The Wall Street Journal Still Doesn't Get Blogging

The Wall Street Journal still doesn't get the blogosphere. It doesn't matter how many stories they run about blogs. It doesn't matter that they have some blogs on their site. Deep down they hate us. And, they don't seem to be too great at math either.

In today's Wall Street Journal, there's an article about political candidates advertising in blogs.

"The most popular political blogs reach a daily audience of just a few million readers, according to a study released last October by George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet."

"With a print and online circulation of nearly 2.1 million, the Journal reaches the nation's top business and political leaders, as well as investors across the country."

"All told," the Journal says, "online spending by candidates, political parties and third-party special-interest "soft money" groups, like Moveon.org, could hit $80 million during the 2008 cycle compared with $29 million in 2004, according to an estimate by PQ Media LLC, a Connecticut research firm."

"For now," the article notes, "Internet ad spending is small compared with spending on traditional radio, broadcast and cable advertising. The best-read blogs still charge comparably little for ads. A standard-size weekly ad purchased through Blogads costs $2,900 on the progressive site DailyKos for example, or $250 at Hotair.com, a conservative video blog site. By comparison, a 30-second broadcast television spot could set back a candidate anywhere from $90,000 to $110,000 a week in a market like Des Moines, according to Evan Tracey of the TNS Media Intelligence's Campaign Media Analysis Group."

Clarification: While spending on blogs is smaller by comparison, blogs have very specific audiences, all of whom are there entirely by choice and who are likely to share the blog's point of view. Dollar for dollar, blog ads pack more power and influence than traditional media.

And, as the numbers prove, the reach can be just as broad as the Journal's.

I'm not entirely sure the article, and the somewhat selective citation thereof, necessarily supports the point you were wanting to make.

Let me clarify my point:
While the spend may be small, the audience for blogs is specific and always there entirely by choice.

You can get incredibly specific in a blog buy, while you waste a huge amount of money and influence with traditional media.

As someone who has worked on the media planning and buying plan, let me say that BL point rings quite true with a couple of legitimate caveats.

The idea that the WSJ uses the descriptive word 'only' and then announces that they reach 2.1 million is telling.

But the thing that is missing is location, demographics, and specific interests. It doesn't have to be blogs. There's an over-focus on blogs as being the only way to advertise online.

It's not the $90,000 to $110,000 ad spend per week in Des Moines vs. blogs...it's vs. advertising on the website of the Des Moines Register and other local media outlets. Buying online can be more targeted...especially more targeted than broadcast.

If you're trying to make inroads into the black community, it's advertising on blackvoice.com or netnoir.com. If you're trying to explain how you'd deal with Social Security, it's sites like marketwatch.com (for investors) or thirdage.com (for seniors). Targeted messages for targeted groups. More info for them to look at. Less expensive.

If they added that to the mix along with their blog advertising, they could reduce their expenditures for TV a decent amount.