Statistics, Lies, and Fart Jokes
How noble of Fred "A VC In NYC" Wilson to chime in and try to play the school principal in the playground dust-up over the Comscore blog report. To be clear, he fully disclosed earlier, "I am an investor in and a director of Comscore and have been working with this great company since 1999." That's awesome dude, so your opinions and thoughts are totally objective on this matter. Fantastic, good to see you fighting the good fight.
Anyway, most of this comes down to PR and how Denton & co. blew it. Here was the first big "state of the blogs" research report and it's co-sponsored by just one company on the publisher side. Seems odd, no? (Is there a fast-food industry report that's widely held in high regard sponsored solely by Burger King and the American Beef Association? Just curious.) I can't decide if Nick is that arrogant or that stupid. I am 100% sure the numbers were NOT massaged or tinkered with at all to favor his blogs (the numbers are just plain wrong through whatever mechanisms the methodology entails) but there was no reason not to include others in this industry-impacting project. Was he trying to be a glory hog?
It makes no sense to give anyone, *especially* Calacanis (and maybe me), a reason to think any impropiety is going on. Throw in the fact one of Nick's good friends, Rick Bruner, co-wrote the report and admitted he contacted Nick first at the start of this project and saw no reason to include anyone else (Jason says he tried to give his two cents early on but was clearly ignored) and you've got people scratching their heads asking "why wasn't this an inclusive effort?" Again, by NO means do I think Rick and Nick's relationship had any effect on the outcome of the numbers but still, from a PR standpoint, they had to expect raised eyebrows given all the circumstances. Once more, I don't know if it's arrogance or stupidity.
But what about the data itself? The overall blog numbers are great, advertisers should take notice and behold the power of blogs with their increasing ability to reach "sexy" consumers. But really, who knew blog readers were young and relatively affluent?? That's crazy how early adopters of tech trends are young and buy a lot of shit. Breakthrough stuff here, folks. But if that's what is needed to convince the moron account planners and media planners to pour lots of money into blogs, then more power to it.
(I still think Jarvis is right in saying we need to start thinking of "new" metrics to measure the blogosphere and engagement. Off the top of my head, how about a comment-counter ranking to track interactivity? Oh wait, Denton's blogs don't have comments because he's still stuck in that old media thinking that his blogs are online magazines and readers don't deserve a voice. Exclusivity and not letting others have a voice seem to be a pattern with him.)
My only problem is with the breakout of specific blog data because it's clearly wrong. (Sorry Rick, if you can't grasp how or why then I can't help you because I don't have access to data to prove beyond the long shadow of your doubt.) Again, I'm sure Comscore did the best they could with the analysis but clearly it shows major flaws if some of these rankings are incredibly off by so much. I simply think it was a bad PR move to release the specific blog data. It wasn't too early to be testing those waters, but it was obviously premature to set sail on them. Everyone could have held hands and danced around the blog fire with the overall numbers and not a soul would have complained. Instead, they released very questionable numbers and the debate (admittedly very insider) is focused more on Comscore's shortcomings. That's not ideal for anyone.
Oh, to end this circle jerk back to Fred who calls for Jason to "chill out" I would suggest he do the same. These numbers are being lauded as the potential "industry standard" and the currency with which ad agencies make deals with. That's major stuff. If Jason is freaking out it's only because he's trying to protect his investment, not unlike Fred's courageous defense of Comscore in the first place.
Disclaimer: I've worked for Gawker Media in several contributor capacities, even as recently as writing a party crash report for Gawker last month and a post for Oddjack too. I'm friends with most of them. Still, I won't let those relationships get in the way of my objective opinions on any issue. And while I expect them to buy me drinks whenever we go out, I still can't understand why Curbed is linked almost everyday on Gawker yet there is no mention that it's GM managing editor Lockhart Steele's blog. Please people, let's embrace the transparency.
Disclaimer Update: Gage questions the purpose of my disclaimer on this post so I am now compelled to say I wrote it upon the request of Lockhart who thought it was only fair to reveal my Gawker connections and friendships. If he says so, I have no problem with it. Man, I feel Jarvis's pain everytime some bozo makes him point out his New York Times and many other connections.
There's nothing to hide here, folks. Move along to the back. Yes, to the back. Keep going, uh-huh, back back. You got it. Go, go, just a little further, yep. Looking good, you're almost there...
Anyway, most of this comes down to PR and how Denton & co. blew it. Here was the first big "state of the blogs" research report and it's co-sponsored by just one company on the publisher side. Seems odd, no? (Is there a fast-food industry report that's widely held in high regard sponsored solely by Burger King and the American Beef Association? Just curious.) I can't decide if Nick is that arrogant or that stupid. I am 100% sure the numbers were NOT massaged or tinkered with at all to favor his blogs (the numbers are just plain wrong through whatever mechanisms the methodology entails) but there was no reason not to include others in this industry-impacting project. Was he trying to be a glory hog?
It makes no sense to give anyone, *especially* Calacanis (and maybe me), a reason to think any impropiety is going on. Throw in the fact one of Nick's good friends, Rick Bruner, co-wrote the report and admitted he contacted Nick first at the start of this project and saw no reason to include anyone else (Jason says he tried to give his two cents early on but was clearly ignored) and you've got people scratching their heads asking "why wasn't this an inclusive effort?" Again, by NO means do I think Rick and Nick's relationship had any effect on the outcome of the numbers but still, from a PR standpoint, they had to expect raised eyebrows given all the circumstances. Once more, I don't know if it's arrogance or stupidity.
But what about the data itself? The overall blog numbers are great, advertisers should take notice and behold the power of blogs with their increasing ability to reach "sexy" consumers. But really, who knew blog readers were young and relatively affluent?? That's crazy how early adopters of tech trends are young and buy a lot of shit. Breakthrough stuff here, folks. But if that's what is needed to convince the moron account planners and media planners to pour lots of money into blogs, then more power to it.
(I still think Jarvis is right in saying we need to start thinking of "new" metrics to measure the blogosphere and engagement. Off the top of my head, how about a comment-counter ranking to track interactivity? Oh wait, Denton's blogs don't have comments because he's still stuck in that old media thinking that his blogs are online magazines and readers don't deserve a voice. Exclusivity and not letting others have a voice seem to be a pattern with him.)
My only problem is with the breakout of specific blog data because it's clearly wrong. (Sorry Rick, if you can't grasp how or why then I can't help you because I don't have access to data to prove beyond the long shadow of your doubt.) Again, I'm sure Comscore did the best they could with the analysis but clearly it shows major flaws if some of these rankings are incredibly off by so much. I simply think it was a bad PR move to release the specific blog data. It wasn't too early to be testing those waters, but it was obviously premature to set sail on them. Everyone could have held hands and danced around the blog fire with the overall numbers and not a soul would have complained. Instead, they released very questionable numbers and the debate (admittedly very insider) is focused more on Comscore's shortcomings. That's not ideal for anyone.
Oh, to end this circle jerk back to Fred who calls for Jason to "chill out" I would suggest he do the same. These numbers are being lauded as the potential "industry standard" and the currency with which ad agencies make deals with. That's major stuff. If Jason is freaking out it's only because he's trying to protect his investment, not unlike Fred's courageous defense of Comscore in the first place.
Disclaimer: I've worked for Gawker Media in several contributor capacities, even as recently as writing a party crash report for Gawker last month and a post for Oddjack too. I'm friends with most of them. Still, I won't let those relationships get in the way of my objective opinions on any issue. And while I expect them to buy me drinks whenever we go out, I still can't understand why Curbed is linked almost everyday on Gawker yet there is no mention that it's GM managing editor Lockhart Steele's blog. Please people, let's embrace the transparency.
Disclaimer Update: Gage questions the purpose of my disclaimer on this post so I am now compelled to say I wrote it upon the request of Lockhart who thought it was only fair to reveal my Gawker connections and friendships. If he says so, I have no problem with it. Man, I feel Jarvis's pain everytime some bozo makes him point out his New York Times and many other connections.
There's nothing to hide here, folks. Move along to the back. Yes, to the back. Keep going, uh-huh, back back. You got it. Go, go, just a little further, yep. Looking good, you're almost there...
Comments:
Not the disclaimers again. Transparency is for cellophane. The real scandal here is the contention that bloggingbaby.com has more uniques than Gridskipper. Despite the name, I have my suspicions that blog isn't even written by a baby. RELEASE THE BABY! Make with the baby or get out of dodge!
Offering fair market rate to the nearest and first responding Movable Type guru who can get me setup with a well-designed professional blog, so that I can publish my identical thoughts when I first have them, hours/days/weeks before Krucoff gets around to talking about it.
The only explanation for Gawker's gratuitious analinkus on Curbed is that Denton has some secret stake in the whole venture. Lock's doing subdomains and rapidly expanding his own empire while cobwebs form on Jalopnik. Christ, Curbed is even ripping off Gawker's content! A RE Agent Hotties contest? Hmmm, sounds familiar! Transparency my ass. Just because everyone knows you're hacking your way through life doesn't mean that anyone's giving you credit or respect for not trying to hide it.
I think it's funny that you - a young, sophisticated, wanna-be publishing magnate - laud user-interactive elements of online publishing, when we're talking about the same American public that elected Bush, then re-elected him after 4 years of monkey-braining. The same American public that supposedly hates Paris Hilton, but rewards Janice and Bonnie with endless wealth and popularity by voraciously consuming each glossy book that prominenly features the cross-eyed heirhead on its cover. The same American public that is endlessly concerned about being thin but hates being told that thin is in, then supports a multi-billion dollar diet and fitness industry, and in the end is obese anyway. Same public that doesn't like Coca-Cola ads in front of movies and Coca-Cola placement in television shows, but still buys lots of Coca-Cola every year. Same public that hates outsourcing and soaring unemployment, loves clothes that say "Made in Malaysia". You get the point.
Maybe Denton's right, that the trend toward more user interaction is complete bullshit because the public can be wrong and dopey. Personalization and customization are drivers for rapid and misleading customer/viewership growth figures, as they're how you get all the BAD customers that never stick around. And why trust complete strangers to make editorial decisions through effectively anonymous posting forms (like this one - I'm brian van, do you really know who the fuck I am though)? It's suicide for a publisher. Look at the LA Times' wiki experiment. Or look at Wikipedia, which looks like it was written by second graders. What if you similarly let people control the machines that make Ivory Soap interactively over the Internet? People would die from exotic skin rashes. Same with editorial content. For the love of Alexander Hamilton, professional publishing ventures should be produced by...
wait for it...
wait for it...
TRAINED PROFESSIONALS.
I know Coen has zero training, but you know what I mean.
Democratization is ruining media. Maybe if a publisher had some real balls to tinker with solid content and develop a truly loyal user base - the one that checks their mail every day when a magazine is to arrive, hoping that it's there - we'd restore the balance a little bit. Instead, we watch a bunch of corporate hacks with their heads up their asses bluster and blather their way about, chasing moronic trend reports and following the paint-by-numbers approach to market research, gradually turning the publishing and media world into the NBA. And they think that chasing the blockbusters, like Hollywood, is going to get them to nirvana. Yet they forget that Hollywood has no business model other than ripping off their customers, and that no one pretends that the movie industry is better off or the same as the day before "Jaws" was released. If this hasn't convinced yet (you're still reading this? Masochists!), realize that the New York Post operates at a loss each and every year, plus everyone secretly despises it, and yet every glossy magazine in the United States is directly or indirectly emulating it.
Yikes, maybe I should have emailed that.
This is in response to Chris' bloggingbaby remark. He's totally right, I'm a father of 3, I know babies and no fucking way can they write a blog. Not a very intersting one, at least. I'm not sure what else is being discussed here, as I just fell asleep.
-sac
Wake up, dad! You're going to miss the revolution. Incidentally not to burst the tyrannical bubble but I think the main reason Gawker blogs don't have comments is that Moveable Type republishes/indexes the entire page each time a comment is posted, which would wreck servers at high-traffic sites. I'd heard non-Denton complaints about that before I joined the dark side, and I'd also heard that maybe the new(er) version of MT fixed this. But really I don't understand such things so I could be full of shit. Denton has suggested adding comments to Gridskipper if the tech side is manageable, and if I don't mind policing against spam and Brian Van.
Physician, heal thyself!
GSkipist, you're on a one-way track to comment deletion. It wasn't a tech problem when it was just Gizmodo and Gawker. They tried comments on Gawker for a day during the Spiers Era but took them down since everyone was trying to write something "gawkerish" if you can imagine that. Really, you already got the job, no need to keep kissing-ass since it's not like you can ever get a "promotion."
And Lock, if you're need of some medical assistance, I'm gonna have to refer you to my respected colleague Brian Van.
Brian Van -
If you're looking for a blog, check out this neat thing called Blogspot -- www.blogspot.com.
Yup...
It's fun to watch Brian van Nsasldkffdssdgalfd, whom I just commented to JC today is a mini-Krucoff, krucoff Krucoff.
Blogspot... hmm, I heard they host blogs, but then you get associated with people on there that do weird things, like that creepy guy who writes about some dating column in the Post. I couldn't have that.
Lock, baby, I was kidding about the "hack" thing. I'm a loyal Curbed reader since day one, when I laughed my ass off and wondered who the fuck would care about something that was essentially your personal blog with all the personal items removed. So, now 200,000 of us monthly unique pageviews are keeping you in your natty clothes habit, and it's all good. But the bodily fluid exchange between Curbed and Gawker must cease. It's unnatural, even in the relative context of blogs and all their incestuousness. The transparency is fine - like you can keep anything a secret, ha - but the deja-vu in my RSS reader just isn't cricket. It's like an echo chamber. I even called Josh "Jess" the other day.
That prior post should be a PSA warning for caffeine addiction. I'm think I'll be taking Friday off from the Internets. I need the rest.
Delete me if you dare, and show me an ass worth kissing and I'll do the honors. Don't judge me so harshly just because your personal prefernce is biting ass rather than smooching. As to comments in the Spiers era, that also would have been several Moveable Type versions and several million less monthly pageviews ago, ergo perhaps not such a server load. But I'm just speckalating about the past. Whatever Denton & co.'s anti-comment reasons then or since, he's the one who brought it up to me, so I assume the attraction of more traffic and cash is overcoming his supposed aversion to mixing with the hoi polloi.
DISCLAIMER: I like to have sex with dogs.
Son-kist: Oh I know, word on the street is there will eventually be comments when the tech bugs are worked out and when they are we can all expect something truly Dentonian.
BV: Never apologize or explain the joke. Takes all the fun out of it.
Comments on Gwker would suck, the idea of comments not to mention the comments themselves. As mentioned, it would be a bunch of people trying to be Gawker-esque, and also a lot of dick jokes. Which are always good, natch, but still.
what's the fun of having comments on Gawker when you can just directly harass JC/JO by email?
god- do you remember when our fights used to be about sexy, important stuff, like who called who a bad name, or who was quitting what and going to work for who? now everyone is fighting about statistics and methodology. for shame, krucoff- i would have thought you'd at least try to sex it up.
blog comments powered by Disqus
<< Home