Blurry, blurry, the boundaries have become in these days of social media. A recent example is the brouhaha around Michael Arrington’s (Techcrunch) post on Podtech’s future.
Arrington critically reviewed the negative publicity Podtech has been receiving in the blogosphere lately. Podtech was criticized for its unclear distinction between editorial content and advertisements and was also questioned about the fidelity of its content creation business model, given the growing competition in the semi-amateur video space. Arrington said Podtech had decided to move to a third-party content aggregation model, but video blogger Robert Scoble, who runs the popular "Scoble Show" on Podtech, responded – via Twitter – that this was incorrect.
While the tone is getting a little bit heated and more personal in this debate (Arrington: “I personally find 90% of Podtech content just slightly more entertaining than watching paint dry.”), there are two things that are remarkable: First, any rebuttal to an opponent’s message can be instant in the days of Twitter and thus has to be. Quod erat demonstrandum, by the twitter-happy Scoble. Second, the friend/foe line may need to be redefined for social media. Every PR expert will tell you that “reporters are not your friends” but, hey, it’s good to be reminded that bloggers aren’t either. When bloggers reach out to other bloggers for PR, things become naturally even more complicated so that Arrington even sees himself obligated to clarify: “Dear Podtech. I’m not your VP of Marketing.” “Never confuse TechCrunch with your PR or marketing team. And if your messaging isn’t clear, don’t shoot the messenger. Clean up your own mess first. Furthermore: “This is a post that Podtech pleaded with me to write, to counter the massive negative publicity they’ve been getting around the blogosphere.” That’s the beauty and the risk of the conversation economy – the meta-conversations become a part of the public conversation, too.
Comments