« advertising's lost potency | Main | another big ideas question »


This is a great piece.

Management consultants…..ahem.

I agree that blogging commentary can be visceral, often instinctive and directly reflective of people's true opinions. But I am certain that in many cases people's comments are heavily influenced by the fact that the sum total of their blogging commentary effectively forms their external identity in the digital world. It’s how we form our opinions about others, opinions that turn into reputations, reputations that decide people’s career progression. Ad people and wannabe ad people are acutely aware of this. I think we all to varying degrees have pretty strong opinions about a lot of people we haven’t even met in real life…only in the blogsphere. That’s both good and bad…I think.

And because you are a well known, brilliantly clever and highly respected planner – someone most people would naturally like to work with - I intuit you get a disproportionate amount of positive feedback on your blog. It’s not that you don’t deserve it, you definitely do, but I think people with opposing, non-concurring views (at least from planners and wannabe planners) often prefer to hold their piece.

Generally speaking (provided the relationship between the blog writer and the “commentator” is balanced and no direct dependency is involved), I think a vast majority of people are more likely to write concurring opinions on blogs than non-concurring ones. It’s just part of human nature to look for commonalities/similarities with other individuals on which to forge mutually beneficial bonds within the herd. And I think that’s particularly true for the planning herd.

That said, I guarantee this is a truly visceral comment ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.