Ok, I’m developing my ‘theory of blogging.’
My thought for the day is that there are 3 kinds of blogs, each adding value to readers/subscribers in a different way.
- Sites that are Aggregators bring together a wide range of content and make them accessible from the one place.
- Sites that are Interpreters provide commentary on news, events and developments in a field and help people make sense of a complex, evolving world
- Sites that are Content Producers produce new, thoughtful content and provide insight, information or know-how
My theory du jour is that your blog needs to determine which one of these roles is to be primary for the site, and focus first on delivering that value.
I think you right that blogs each have a voice and purpose. However, I am not so sure that the proposed classification is ideal. Many blogs blur the lines of these classifications. In the case of my blog for example, I consider my blog to be both an Interpreter and a Content Producer as defined. What do think? Where would you put your own blog in this scheme?
Hi James,
I agree that often these lines are blurred.I think that blogging lends itself to commentary on other peoples blog posts, web articles, books etc so being an 'interpreter' comes naturally in blogging. Also some element of aggregation is fairly standard – for example, keeping a blog role and links on the web site is a form of aggregation. In my case and yours we both try to produce some good content.
I think the questions is more strategic – why do people come to my site or yours? What is the primary value they get from the site? I'm questioning whether it's worth attempting to identify this primary value and focus on that, while still providing the secondary value.
I think the Be Excellent weblog (see my blogroll) is an example of a site that is primarily an aggregator. Logic + Emotion or Creating Passionate Users provided value mainly through the interesting content they produced, although there was some degree of interpretation on the Creating Passionate Users blog. I had in mind some of the technical weblogs that comment on Microsoft's latest product releases in a given space or developments in content management or portals or ERP or whatever as interpreters. But, they do still produce content in the act of interpreting.
I think I'll have to take your point on board though that perhaps there is a fundamental overlap between interpreting other people's contributions and producing content.
Lauchlan,
Unless you are dealing with a really obscure field, the aggregator function doesn't add much value beyond an automated RSS feed reader.
I agree that the line between content creation and interpretation is blurred. If blogging is viewed as a conversational medium rather than a publishing one then it changes the question to: "Are you primarily interesting in starting new conversations or joining existing ones?"
And I am interested in doing both.