That doesn't matter. Never let it get to you, no matter how many flames and slimes and lies you endure, JUST TAKE IT!!!, that's the way to win" etc. etc. etc.

Whole books can be, and are, written along these lines. It is a very attractive viewpoint, as it allows the problem to be located as a moral failing, a character defect in the targets, and the solution then being to lecture them about fortitude.

This homily fails to engage the problem that no message can be communicated, no *objective* effect achieved, in a situation where a liar has a free hand.

I realize this is much more complex than simple exhortation. But it is the reality of the situation.

I think my point is, it sounds like you need a freakin' attitude adjustment.

Quite seriously - If I find something is not working, are you suggesting I am morally wrong to write about how it is not working? That is, is there any objective way to establish a reasonable truth to a sentence such as "Blogging does not work here [for me]".

Again, it is so simple to view everything as a matter of belief. But wishing doesn't make it so.

One can always stand on a streetcorner and rant. I do not view it as socially wrong to be dissatisfied with that lot in life.

Let me put it this way: I don't ask for commiseration. But condemnation is even less useful. See my parable: banging your head against the wall

[As to the one practical suggestion, improving presentation, I really doubt it makes the difference between between an audience of 350 and 350,000. I might tweak things if I were going to put much effort into continuing, but it'd a bandage on a corpse now]