The Meaning of Being Bearish on Blogs is....
I skimmed David Carr's column in the NYTimes about Nick Denton entitled "A Blog Mogul Turns Bearish on Blogs" trying to understand the meaning of the headline. What part of blogging is Gawker Media's Denton bearish about?
Frankly, I am still not sure. Is he bearish about blogs getting funding? We might think that this is the thrust of the story, since the writer sets up his story by opening it at a recent PaidContent party in NYC, which apparently was swarmed by media upstarts and money types.
Or is Carr saying that Nick Denton is bearish about blogs as a publishing medium? That also may be the case, since Carr quotes Denton saying that " 'the world does not need more blogs,' adding that if you count all the pages on MySpace, 'there is approximately one reader for every blog out there.' "
Either we have a headline writer problem here or a writer problem. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was interesting reading about Denton's strategies for refreshing his blogs. But without any clarification, I suppose I will vote for thinking that Denton is down on funding blogs, since Carr writes a business column.
What's your vote?
P.S. and Update: Rex Hammock has a great post on this and he sums up exactly my feeling about talking about bubbles and blogs--when it comes to making money. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but I remain convinced that the destabilizing nature of blogs (and personal media writ large) won't be the creation of a group of huge new media companies (a la Gawker) that displace the traditional ones. The real power is how personal media fragments the mass market audience by turning readers, watchers, listeners, into writers and video and audio creators. Most of these folks won't make money and it won't matter.