EDA DesignLine Blog
Bloggers show feathers at ICCAD
GABE MORETTI
11/17/2008 8:15 PM EST
I am told that blogging is a way to develop "social networks", something that the same people seem to think is a new thing that has been made possible by the new tools developed around the internet. It seems to me that such people must not have had a social life before the internet. Personally I do not find a string of comments appended to a blog entry to be particularly similar to a network or social in nature. The entries are most often unidirectional and do not result in new social interactions. Therefore, the major purpose of a blog is to inform readers, or to state an opinion, not to builod a circle of friends.
Three species of birds
In spite of some protestations on the part of the participants, I came to the conclusion that there are three different species of bloggers: the independent ones, the company sponsored ones, and the ones that are not bloggers at all, but write "blogs".
The first specie contains the pure bloggers. This type of bird maintains a web site and writes opinions about subjects pertaining to the EDA industry. This can be in the form of commentary on what is going on in the industry, advice on methods, or reviews of tools. The author must deal with starting a web site, finding authoring and maintenance tools, be his or her own public relations officer, and develop an independent following. It is hard work, built on good content and, at times, an existing reputation in the industry.
The second specie, the corporate blogger, shares much of the characteristics of the first, but lives in an inherently different environment. This author enjoys the support of corporate IT, has access to a legal department, and is the subject of various public relations initiatives on the part of the company. Therefore the major responsibility of a member of this specie is to produce content.
Regarding the content, there was a short discussion on the "freedom of speech" a company would give to such bloggers. Are they really free, or do they need to subject their writings to a review process before publishing? Without exception these individuals stated that no review is required by their company, and this seems obvious based on my own research. The reason is very simple: the individuals who are allowed to blog on a corporate site are implicitly trusted employees.
Karen Bartleson, who writes a blog on the Synopsys corporate site, is a perfect example of such "bird" (pun probably intended). Karen has represented the corporate interests of Synopsys for many years within various standards organizations, from OVI to VI, to Accellera, to the IEEE. And has done so with excellent results and a dedication and skill that have earned her respect throughout the industry. I do not believe that Karen is at this point capable of saying negative things about Synopsys unless Aart himself instructed her to do so. She needs no oversight, she needs no direction. Karen knows what is important and what needs to be covered, on behalf of Synopsys.
The third specie is not a bird at all. These individuals have been classified as bloggers by overzealous marketing people eager to adopt the Web 2.0 lingo. Members of this group are professional writers, editors, and journalists who write a "blog". In fact it is not a blog at all. It is a column, just like you can still find on or around the editorial page in newspapers and magazines. You are reading this in a section of EDA DesignLine titled "Blogs" because the contents must be clearly separated from News. The physical separation makes the reader aware that the contents are opinions, even if these are based on facts or observations about facts. You would read it if it was titled "Column" or "Gabe's opinions"
A startling response
During the meeting I asked what turned out to be a very controversial question. Suppose I am a high school senior and asked any of you what I needed to do to become a successful blogger, what advice would you give?
I was told that no high school senior could possibly ask such a question: they know. I think that just because someone has grown up with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and all other various tools that make up Web 2.0, one is not at all prepared to develop content worth reading. I expected that at least one person in the group would have said something like taking some classes in journalism, English composition, even social studies and a primer on business methods. Instead I was told: they already know.
Having access to a web development tool and a publishing tool does not make one a blogger. At least I hoped that the people in the room that consider themselves professional bloggers would be able to draw a difference between good, well structured content, that is free of libel and fabrication, from what anyone with a keyboard and a modem can deliver.
What surprises me is the lack of a professional identity among bloggers. It is obvious that ,in spite of social networks and virtual communities, the life of a blogger is still that of an individual contributor who receives its success above all from his or her individuality. Will the cry "Bloggers of the world, unite" ever be uttered?
Comments
DFT Digest
11/18/2008 12:55 AM EST
Hi Gabe:
As I started to read your article I was preparing for a little steam to be emanating from my ears, because anything I've ever seen you write about bloggers has been a bit condescending. This article was no exception, but I have to say, I'm on board with your conclusion.
I wasn't able to attend the BoF at ICCAD, but I was at the first one, at DAC, and the same semantics battle took place there. I was hoping to hear that we'd gotten beyond that.
Any successful blogger will tell you that a blog's success is built on compelling content. Social media is a tool to bring new readers to that content. If you believe that a class in journalism or composition will guarantee something worth reading, that's fine, but I prefer reading someone who displays knowledge and passion for a subject, rather than someone paid to cover it.
The other characteristic successful bloggers (popular, widely read, frequently commented), is a highly developed sense of community. Many belong to blogging networks and/or publish blogs with several authors, which keeps varied content coming regularly.
EDA bloggers aren't there yet. But when it happens, I think it could be a very good thing for the industry
Sign in to Reply
JamesColgan
11/18/2008 2:53 AM EST
Hello Gabe,
Great to see this discussion taken online. It would be wonderful to see the topic fleshed out through the medium under discussion!
Initially I wasn't sure about you wanting to categorize bloggers and what we could gain from it.
However, your comments got me thinking about the debate around authors and the advent of the paperback format. Quality is recognized by the reader through content - not the format in which it is presented. Another dead-end? No, there may be some lessons to draw from the literary world.
The reason the Bloggers BoF got together was to pool knowledge and to improve through exchange.
Also, one of the big unasked questions for many bloggers is, "how do you support the
activity financially?". Most recognize that an EDA blog is not a path to Easy Street, and it's not their "day job" anyway. But there's something we could do here to promote "best practices", better serve the industry and encourage the bloggers to keep up the good work.
The EDA Blog "Pulitzer"
- As with the Pulitzer, we divide it up into meaningful categories.
- There is a panel of judges and a nomination process. The panel needs to be mixed, but must have someone with professional writing training and experience.
- There needs to be sponsors drawn from industry.
- The winners to be announced at DAC
What do you think?
Looks like something you and your publication could champion!
(To add to your thinking about web 2.0 and the EDA industry, see my latest blog post.)
Sign in to Reply
Lou Covey
11/18/2008 2:02 PM EST
I think James idea has some merit just because it would be fun to actually recognize some of the hard work that goes into this stuff, as opposed to all the negative news going on in the industry.
And I have to agree with Gabe regarding professionalism, and the lack thereof, within the blogging community. Just having a computer and a blog site doesn't make you an effective communicator any more than having lunch at a McDonald's makes you a hamburger. Social media is a communication mechanism, not communication itself. You still need to develop effective writing for successfully communication.
However, the issue of community is as important as the ability to communicate. Traditional journalism is still, very much, a one-way street. Yes the journalist "listens" to what is going and then writes his interpretation of what he has heard, but the journalist's view is under a time delay. And any objection to the viewpoint is considered more of an annoyance than input.
Social media creates a real dialog between the communicator and the audience and THAT is the essence of Web 2.0: real-time interaction that MUST be considered as part of the real story. That's what a lot of journalists miss, and, in fact, most bloggers miss.
Social media is not a bully pulpit, but a dinner table. it requires transparency and interaction.
Bu there is one thing that everyone misses in Web 2.0. It is NOT a tool of MASS communication. The real value of social media is being able to connect directly to a larger circle of people, but still not a large circle. A good commercial blog should have between 500 and 1000 regular readers. Those readers each connect with 6 other people daily. In the EDA world, that's huge.
So a small, trusted audience, with transparent, two-way communication, artfully crafted, is what makes a successful blog.
Sign in to Reply
JamesColgan
11/18/2008 4:53 PM EST
Hi Lou,
Interesting point about web 2.0 not being mass communication.
I guess I'd put it this way - web 2.0 CAN be mass communication if your target audience is large enough and homogeneous enough (ie. you hit the numbers with a tailored message). However, as you're holding one-to-many and many-to-many interactions a message CAN be more highly targeted and tuned over time for market segments (ie. not vanilla and so not strictly associated with "mass communication"). ie. Quality over quantity. Is that what you're referring to?
As a data point, according to compete.com techcrunch.com received over 1.5M unique visitors and barackobama.com received over 8.5M uniques in October alone. From many perspectives I'd classify this as Mass Communication. Do these exceptions prove the rule though?
Sign in to Reply