Comments on: an answer to thom’s question

By: Paul Fabretti

Paul Fabretti — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:58:34 +0000

You’ve hot the nail on the head. I guess historically, many look up to the A-lister bloggers and find it easier to see why they are “famous” — Scoble worked for Microsoft, Hugh’s got his cartoons, Tara promotes Pinko marketing etc…the one thing all these people have in common is that they have a unique way of communicating.
It is not a question of re-inventing the wheel, nor of making ablog all-singing, all-dancing but as kids did we not prefer reading cartoons because they were less dull than books? (or is that just me?!)
Making a blog interesting boils down to more than just making it look good, but my rather drawn out point is simply this…engage people in a unique way and there is no reason why you couldn’t be as successful/well known (delete as applicable!) as the A-listers.

By: Thom Singer

Thom Singer — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:24:02 +0000

Good point. And thanks for addressing the question.
thom

By: Kevin Behringer

Kevin Behringer — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:20:27 +0000

I agree and disagree.
Thom, I agree that getting traction and getting noticed in the blogosphere is harder than ever. Like anything else, as “competition” increases, so does the effort required to succeed.
But, with respect to Hugh, Scoble and scores of other “A-List” bloggers, I don’t think that the timing has as much to do with it necessarily. Sure, being first is a part of it, but look at the two people you cite.
Hugh and Robert.
I don’t read their blogs because they were first. I read them because of what they write. It speaks to me, I can connect with it. The content is what propels them to their position of stardom. Far more that their timing.