David St Lawrence of Ripples likens explaining blogs to lighting candles in the wind. That's about the best comparison of how hard our job feels sometimes.

In an excellent post he describes reactions we often encounter when we suggest that people or companies should use blogs for articulating and promoting their ideas, message or products.

When I ask if they might consider a weblog format, I get a politely embarrassed response as though I have suggested they put their site on LiveJournal or host banner ads for porn sites.

Even those who have well designed and interesting websites have a reason to consider a blog.

Comparing a weblog to a static website is like comparing a live display to a printed sign. Both will attract attention when well done, but the live display creates the anticipation of change that will draw viewers back again and again when the messages are worthwhile.

For example, innocent drinks has a truly fun site, witty, laid-back, user-friendly. I visited once, had a laugh, thought great guys, but have no reason to return. Maybe they don't mind, but if they do want to engage people, a one-visit-wonder is not going to do it. They could use a blog to achieve that which no website can get across and sustain.

The force of your personality, or lack of it, comes right through. A weblog is like good PR in that it quickly reveals a lot about you and your ideas. If both are worthwhile, you should use a weblog to spread the word. Otherwise, it may be too revealing and you should stick to a static website...with an unlisted URL.

Spot on, once more. Which is why we don't think every company needs a blog. At least, not yet.

Back to Big Blog Company