Natasha: across the board, I agree with your point- more traditional newsletters/articles are likely to have more high quality content than many blogs. Yet, it’s important to note- this isn’t a mutually exclusive choice we’re making blogs vs. newsletters. That’s my primary issue with Jakob’s position. Like all consumers today (consumers both of content as well as product), I want what I want… when I want it, how I want it. The fact that Jakob wants to publish according to *his* schedule is all well and good, but my timetable for information is far more immediate than once per week. I will choose the newsletters than I read regularly, based on their quality content, as I will choose the blogs I ready daily, based on theirs.

Regarding your last point, I won’t argue with the lack of formality associated with many blogs/blogposts, but regarding the blogger’s feelings of responsibility, I wonder, do you blog?

Personally, having both blogged and written articles for our newsletter, back when each was a distinct entity, I can tell you I felt NO difference in responsibility towards the audience– I ALWAYS feel responsible to offer relevant, salient, interesting or thought provoking content, regardless of the medium. If not, why bother?

Ryan: I’m glad you asked the question, because it’s something we hear often and it may easily be a contributing factor to Jakob blasting the medium- he does not want to facilitate people questioning his “dogma”.

However, my response is the same as when retailers are fearful of putting reviews on their site because of potential negative feedback: you’re free to live under the delusion that if you don’t facilitate the commentary, it won’t exist… but please let me know how that works out for you. Consumer opinion in today’s highly interconnected world simply can’t be held back. Take a recent example- Robert Scoble is hosting comments for Marc Andreessen’s new blog on his popular blog because Marc has actively decided not to (for now). As Holly so aptly pointed out, “expertise” is granted through the conveyance of knowledge, and the acceptance of the community.

As long, as everyone recognizes, that I’m always right!

Seriously, the term “expert” always sets off sirens for me. As Bryan notes, people make mistakes all the time. It’s what we learn from them (and each other) that helps increase our wisdom (not our “expertness” – if that’s even a word…)

The one paragraph that really has me shaking my head is:
“For most sites, the content is not the point. Instead, you want to answer customers’ questions as rapidly as possible so that they’ll advance in the sales cycle and start buying (or donate, or sign up for your newsletter, or whatever else you want them to do).”

Content not the point? I’d be interested in Nielsen doing some more thinking and writing to help me understand what he meant. Particularly since he’s supposed to be a “Web expert.”

Maybe that is why Jakob doesn’t like the blogging format. Allowing discuss and inevitable dissent may undermine the credibility of the author. What do you think?

Good point. I think the medium does have some affect on the way the content is generated. After you’ve sent out an email to thousands of people you can’t make edits to it easily. On the other hand if I publish a blog and then find a major typo an hour later, I can easily change it.

There is no prescribed method for blogging though. If someone wanted to have a Jakob Nelson newsletter in a blog format they could. I frankly wish he would just so I could comment on his articles every now and then.

But I also agree with Howard that he is missing the power of the medium – blogs are DESIGNED to create discussion- it’s one of the reasons why it is such a powerful medium. Jakob seems to have completely missed the interactive nature and power of blogs.

At the end of the day – it is the reader who determines value. I think a combination of long, well thought out “article” posts and shorter “look what this other blog is saying” posts is probably the ideal combo. You get the “expertise” and credibility of sharing your own knowledge in helpful long articles that have a long shelf life. But you are also an important part or catalyst of discussions with shorter posts that engage your audience in an interactive discussion.

Leslie, you bring up an especially interesting point regarding the personality factor. It’s one we often discuss (in fact, as I posted this Avinash, Jeffrey and I had this very same discussion). I’m not surprised it’s a perspective Jakob misses, given his predilection for referring to the human beings that make up his/our/your audience en masse as USERS. Sad.

Blogging injects the personality of the writer into the topic–you get a feeling that you know the blog writer. Readers often become fans of the blog, and return regularly. Blog readers get to vote on the topic in real time, and rush to be the first post. Articles have a different value – so it need not be “them or us.”

Nielson is confusing the messenger and the message. Blogging is the messenger. The message is the content be it an article or blog postor podcast or video. It should always be thoughtful, meaty, and add value. The fact that any author is not always going to be at the right end of the bell curve of excellence — whether blogging or writing articles — means that he or she is just like Shakespeare: human. That’s not a reason to stop writing (or blogging).