Are you 'buzz' worthy? Are you generating buzz in your blog

from JoeUser Forums

Look out JU point whores, there's a whole new 'buzz' to be worried about :-}

Some people will likely get the pop-culture reference in the headline.  Substitute 'sponge' for 'buzz' and then you should definitely get it, or slap yourself for not having seen enough of one of the most famous hit TV shows of the last 15 - 20 years (that would be Seinfeld, as in Jerry.  With an episode that revolved around the Today Sponge and the tough time that Elaine had in obtaining enough to deal with her liaisons, and the very tough time poor George had obtaining a sponge after his girlfriend/fiance sent him off looking for one while he was on the verge of 'make-up sex').

If you'd like more info on that particular reference, try here: Seinfeld Scripts.com

Regardless of that reference, which, who knows for sure whether or not I just tossed in above in an effort to generate some 'buzz' myself, a whole new day seems to be dawning via market research type efforts that determine the 'buzz' factor for various entities.  Entities like NASCAR, the NFL, MLB, and others.

In the case of the Washington Post news article by Liz Clarke here: NASCAR's New Marketing Strategy Is the Latest Buzz, you find that 'buzz' is becoming the new Holy Grail (and no, I am not talking about Monty Python and the....) for marketing types.  Marketing types that are using technology to determine the buzz factor for their employers and customers, with more buzz being a good thing as the higher the buzz the more the public is paying attention to your product/company/star/whatever.

It's an interesting article (sorry, not gonna make it easy on you readers, you'll have to go read the piece yourself rather than looking for clips here) on where things seem to be heading in the future of the net, with the future being NOW (and I'm not talking about the National Organization of Women either).

If you must know, and are too lazy to click the link to get back to the Washington Post (ok, ok, I forgive you as you might be a principaled individual who just can't stand to support the Washington Post in any way, shape or form), I guess I can sum it up somewhat like this.  Each time a blogger (like me, or other bloggers here at JU and other locations) mentions a NASCAR star like Jeff Gordon, Dale Earnhardt, Jr., Michael Waltrip, Jimmy Johnson, Kasey Kahne, Tony Stewart, etc., gets mentioned in an online article, the people measuring the buzz find out about the mentions via tools that search the web, find the references, and measure the number of references to generate a buzz factor that can be used to find out just how much we are talking about their products.

More mentions, even if the mentions are negative, are better, though postive mentions are obviously preferred.  (As they say, even bad publicity is good publicity when it's free.)  The software can be tweaked to measure both good and bad modifiers and other things to find out if the public is happy with the products, or unhappy, etc.  So the marketers are able to determine both good buzz and bad.

Anyway, it's fascinating technology that takes note of what we're up to, even if we don't know it is directly happening.  Will it impact your own writing, as you try to insert buzz worthy material, or will you simply ignore buzz factors and just say what you want, when you want, without worrying about the potential impact?  I guess the future will tell us all, won't it? :-)

blogging
993 views 1 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

In honest answer to some of my rehetorical questions about whether or not I might consider 'buzz' factor when writing an article, I guess it might happen on more than the odd occassion, but not necessarily intentionally.

For me, it works like this: I try to write interesting articles that will inspire discussion and bring out different viewpoints.  At times I may say things that others find highly inflammatory.  Whether or not I'm saying those things in partial jest, or in absolute seriousness, is up to readers to determine.  At times I'll tell you straight up what the case may be, at other times I leave it to readers to determine, and other times a mix of the two.

All along though I'm hoping for comment because I want to know what others are thinking and how they feel too.  I want to know if I'm out on the fringes in some way, or if I'm part of the mainstream.

If I am generating buzz then so be it.  If I'm getting my writing noticed enough to be featured here at JU, then I'm exceedingly happy, though that isn't necessarily a direct driver for my words either.

For the most part I'm writing to inspire comment (featured articles do tend to get more notice and more chance for comment, so that can be a great thing to strive for), and anything else is secondary.

Outside, that is, of the few times along the way when my writing is simply a release or a place to vent some feelings that others might not be concerned with, but which are laid bare here anyway as I chronicle information that would typically be a diary or journal entry for someone else.  As I don't tend to write about everything in my life, and still am pretty guarded about my privacy and the privacy of others I may write about (other than public figures), I'm not too concerned that in those few times when I'm writing a more personal entry that I'll be giving up too much privacy.  It's all about staying balanced, which I do the best I can to keep the case.

Anyway, thanks for reading here, and hey, if you're a web-searchbot, spider, agent, whatever, and are hitting the article because I mentioned NASCAR, then be aware that Jeff Gordon is still a coddled star, benefiting from an ownership group that many (like me) still believes is taking liberties they aren't getting caught at (darned Hendrick Motor Sports!) and probably wouldn't be near the star he is if he wasn't given the best all along the way.

Give me Tony Stewart, even with his bad-boy image, or Dale Jr., and his redneck appeal and I'm a happy camper any day of the week.