Weighing in on the BNN controversy
March 19th, 2008By Marijean Jaggers
A hot topic amongst St. Louis bloggers has been the presence and practices of David Mastio’s BlogNetNews.
Sigh.
The less gentle, more irritable part of me wants to tell ya’ll to chill the heck out. (Editorial note: since I moved to Virginia I am absolutely permitted to use ya’ll in a blog post, even though I remain morally opposed to it in official correspondence or conversation.) The reasonable, professional part of me also wants to dive into the fray state my opinion of aggregators with advertising, such as BlogNetNews.
I’ve remained quiet on this topic for quite some time, while bloggers I know and respect have posted at length on the topic. I’ve read it all and link below to what is, to my knowledge, the entire catalog of BNN-related St. Louis blog posts. So here it is: I respectfully disagree with the majority of you. In fact, when BNN launched its Missouri product, I contacted them and ASKED TO BE INCLUDED. Here’s why: where I live, there is a great blog aggregator, www.cvilleblogs.com. In the two years and three months I’ve used the aggregator and had my blog projects included in it, it has proved itself a tremendous resource for the blogging community, and for me, personally. C’ville blogs is not monetized. Honestly, I had to go look to be sure. I would not care if it were. In fact, I’d be pleased if my friend who runs the site made some income off this service he’s providing to the blogger (and blog reading) community.
In fact, when working with blogging clients, I recommend they seek aggregators within their industry, topic or geography as a way to get their content found and read.
So when BNN came on the scene in St. Louis I was, frankly, thrilled at the opportunity for added exposure for both my personal blog and Where Do You Stand? I e-mailed my colleagues joyfully to let them know about the aggregator and that we’d be part of it.
Here’s why the ads don’t bother me one bit — I read the hundreds of feeds that I monitor using Bloglines. With an aggregator service, I plug that feed into my feed reader, therefore bypassing all advertising altogether. I never click on ads. Ever. I do click through to blog sites from the headers, keeping money in the pockets of people like Dana, who do monetize their blogs as a source of income.
I understand how the bloggers feel — I do — the accusations of scraping and splogging have flown thick as a plague of flies. The bloggers are indignant over their original content; copyrighted, trademarked content, being repeated on another Web site. A monetized Web site. I get that. I just don’t feel that. Maybe it’s the industry I’m coming from. Some of you would consider me a “suit” — while a blogger, I’m also a PR person, with longstanding relationships with the media and other “suits.” It’s more than that, however. There’s very little pride of ownership in our industry. Many of the first writings I published were under someone else’s byline. We’re traditionally behind the scenes writers, accustomed to having our work appear on someone else’s site, with someone else’s title and photo dangling above our carefully crafted language. Perhaps this is why what David Mastio has done, is doing, doesn’t bother me one bit.
If you’re not already so tired of this topic you could spit, please share your take in the comments. And please, no flaming. I’m just sharing my opinion.
If you care to read the entire blogging backlog of BNN-blastingrelated* posts, I have linked to those I’ve read, below:
*(edited: I realized later that I generalized. Not all these posts were blasting BNN. There are several different opinions represented.)
Virtual St. Louis
Little Bald Doctors
WOBL in Training
Superfunpatrol
The State of Discontent
Mamalogues
Slacker Moms-R-Us
The Broad Brush
Prologos
A Bun’s Life
Highway 61
MidwestBlogs -St Louis
CourtneyWatson
STLbloggers
The News Bitch
March 19th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Marijean - the problem here wasn’t simply the use of the blog aggregator.
It’s the way Dave set up his aggregator (both with poor design and without proper attribution), and the way he approached the community.
He started off arguing and insulting several bloggers, and never really got around to making the case that was he was doing was going to help any of us.
There is room for community online, but when someone acts like a jerk, that tends to bring out the defensiveness of the communities that are being represented.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Thanks for the link Marijean. I’m in the category of not being used to my work being used by someone else without the byline as it were. Maybe that’s why it bothers me. That and the whole way the site is laid out. It just doesn’t appear to properly make clear that the blogs are aggregated automatically and not related to opting in or that the blog writers aren’t official contributors, nor are they receiving any of the ad revenue.
Some of the aggregated blogs have other agreements not to monetize, and that seems to be a sticking point for some. I have no problem with monetizing my blog, and plan to in the future. But monetize for myself.
BNN would probably be much more welcome if they offered to do revenue sharing, or no ads on selected blogs. If that was in place, I’d be glad to sign up. Either no ads, or sharing.
Anyway, it’s pretty much a mute point. BNN is going to do whatever with or without the local blogs along side. And maybe you’re right, no one here knows the great value it’s going to bring. But honestly, I think I’d get beter mileage out of links from your blog than that aggregator.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Hi Marijean,
I have to agree with Jim in that they way he spoke to and interacted with the community was the major source of this fire. I think if this were an opt-in type site this would have been met with a different attitude, and if it weren’t so difficult for people to opt-out as well. Thanks for the link even though you disagreed with me! I think that is what the whole point of blogging is about - having a conversation and understanding even with those who don’t agree with you, perhaps understanding this basic tennent of blogging would have prevented some of the fray?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I think you make an interesting point, Melody. As far as I know, BNN’s human aggregators aren’t bloggers or part, individually, of blog communities. Is that possible?
One of the many things I love about blogging is the conversation — thanks to Jim, Todd and you for taking part in it.
Another point to add — cvilleblogs is opt in and perhaps a better model for an aggregator in terms of design, etc. than what BNN has to offer. I prefer it for the Charlottesville market, absolutely.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
MJ, I love you to bits but we’ll just have to disagree on this one. I like how the others said it; it was constructed way differently than the typical aggregator in many respects. I also know some realize that whenever you fail to assert your rights over your intellectual property it sets a precedence than can possibly be used against you later on. It’s a weird field, this mesh of Web, copyright/trademark, and the sharing of ideas. The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Dana, I know BNN is not the most spectacular outfit, but I’m hoping they’ll be open to feedback and will, perhaps, improve over time. I’m also hoping someone else will develop an aggregator we can all be excited about in the St. Louis market. What I would really like from this discussion is to develop, together, everything we, as a group would like to see in an aggregator that really serves the community and our diverse objectives. Is that something you think we could all get behind? If so, we may be able to find a resource to make it happen. And that collaboration would completely rock, would it not?
(And of course, love to you, too!)
Mj
March 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
[…] Mamalogues Slacker Moms-R-Us The Broad Brush Prologos A Bun’s Life Highway 61 Courtney Watson Where Do You Stand Available Light […]
March 19th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Marijean,
BNN is a part of the blogging community in a lot of places, but we have been part of the political blogosphere far longer than anything else, which might be one of the reasons for the difficulty in communicating in St. Louis. coming from the political blogging world, we’re used to rough and tumble disagreement where the expectation is that people have thick skins.
In the political blog world, my language and the way I made my points would count as remarkably restrained, yet feelings seemed to get hurt whether I intended it or not.
Another problem was the St. Louis Post-Dispatch angle. There seem to be pretty raw feelings there that have nothing to do with BNN.
Anyway, someone else mentioned that we never made the case for why BNN would help bloggers. The case is made in our about section you can reach from the top of the page on any BNN site. I never got that far though because the first comments we were greeted by after the PD’s post were suggesting we reprinted whole posts and that we were breaking the law.
And as you mentioned, of course we’re open to ideas for getting better at what we do. The intent of launching the site was to be helpful to both blog readers and bloggers and in that vein, we’ve been making changes since we launched the site. (Ask Waldo how awful it was when we launched our First version almost 20 months ago.)
March 19th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
[…] stirring up in St. Louis. Here’s a little background for that […]
March 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Marijean, if you read my series (I’m cool if you didn’t– I know it was really long) then you know I made a point of drawing a distinction between blog aggregators that benefit bloggers, and blog aggregators that start to cross over the line into splogging.
Our big issues with BNN were:
1.) It’s not an opt-in site, but misleading layout and language might well lead people to believe that the bloggers featured there are somehow voluntarily associated with BNN.
2.) Clunky navigation makes it difficult for users to access the original blogs.
3.) The site hotlinks photos and displays near-full-sized versions (NOT thumbnails).
4.) Dave Mastio has a history of making opting out of BNN difficult, and even outright refusing in some cases when bloggers have asked to have their content removed. Sometimes Mastio even harasses people who ask to be removed, taunting them on their own sites.
5.) Dave Mastio originally told some bloggers that he was contacting every blogger he could find an email address for to let them know they had been listed on the STL BNN site, thereby IMPLYING once again that BNN membership is voluntary. This is not true. Many people were never notified.
I don’t know why Mastio thinks it’s appropriate to be rude to the people whose work he’s basing his livelihood on in ANY context.
By the by, as an internet marketing writer, a lot of my work IS unattributed. But you see, when I write marketing copy, I CHOOSE my clients. I GIVE PERMISSION for my clients to use my work. I get PAID for that work. And I set the price. If a client started taking my work and refusing to pay for it, you could bet I’d make a fuss. And I’m sure you would, too, Marijean, if one of your PR clients asked you for a writing sample and then used to sell their product without compensating you.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Jaelithe, you make very good points and I do agree with a lot of these issues which is why I’d like to move this discussion forward into finding solutions for the St. Louis market that establish a collaborative opt-in aggregator we all can live with. Nice runon sentence, eh? Would love your thoughts on our wiki — http://standingaggregator.wetpaint.com/
March 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Jaelithe,
I’ll give you one and two since they’re clearly matters of opinion and since I agree that there are always ways BNN could get better.
3) Given the vast change in bandwidth charges, hotlinking isn’t much of a problem, particularly when it is only used for the purpose of making readers more likely to click on a post that will take the reader to the originating site. The size of the photos is always significantly reduced on the BNN site.
4) I have a history of making opting out of state-political blogosphere aggregators impossible, as I have explained to you. The only reason, there was slow response to St. Louis is the fact that a lawyer got involved from the first second. And if by harassing people, you mean disagreeing with them when they say things about me or BNN that I disagree with, then I guess I think your definition of harassment is off.
5) You seem to imply that this story has changed with the word “originally.” The story has NOT changed and since I’ve done the same thing in launching 80 sites and there are dozens of posts by bloggers all over the country about getting the BNN launch email, it is kind of odd to allege that suddenly in St. Louis, I got all sneaky.
Note: This comment is an attempt to disagree not to be rude. I still don’t quite understand the line folks in St. Louis try to draw.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
[…] This is an outgrowth of the Blog News Network controversy that’s been blogged about plenty already in Virtual St. Louis and elsewhere (links on that post, plus a more recent post by a friend of mine, Marijean Jaggers, on the Standing Partnership PR firm’s blog). […]
March 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Just to clarify a slight wording issue (and, yes, this is nitpicking), mine would not have been considered among the “BNN-blasting posts.” I was raising the issue for conversation when I initially blogged about it — sans opinions — and then writing about the debate the ensued in my subsequent post.
*wink*
Interesting post, Marijean.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Aargh. Sorry about that, Kurt. My post was linked to in another blog as being among the BNN haters as well.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:51 am
I feel the need to point out that if you take the time to read them, you will find that not every post that was linked to or a part of the blast was a ‘hater’ because dissenting opinions are valid as well.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Um, Kurt? Marijean? I think you are confused about something. “Blog Blast” is not a negative term. Seriously. Google it. A blog blast is just a event where several bloggers write about the same subject to draw attention to that subject. The bloggers involved may (and often do) have entirely different views on the subject of the blast.
I think people were including your posts in their lists to try to be inclusive of multiple points of view and provide more information.
If you DON’T want to have your alternative point of view linked to, I am sure if you emailed the bloggers involved they would consider taking the link down.
I don’t appreciate being called a “BNN Hater.” I spent several hours doing intensive research before I wrote my post series, scouring the internet for information about BNN’s previous interactions with bloggers. I tried to be as fair in my assessment of the site as I could.
Please keep in mind that I contacted Dave Mastio DAYS before I wrote that post to get his side of the story. And Dave Mastio SENT ME AN EMAIL in which he TOLD ME EXPLICITLY that he had emailed every blogger on the STL BNN site for whom he could find a public email address to notify them that they had been included. I can forward you that email if you’d like. But when I asked several bloggers who were included on the BNN site who post public contact information on their blogs in prominent places, the vast majority told me that they had NOT been contacted by Mastio and had NO IDEA their work was being scraped for the site. This is not a difference of opinion. This is a simple fact.
Marijean, you are very respected here in the St. Louis blogging community, and I would like to participate in your wiki, because I believe it’s important for bloggers to get together to work out guidelines regarding how their work should be used. However, from the recent comments here I am beginning to wonder whether my opinion will be respected in that forum. If you see my serious work on this project as nothing more than petty sniping, I am afraid there would be no point in my participating. Which is really too bad, considering that, as an SEO writer with a lot of knowledge about respectable v. disrespectable search engine optimization tactics, I would probably have a lot to contribute.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Oh, man. I said it. I did — BNN hater. I was not referring to you or to anyone in particular and I apologize if you took it that way. Your series is very, very good and I do appreciate the time you took to put it together. It was an unfair comment and I’m sorry.
I do hope you will participate in the wiki project. Your contribution would absolutely be appreciated and would enhance the overall results.
March 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Apology accepted and appreciated. And I’m sorry if I was being oversensitive; it’s just that I really did try to be thoughtful, civil and accurate in my post series, and yet Dave Mastio himself is currently going around all over the internet trying to claim that I’m spreading baseless malicious rumors about him. Which I suppose is a predictable response on his part, given his documented habit of responding to honest criticism of his business model with petty ad hominem attacks on his critics, but it’s certainly not an accurate depiction of what I wrote in my series.
So I feel the need to make it clear to people who come across references to my posts on BNN that my initial intention was to present a considered opinion backed by careful research and analysis– NOT a baseless smear campaign as Mastio would imply.
(As an aside, why on earth did I type disrespectable instead of disreputable in my previous post, anyway? Here I go again making up words . . . hehe)
March 30th, 2008 at 10:59 am
(Or not making UP words, rather, but making words fit in the wrong places.
*sigh*
Remind me not to post comments anymore when I’m sleep deprived, okay, everyone?)