Coming out of New Comm Forum there was a roaring debate over live-blogging. Since I do quite a bit of live-blogging for conferences, I figured I'd put in my two-cents (Another great live-blogger is Joe Thornley). For the background you can read the following posts:
- Steve Crescenzo's original post
- Shel Holtz responds to Steve
- Shel Israel responds to the response
From my perspective, Steve didn't like what Shel Israel wrote so he questions the validity of live-blogging. Is this one of those shoot the messenger not the message situations, or perhaps in Steve's case shoot the message, the messenger and the medium?
One way to get called out on the blogosphere is to make a broad generalization like 'live-blogging is useless' or 'all women who blog are mommy-bloggers'. Do you agree with either of those statements? Didn't think so.
Much of the debate seems to hinge on the word live-blogging, or as I define it, writing real-time notes of an event and posting them during the event. It's an interesting phenomena. Last year at Mplanet, Ann Handley commented on this real-time process:
Josh -- I think I'm having a meta experience. I'm in the back of the room while you are live-blogging this...seeing these guys on the stage at the same time I'm seeing the photo here. Cool...and only a little scary....One of Steve's main points is the quality and editing of the content. What happens though, if instead of posting during the event, I spend 5-10 minutes editing a post and then post it? Does that change things? For arguments sake, how about using the word conference blogging?
If you're questioning why somebody is doing something than the Cluetrain hasn't taught you anything. Bloggers and individuals do things for a number of reasons. Questioning their reasoning or saying it's not worth their time is very short-sighted and selfish. It's my time and energy, I'll do with it what I want thank you.
I recently spent quite a bit of time live-blogging the WOMBAT event and Forrester's Marketing Forum, was that useless and a waste of time or was the quality of the coverage lacking because I live-blogged it? I don't think so.
There are new wrinkles to the discussion. Jeremiah talks about people using his concepts/content in sessions and not crediting him. Chip Griffin also talks about live-blogging and about video blogging and conferences.
One of the benefits I see about conference blogging is that it's forcing organizers to get good speakers. If you have lousy speakers or people that use the time to pitch their own products/services the word gets out rather quickly and kills the vibe about your conference. The long term relevance of blog content via Google is becoming key to conferences. Google the name of a conference, the first result should be the official conference web site. More and more though the other results are blog posts from attendees.
I choose to attend conferences not based upon marketing materials I receive but the comments and feedback I get from friends that have attended the conference or blog posts from attendees. In other words, conference blogging is becoming an important part of the 'marketing' of conferences.
There are now organizations like WOMMA, FPRA and PRSA that actively seek out and support conference bloggers. This is a smart move since they have a hand in the blog coverage of their events. This is where thing can sometimes get sticky though.
I am often asked and compensated to live-blog a conference. This usually includes free conference registration and sometimes partial (or full) travel costs and in some rare cases I am paid for the service. In this role I disclose what I have been given. I am also there to document the sessions and not necessarily critique them. If you read through my live-blogs of events you will see they are more of a play-by-play than an analysis.
Yes there have been cases where I am sitting in a session saying to myself, "Boy this person is useless, or this is a pure sales-pitch." While I might not come out and say this directly, I usually find myself writing less about that session than others. On the flip side if I am at a conference on my own dime I might call out a speaker, but I usually don't.
Looping back to the recent New Comm Forum which started this whole debate, I can say that there were a few sessions I would probably call out, but I didn't blog much from NewComm....why? Sometimes it's good to step away from the laptop and enjoy the sessions rather than covering them. Plus I'm having more fun with photography at conferences anyway :-)
Visitor Comments
Great post, Josh. I enjoy reading conference blogs and appreciate the immediacy of the information. Some believe that conference blogging gives away information that should be reserved only for those who pay the conference fee and attend the event. That’s short sided. I believe a conference blog not only creates an awareness of the current conference but also generates interest for future conferences. A blog will never replace the human-to-human networking that occurs at a great conference. The blog is but a taste...
Posted by: Chris Gent | May 1, 2007 1:43 PM
Conference blogging—I like it! I've found your posts to be very worthwhile, especially for conferences I can't attend. Don't stop. (I know you wouldn't, but I'm voting, anyway.)
Posted by: Nathan Gilliatt | May 1, 2007 2:48 PM
I don't like to generalize, but I find that my live-blogging is generally useless. However, I am taking notes anyway, so I typically post them. I don't recall requiring anyone to read them.
Posted by: Rex Hammock | May 1, 2007 3:03 PM
I thought Steve's comments on liveblogging were pretty well taken. While it sounds like a great idea, I find that 95% of the time the material just isn't that great.
This may, of course, be my personal take: I'm not that interested in a blow by blow of a conference workshop, but I am interested in what someone thinks about the material; and I find that for most of us, our thoughts become much more coherent and useful when we let them simmer a bit.
That's not always true, but it often is, in my experience. I'd rather a blogger go to a workshop or panel, pay attention and take notes and ask questions and be part of it, and then later share her thoughts with us.
I know I've sat listening to someone speak and at various points, thought he was going somewhere different than he did, thought he said something and then realized I'd not understood his point as the talk continued, and so on. I don't know that my minute by minute opinions about what I'm hearing are useful to anybody - including me.
And let's be honest - you cannot liveblog and be entirely there at the event. The endless multitasking lowers the quality of everything, including the workshops; sitting tapping on your keyboard while someone's talking is just rude, and my assumption is that if you're doing that you are almost certainly going to miss some of what's going on... and what you're writing will suffer as a result.
You ask, "What happens though, if instead of posting during the event, I spend 5-10 minutes editing a post and then post it? Does that change things? For arguments sake, how about using the word conference blogging?"
I think what happens then is that the average quality of what you post is going to be dramatically higher than if you "liveblogged," actually. For one, you paid more attention to the event. For another, you had absorbed the whole thing before you began writing.
One other point: "If you're questioning why somebody is doing something than the Cluetrain hasn't taught you anything."
I think it's always fair to question why someone is doing something. (And I know this is a minority point of view, but the Cluetrain had a lot less to teach anyone than people believe, other than how to transform three pages into a book through repetition.)
Banning live-blogging is, of course, silly; besides, how could you do it? Is that person blogging or taking notes? Nobody wants blog cops running around checking.
But simple social norms should tell us that ignoring the person at the front of the room to write a blog post is just bad behavior - and you should vacate the seat so someone who wants to actually listen or participate can fill it.
Posted by: John Whiteside | May 1, 2007 3:18 PM
Josh,
Thanks for this spot-on post. The truth is, I never considered my live blogging to be my best writing. I'm certainly not as good at it as you or Joe Thornley or Chip Griffin. Had I taken the time, as Steve argued, I would have been able to write a much better bad review. And one of my reasons for doing it would be to let Steve understand how some of us perceived him and/or to warn producers off from inviting this guy to the front of the room.
Posted by: shel israel | May 1, 2007 3:21 PM
John:
To your point about the value of blow-by-blow review, I leave that in the hands of the readers. On a number of occasions folks have told me the stopped taking notes since they knew they could read my recaps.
Posted by: Josh Hallett | May 1, 2007 3:45 PM
I should note that I was talking about my experience with liveblogging in general, not your particular liveblogging - I'm a relative newcomer to your blog & haven't really read anything you've done that way.
Posted by: John Whiteside | May 1, 2007 5:24 PM