I think it might be my growing appreciation for Live Writer that has resulted in an explosion of posts on this last night of my vacation.

Anyway, Doc Searls has a post that quotes Dr. Laura bashing blogs. I used to listen to Dr. Laura on the radio once in a while just to reassure myself that I wasn’t the craziest person on the planet. Sometimes I was between her caller and her, but I was never crazier than both. In an article behind the Santa Barbara News-Press‘s paywall, Dr. Laura proves that blogs are definitely among the many things she knows very little about.

First of all, her blog bashing seems to originate from some negative blog posts one of her flunkies must have shown her:

“Blog-happy? It has only been a couple of weeks that I’ve had this column and I’ve already been attacked by some blogosphere inhabitants of Santa Barbara. Bloggers are folks with their own personal Web sites, which they can use for whatever end they please with impunity. Some of these sites have had a big impact on politics, technology and journalism.”

Can we take from this that if she had been shown blogs praising her, blogs would be the inspired voice of the new media?

And then there’s this nugget, which I about half agree with and about half get irritated at:

“It used to be that folks wrote autobiographies to detail some significant journey or challenge survived, with the desire to share life lessons learned and wisdom gained. No more — now it is as though every errant thought should be embraced by the outside world as having greater significance than the burp it really is.”

Some of the blogs I enjoy the most are about every day events. Good writers can write about a trip to the market and make it compelling. Just like good storytellers can talk about anything and keep you highly entertained. But, if I’m going to be honest, I do come across the occasional exercises in anthropomorphism, generally involving small dogs with sweaters on or cats, naked or clothed, that annoy the dickens out of me. But the reality is that blogs are not, first and foremost, about the subject matter- they are about two things:

(a) the writing, be it great, average or bad; and

(b) a new, faster manner of information distribution and retrieval.

Note that I have recently added a blog search button beside the web search button on The Home Place, my internet portal. Blogs are becoming the medium for the creation of the real life Great Big Book of Everything.

Think about it this way: how much would you pay to be able to read blogs written by your parents, grandparents, etc. One of the benefits of blogs that no one ever talks about is that our kids and grandkids will know us much better thanks to these records we are creating.

It’s one thing for my real world friends to be confused about blogs (the fact that I made a lot of money developing web sites during Bubble 1.0 is about the only thing that keeps them from teasing me mercilessly about my little internet diary), but it’s another thing altogether for someone who has somehow become a part of old media to be so cavalier in her research about and understanding of new media.

Doc’s other point, which is a good one, is that the News-Press is getting left far behind thanks to its insistence on maintaining the paywall that many papers tried and most have abandoned. Google can’t index their stories so people can’t google, er search, for them. The cheese isn’t going to reappear, so it’s time to stop hoping it will and start looking for some new cheese.

Doc offers to meet with the powers that be and explain to them the way the distribution of media, both old and new, works in 2006. They should take him up on it, as he may be the only guy smart and likeable enough to save a paper that pays Dr. freaking Laura to write articles behind a paywall.

Thank goodness my hometown paper has embraced RSS and blogging.

Technorati Tags: blogging, blog building

Continuing the long tail discussion that I posted about yesterday, Lee Gomes writes an email to Nick Carr clarifying his position and responding to some things Chris Anderson wrote in response to Lee’s Wall Street Journal article that began this little brouhaha.

Lee begins by clarifying his point about the effect of the long tail- basically that there may be a shift towards online shopping, but not to the extent Chris claims in his book. Then he takes direct issue with a few of the things Chris wrote yesterday:

“While I am at it, I’d like to correct an extremely serious misrepresentation Chris made at the end of his blog posting, to the effect that Anita Elberse of Harvard “urged” me not to characterize her work the way I did. This is manifestly false.”

Lee quotes an email from Professor Elberse thanking him (Lee) for quoting her so accurately and mentions that she corrected Chris about a statement in his response, via a comment to his post. Here is that comment:

“You say “Nielsen VideoScan data (…) is almost entirely taken from bricks-and-mortar sources.” I don’t think this is entirely correct. The VideoScan data reflect both offline and online sales, and actually break them down by channel. The breakdown is not as detailed as one might wish in an ideal world, but they do allow one to track whether, say, the share of offline sales go down over time. Therefore, I do think the fact that my colleague and I only observe a “slight” shift is meaningful.”

While that correction is much more of a clarification than a smackdown, I have to give this round to Gomes. He lands a few blows, including this one:

“While Chris seems to have repealed the’98 Percent Rule’ in his interviews with me, he didn’t do as much in the book. This is how he begins the book, and any reader, after hearing the ‘Rule” described as “nearly universal,’ would, if nothing else, assume that it was true at all the examples the book describes. Chris defended the fact that it’s not by noting to me that his book wasn’t titled ‘The 98 Percent Rule;’ does this mean that any sentence without ‘Long Tail’ in [it] can’t be assumed to be accurate? He also complains in his blog comments that I didn’t mention the 95% play rates at Netflix. But I wasn’t trying to show the ‘Rule’ was NEVER true; he is the one who said it was ‘universal.'”

Again, I don’t know the exact degree to which consumers are moving from bricks and mortar to the computer, but logic, common sense and experience tells me it is happening. The bigger question, which Nick asked and I discussed yesterday, is how much they have moved and whether the trip is over or just starting.

For the reasons I mentioned yesterday, I am convinced the move online is just starting.

But the only thing we know for sure is that books are written for readers, newspaper articles are written for readers and only time will tell who is ultimately right.

How important is the long tail?

That’s the question being asked today by several writers and influential bloggers. It’s a question that goes straight to the heart and purpose of blogging, so let’s take a look.

It all starts with Chris Anderson’s new book The Long Tail, which argues that online sales has a great advantage through infinite “shelf space,” which traditional bricks and mortar stores do not have. The ability to market the items that sell less units, combined with the ability to sell to people who are not physically present, gives the online seller a big advantage. Think about it like this. If the slow selling stuff accounts for 30% of sales, that’s like having several extra “hot” items available all the time. Plus, that 30% has to come from somewhere, and if it’s not coming at the expense of the long tail items, it’s coming at the expense of the hot items- the head items, if you will.

I certainly buy into the concept Chris is espousing. It’s the very reason why 99% of my non-food purchases are made over the internet. Knowing that Amazon will have what I’m looking for is great incentive to start there first. That’s before you even consider the convenience and comparison benefits.

Lee Gomes at the Wall Street Journal writes in an article about Chris’s book:

“By Mr. Anderson’s calculation, 25% of Amazon’s sales are from its tail, as they involve books you can’t find at a traditional retailer. But using another analysis of those numbers — an analysis that Mr. Anderson argues isn’t meaningful — you can show that 2.7% of Amazon’s titles produce a whopping 75% of its revenues. Not quite as impressive.”

Lee goes on to cite examples of how the hot items are still accounting for the large majority of the action at such diverse places as online music, Netflix and Bloglines.

In sum, Lee doesn’t buy the long tail argument.

Chris responds on his blog, and rebuts what he describes as Lee’s haste to find flaws. He states the case for the long tail items to catching up to the hot items in the near future:

“Although I don’t discuss this in detail in the book, in the case of Rhapsody, the trend data suggests that the tail (as defined above) actually will equal the head within five years. Which is why the language Gomes cites from the book jacket is actually all phrased in the future conditional tense (‘What happens when the combined value of all the millions of items that may sell only a few copies equals or exceeds the value of a few items that sell millions each?’). I asked him to quote the jacket copy in full context, but it apparently wasn’t convenient to his thesis to do so, so he didn’t.”

Nick Carr takes a look at the arguments and concludes:

“I have no doubt that the Internet has created a Long Tail effect, making it easier for customers to find and buy rare or specialized products. Anderson’s book provides pretty compelling evidence that that’s true. And it’s important. But I’m still not quite sure if it’s really important or just mildly important.”

Nick goes on to make a very good point about the long tail- that it existed before the internet, just in a different form:

“To get a clear sense of the impact of the Net on the Long Tail, you’d need another statistic: Before the Internet came along, what percentage of total book sales lay outside the 100,000 titles stocked in a typical large bookstore? There have always been specialized bookstores, selling everything from religious and spiritual books to textbooks to foreign-language books to used and out-of-print books to poetry books (though their ranks have been pruned by Amazon and other online sellers). And there have always been small presses – literary, academic and technical – selling books directly, through the mail. And you’ve always been able to go to a bookstore and order a book that it didn’t carry on its shelves. How much of the Long Tail of books represents old demand moving through a new channel, and how much represents new demand?”

As Nick concludes, the long tail was there long before the internet. It’s probably a lot bigger now, since supply can and does affect demand. The real question, however, is whether the long tail is fully grown, or just a pup that will grow bigger over time, as Chris suggests.

Only time will tell. My guess is that it will get a whole lot bigger, since there will never again be a generation that isn’t completely comfortable with the computer and the internet. For our kids and their kids, computers are not newfangled and sometimes confusing technology. They are like telephones. They are implements to be used for a purpose.

I suspect the long tail will play out a lot like the state of communications did when telephones landed on everyone’s wall. There was communication before phones- but not nearly as much. It took longer and the hurdle was so high that the level of communication was kept in check. The effort required precluded it from growing.

I think a lot of the bricks and mortar stores are going to start feeling like letters over the next few years.

Mike Arrington does a good and just thing.

I’ve said before that blogs are like cars- they bring out the inner asshole in some folks. It’s nice to see an A-List blogger like Mike roll down the window and confront the finger waiver in a public forum.

Nick Carr posts his side of the story on his blog.

I have said this about Nick Carr recently on this blog:

“And then there are the pseudo-intellectuals like Andrew Keen (who is the blogosphere’s version of the party guest who can’t stop talking about how smart he is long enough to notice the PhD’s shaking their heads as they walk away). Or the Nick Carr types whose many thoughtful posts get lost in the flood of Mary, Mary posts made in the name of fame or traffic.”

And the other day I agreed with Nick’s Dell post and added my own thoughts.

So while I disagree with some of Nick’s tactics, I also appreciate much of his writing.

In sum, I think Nick is a smart and often thoughtful guy. But he’s no smarter than a lot of other bloggers who don’t have to put on the Andrew Keen act.

So here’s my advice to Nick. When you come to the crossroads of being like Andrew and being like Mike- be like Mike.

Of course Nick will never see this post because I suspect he feels I am not intellectually worthy of his time. It’s easy to act that way from the safety of a car…I mean a keyboard.