Higher Ed Marcom Bloggers Called Out :: Be Power Bloggers
OK, this is going to be a rant, so stand back. I don’t want anyone to get hurt. Yep, I’m going to be snarky and sarcastic. Who knew?
For some time, a couple of years actually, I’ve given up on the whole “get on this list” and “seek out backlinks/inlinks” to grow the blog kind of mentality.
Late last night, Andrew Carreaga called me out with his post: Higher ed bloggers: show your power!. In his challenge, Andrew asks five higher ed marketing people to do the following:
- Submit their blogs to the Power 150 rankings, and
- Challenge five other higher ed bloggers to do the same.
I have a great deal of respect for Andrew. He is sincerely a great guy, terrific writer and serious practitioner of marketing communications. I realize his intentions are sincere and focused on getting more attention for higher ed marketing. So, the following is not aimed at Andrew.
Andrew has, however, called for a frontal charge on the AdAge Power 150 blogs list by those writing about higher education marketing and public relations. In a moment of weakness, Andrew included me in the list he initially charged with the task. So, here is my response.
Andrew, I truly believe your intent is sincere and genuine. I also fear you are howling at the wind. The deck is stacked, the metrics are flawed and the focus of those involved in the list is not even barely on education.
Bold claims above, I hear you say? Let’s look at the metrics for the Power 150 (see their About page), the link love home of circular back patting in Marcom blog world.
Below, I will discuss the areas that the Power 150 uses to rank blogs. It is kind of similar to the free Marketleap Search Engine Marketing Tools that many people use. MarketLeap deals with links to your site in the major search engines.
First, Todd Points. Um, Todd gives his own blog a 13 out of 15. Who made Todd King? Well, initially … Todd did. Now, AdAge is helping to prop up the throne. Todd Points give extra weight to audio, video and graphics. So, you could concievably have the greatest writing in the world – sans audio, video and graphics – and, well you’re not going to do as well (one might guess).
Yahoo! and Google links/page rank make sense. But, those rankings may mean that bloggers are more astute at using keywords and giving/getting links, than actually sharing valuable content.
Let’s compare my blog to Todd’s, for example, and see where we stand.
Using MarketLeap, we see that my blog compares favorably to the Power 150 creator’s blog. His blog is his front page. So, when comparing domains, Todd does much better than me.
- www.auburnmedia.com: 1,574 – 1,340 – 234
- www.toddand.com: 12,444 – 1,490 – 10,954
Then, let’s look at the blogs. Mine is in a subdirectory, so we have to specifically target that link.
- www.toddand.com: 12,444 – 1,490 – 10,954
- www.auburnmedia.com/wordpress: 20,881 – 1,340 – 19,541
Key: The first number is “Total” links. The second number is links in “Google/AOL/HotBot”. The third number is links in “Yahoo!/FAST/AltaVista”.
To be fair, I’ve been blogging (at AuburnMedia.com, alone) about twice as long as Todd, so that certainly has an impact on the almost doubling of his link totals.
What does this mean? Simply, I have many more links. But, note – there is nothing there telling where those links for either of us are coming from. That’s important and it is lost in both the MarketLeap and Power 150 rankings. So, do either really imply any authority for either of us? No.
Andrew, your blog does just about as well as Todd’s, too.
- highered.prblogs.org: 9,504 – 521 – 8,983
- www.toddand.com: 12,444 – 1,490 – 10,954
The Power 150 also utilizes Technorati ranking and InLinks. As if that’s not enough, they also use the ridiculous Technorati Authority foolishness. Um, do we even have to discuss this one? OK, I’ll do it anyway. One site is responsible for 60 points in the Power 150 ranking process. That 60 points accounts for 40% of the 150 total points any site may achieve in a ranking.
Anyone want to try and explain why one site – especially Technorati, with perhaps one of the worst tracking records and most ‘link love obsequious’ ranking methods, is responsible for 40% of the overall ranking?
Authority is nothing more than links, at Technorati. Is this valid? Hello? Um, links do not mean Authority. They mean popularity, at best. Even that is suspect.
The Power 150 also utilizes Alexa rankings. Has any research been done into the use of the Alexa toolbar by those that frequent PR/Marketing blogs? How about its use by those on the list? No. So, why is Alexa pertinent? Please tell me, I’d love to know. Alexa is a great anecdotal tool, but it has a very small pool of what we’d call, in survey research, respondents. Not everyone has a chance of being selected and showing up in their results, too. So, it is also flawed.
Look at the list overall. Because they only use sites/services that allow for an API to scour the ranking services from other sites, the list is limited as to who they can use. Why, for instance, is Collective Intellect used and not any number of other services. No explanation given. Transparency? Hello? Methodology requires this transparency. The AdAge Power 150 page provides some info, but not nearly enough.
Count the number of SEO blogs in the Power 150. I mean, please. Some of those blogs are the ones that suggest we put out oodles of press releases to SEO optimize our sites.
They are, of course, the single worst offenders – creating and championing the dilution of the value of releases. They are, quite simply, the loudest ‘noise’ creators in the online world, absent spammers. Oh, wait. They are spammers. Each should be taken to the public square, placed in a stock and have these ‘faux releases’ tossed at them, ad nauseum, for the rest of their lives. They do more to harm the discipline of PR than help it.
Think of (a) the number of business marketing blogs in there and forget about PR because (b) consider that the list is at AdAge? Hello? Again, we don’t do advertising. Their idea of marketing is way too niche and allows niche subsets of the practice to dominate the sites ranked in the list. Gee, ya’ think that maybe SEO practitioners are likely doing most of their writing online, therefore more likely to be found there and be ranked by the metrics AdAge chooses to use? I mean, really … is anyone putting any thought into the methodology and value of these lists?
The best material on the broader practice of marketing and public relations may well still be in books and periodicals. I agree that can be argued, but certainly the proportion of substantive writing is greater offline for that area than for SEO, for example.
Do a search of the Power 150 and see who, and how often, anyone even mentions the term education. Look in my sidebar for a Google Co-op search tool I created using the Power 150 OPML file.
They (the bloggers) could – for the most part – care less, Andrew. The same is true for AdAge. Search their site for any articles on PR or Marketing Higher Ed and see how often they deem it to be a valuable topic for consideration. Yet, they all went to school, now didn’t they. Hmm? I just searched the AdAge site for simply the word “education” and received this result: “Sorry. No results we returned for your query.” Even the grammar is wrong. Search for “higher education” and the top result is a story about the University of Phoenix. Um, well … I’ll just leave it at that.
Hey, a Power 150 list search for “education” gets you a whopping 40 results. Holy, Toledo! Alert the media. Wait, get the SEO Marketing blogs to flood the world with SEO enhanced releases. Ack!
A search for “higher ed” does better – 70 results. Um, wait a minute. Sorry, Andrew. There is a lot of your blog in there. And, of course, the smart people are also talking about it, but few are there. Hmm? Well, given the skewed metrics of the ranking function, will I be just as ‘faux’ accurate to claim there are few smart people on the Power 150 list? Oh, I won’t suggest that.
Finally, how does one get on the list, after all? Well, you self-submit. So, the Power 150 really isn’t out there scouring the internet seeking out the best blogs. The list is relatively static (little change of listed blogs) and running a collective set of (some might argue) arbitrary indicators. There is no effort made to find blogs that are relevant or exhibit some authority on their topics. The individual authors nominate themselves as worthy of being considered authorities. AdAge/Todd, I guess, decide who actually gets added based upon those submissions.
Andrew, the whole thing is a house of cards. Ill-balanced (perhaps marked/dog-eared), poorly defined and more secretive as to how the algorithms are defined as it is public knowledge.
Methodology? Please.
Andrew, I understand that we need to get into these lists if we want to be seen by those in the marketing blog world, but – is it really worth our time? I don’t think so.
Hey, look, the Power 150 is a marketing promotion that Todd dreamed up to promote himself and also highlight other blogs. I applaud him for it, whether you believe me or not. It worked wonders for him. It worked so well, and he’s so happy with it, he cites the list (his own list) on his own About page – multiple times. Giving himself a 13/15 Todd Points ranking, he’s getting a “B” – 86.6% grade. Now, think back to school. Wouldn’t it have been fun to be able to grade our own papers?
It is just one more list. Really, it has no true measure of authority on the topic of marketing (certainly not public relations). It is another popularity contest, and even that is suspect because no one – and I mean NO ONE – is checking where all those links are coming from OR what is being said in those links. Think about it, you could have one million backlinks, but they are either spam/splog links or they are all calling you an idiot. I get that alot. 
)
Are any of these link lists really any judge of authority? If you say yes, you damn well better prove it. I’d give the Power 150 Methodology page a “D” for complete disclosure. And, that’s just because I’m not a tough grader.
Robert,
Very powerful response you have here and I’m glad that I followed the link to read it. I scanned through some of your backlog and I’m embarrassed to admit now that I haven’t seen your blog before.
Wow, looks like Andrew struck a nerve.
I can’t disagree with any of your observation with the exception that Alexa has come a long way in the last three months to become more relevant and accurate, The Alexa Ranking Has Changed. Keep the deep thoughts coming and I look forward to reading them going forward!
Hey, Kyle. Thanks. It wasn’t Todd that struck a nerve, so much as the hype absent rational metrics and detailed explanations. It is as if they believe their ethos is so great (in their minds) that we don’t need any explanation. Nope, sorry.
Alexa may have changed, but do you note that they ask for feedback, yet don’t offer any themselves? Where is the explanation of exactly what “more sources” means? They don’t offer it. The Firefox version of the toolbar has been out, what – a year? And only now are they apparently really adding and incorporating the data? Perhaps they started 9 months after they launched? You see, it is hard to tell what exactly all these sites are doing. They just don’t offer explanations. That kind of failure to share transparent explanations is just, well – pitiful.
I appreciate you coming by and I’m glad to find your blog, too. Will be reading it now that is in the linkroll / feed reader. Thanks!
You know I’ve really never thought of it that way before, but you are right. I guess I’ve just been so happy that there are companies, Alexa along with Compete and Quantcast, that share universal traffic data freely otherwise there just isn’t anything out there. Check out Web Traffic Rankings Services for the services I’ve found and rank. Yes traffic rankings is very much like the wild wild west, but it’s all we have right now. I’ve done a lot of research and work on Web Analytics in Higher Education and I think your points to be more critical of where the data is coming from and accuracies are quite valid, but unfortunately it’s the best that we have and in truth it is MUCH more accurate than data of traditional media. If you disagree I’d love to hear an argument that analytics for TV, radio, newspaper, or magazine are even close to the accuracy that these public services offer for free.
Yes it’s true Alexa doesn’t share their sources, but I feel pretty certain that all the other services are part of this metric (Compete, Quantcast, Technorati, Rankings, and even Google Analytics w/ Benchmarking). In fact if you look at the Alexa toolbar (IE or FF version) there is a setting that asks if you would be willing to share this information with Google. I honestly believe that them not stating their sources is more to protect people from attempting to manipulate the sources than a secret conspiracy.
[...] next heard from Robert French, who expressed strong reservations about these rankings, their validity, and the motives behind them. Now, Robert’s never been [...]
In yet another moment of weakness, I’ve posted a rebuttal of sorts.
Ha!
I commented, Andrew.
Kyle, I agree that we have to work with what we have, in some instances. I’m just not sure the list at AdAge really means anything to anyone besides those on the list.
Hey, there are a lot of great writers represented on the list. It is a great list to, for example, give to students and say – begin reading and learning about marcom blogs from these authors. See how they write, what they write and learn the world of blogs.
We could compare the metrics for TV and print to longitudinal studies/practices with more challenges to their efficacy than these new online attempts at metrics. I’m just offering one small challenge here.
Alexa still involves (to a great degree) the use of – and installation of – the toolbar. It is installed by choice, not by selection from a representative pool. I’m seeing more differences than similarities here.
I see that! Back atcha! (On my turf, of course.)
A spirited debate is good for the soul. It’s been far too long since I’ve had one. But I’m starting to think my heart’s not really in this one. In true pragmatist PR guy spirit, I’m arguing for a straw man. Woe is I.
[...] French left in what he describes in his own words as a rant about the irrelevance of submitting his blog to the Ad Age 150 a sentiment that is shared by others. Similar to Karlyn’s stance Brad Ward told me that, He blogs [...]
When I created the Power 150, I never imagined someone would actually take the time to write an 1800-word thesis dedicated to why it sucks.
I know it may be hard to believe, but the Power 150 was never created for the purpose of self promotion. I won’t argue that personal branding is a nice secondary benefit and I’m definitely proud of the list’s success, but self promotion was certainly not the reason I dedicated hundreds of hours to its creation and maintenance. Again, I know it’s hard to believe, but you’ll just have to take my word for it.
Now, while I’d love to write an equally snarky and sarcastic response, I’ll just suggest that you take a chill pill and watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9BfLMHNhxE
Thanks for taking the time to write so much about me and the Power 150. Let me know when you’re in Chicago next and I’ll let you buy me a drink.
Regards,
Todd
Good to hear from you, Todd.
Kind of hoped you’d address the questions raised about the methodology, but not really surprised you didn’t. Hope you will give consideration to those questions. They are sincere.
Hey, I pointed students to the list last night, suggesting they use the Google Co-op Search I created from your list’s OPML file. That alone makes it valuable as they can search and find new blogs on specific topics of interest to them. So, thank you.
I don’t have disdain for lists or you, Todd. It is the lack of clear methodology. I feel like I made that very clear.
The reason I noted your pride in the list is, you have a section called “Awards” on your “About” page. The top award is your own ranking on your own list? Self-promotion … in every sense, isn’t it – giving yourself an award from your own list? Just sayin’.
Hey, it is your list and I can understand you being pleased with its success. Congratulations.
The methodology is simple. We use nine unique metrics to determine the Power 150 ranking. The about page of the Power 150 summarizes each individual metric to give readers a quick understanding of what each metric measures. Beyond that, a quick google search can tell you as many details as you’d like about each metric.
If you’re looking for a more formal research paper with a properly formatted methodology section, you won’t find it because it doesn’t exist.
Again, I originally built the Power 150 as a small reference tool and it quickly grew into the industry standard. As such, I’m proud of its success and consider my own blog’s Power 150 ranking an achievement.
I was going to just let this go. It is clear that you don’t wish to truly discuss this. But, your comment is just …
OK, Todd. I have to address the “industry standard” reference. Who calls your list the industry standard, Todd? Seriously. Share the source(s).
Are you claiming that your form of stacking automated counting processes on top of one another to count arbitrarily selected stats on arbitrarily self-selected sites is a standard? That is all your list does. If that is your idea of a standard, then we’re all in deep trouble.
The efficacy is great for simply counting a random set of numbers. But, what does it mean in the end? Nothing more than “I counted this set of numbers. Here are the totals.” Woo Hoo!
It doesn’t truly rank all “…English-language media and marketing blogs in the world..” Please! It isn’t even close. On your list’s About page, “The Power 150 is a ranking of the top English-language media and marketing blogs in the world…” No, Todd. It doesn’t have all of the blogs in the list, so your claim is false.
Methodology, Todd. Believe it or not, it is important. Every blog has to have a chance to be selected / counted in order for you to make such a claim. Self-selection doesn’t cut it. Your claim just isn’t true. Great copy for promotional purposes, but an outright falsehood.
As for truly scanning the entire field of related blogs on marketing, you aren’t even close. You do realize that marketing is being discussed in many other areas besides just business and SEO. Those two areas dominate your 640+ list. Your list does not have depth or broad coverage.
You do realize the problems with your list, don’t you?
Clearly you can dish sarcasm, but can’t handle it yourself. Personally, I think your tone, quick judgments and rude remarks are unprofessorlike and disrespectful. I’d appreciate a little more respect if you want to continue a conversation with someone you’ve never met or emailed.
We know the list isn’t perfect and never claimed it to be. The Power 150 is a fun resource and tool for measuring and discovering marketing blogs. There is no such thing as one perfect blog measurement tool, which is why we use a multi-metric approach.
And while my industry standard remark was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I’ve heard from numerous marketing bloggers that they do consider it the standard and use it to as a benchmark. Unfortunately, I haven’t been keeping a list of the bloggers who’ve said it.
Bottom line, I can understand and appreciate your opinions of the list. I’m not saying, nor have I ever said, the list is perfect. Of course it has problems, but we’ve taken steps over the years to work out kinks and reduce some of the issues with it. Hopefully you can appreciate that effort. Even though it isn’t perfect, I and many others still greatly value the list for what it is – a tool for measuring (although not perfectly measuring) and discovering marketing blogs.
Have a good day.
Sorry you feel my tone is not polite, Todd. Not my intention. I write in a very conversational style here. Also, I tend to be quite direct. Most people in PR have tougher skins.
You likely won’t like this either, but deserves to be noted. You’re not passing the smell test. First it is “industry standard” and now it is “tongue-in-cheek” … what next?
You write, “We know the list isn’t perfect and never claimed it to be.” Yet, you claim it is the industry standard? Also, on the About page, you write, “The Power 150 is a ranking of the top English-language media and marketing blogs in the world.” Above, in your comment, you make it sound like a weekend hobby … “a fun resource and tool.” Again, what is it … solid metrics or just a happy ol’ good time?
Hey, at least AdAge has a bit of honesty there. “It’s now housed on Ad Age, partly because we thought it’d draw some traffic and links for us…” And you said it wasn’t promotional.
You’re all over the place, Todd.
Seriously, Todd. So far, I’ve only been picking the low hanging fruit when it comes to the failings of the list’s methodology. I’ll stop. This list is just too important to you and the idea of a debate doesn’t sit well with you. No problem.
Take care.
[...] Blass also recommended that we tally our blog research with an Excel spreadsheet. This enables us to compare blog authority according to a set of criteria. She stressed that the ranking on Technorati is a poor indicator of popularity. (For further discussion, see Robert French’s post here.) [...]
Robert — This is a nice summary of the problems of the Power 150, and in fact, of most ranking systems. I have *long* had a problem with the AA150 due to the weight given Technorati and the subjective rankings which rarely change, even though the blogs themselves do. IMO if you are going to have a subjective ranking, you have to make a commitment to review the content on a regular basis.
I wish we *could* have a frank discussion about this in the pr/marketing blogosphere but it has long been apparent to me that we can’t. The well-ranked folks have a natural desire to protect the system. The rest of us quickly evolve into a state of indifference.
Featured Video
Media Coverage
Categories
Archives
Most Commented
AuburnMedia Sites Search
Most Viewed
Feedburner
Switch to our mobile site
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia theme by Michael Hutagalung