IABC Blog Battle Royale

Ragan Communications' David Murray critiques IABC Cafe blogger (and board chair) Warren Bickford for writing bland posts, and not doing it often enough, in the December 19 Ragan Report.

Reminds me of the complaint about restaurant food: "The food here is terrible! And such small portions!"

Last winter, there was a sustained attack by bloggers on then-chair David Kistle for starting a blog, but not seeming to have the energy or inclination to maintain it. This year, despite a lengthy absence from the blog, Bickford hasn't faced the same criticisms.

This could have something to do with Bickford's active engagement on the blog over a period of months, the fact he asked several guest bloggers to step in during times when he might not be able to carry the conversation (only Tom Keefe has risen to the occasion), and how open he has been to suggestions, comments and criticism. That kind of behaviour earns you some slack when you need it.

Murray's conclusion "A lesson, perhaps: Transparency requires more than a good attitude, but time and energy, too."

Mark Ragan steps into the debate, saying that Murray was calling the blog bland, not Bickford. He then goes on to suggest Bickford could be more "exciting" by writing like Steve Crescenzo does. Crescenzo is indeed a lively writer who often takes a provocative stance to get a reaction. Which works for him, but it's not necessarily Bickford's style.

Bickford is doing just fine, writing about things that interest him or affect the organization. He has a wry wit that doesn't need to be more exciting, thank you.

While Murray was taking a jab at the IABC Cafe, he also took a potshot at "Canadian PR man and IABC gadfly Brian Kilgore (who) responds, often multiple times and typically truculently, to virtually every entry. We do not fault bloggers for ignoring such people. We might not even fault them for removing their posts."

Nothing like poking at a hornet's nest to stir up interest.

(Disclosure:  I know and respect Bickford. I haven't met any of the others involved in this epic struggle.)

Comments

[Warren Bickford]

Hi Eric. Enjoyed your summary of the "Battle Royale" although I'm not sure I would characterize it quite that way. As I have said before, my intentions were clear and I think I have been meeting them - when time allows. What constantly amazes me is the expectations some people have.

As you know, involvement in IABC is entirely voluntary. IABC leaders - at all levels - have families, jobs, and all varieties of other volunteer commitments. You'd think there might be some slack awarded for that. Oh well, as I said to "The Crusher" last week, I have very thick skin. David, and Ragan, are entitled to their opinion and I'm sure they'll move on soon enough to the next shinny object. In the meantime, it makes for entertaining reading.

[Eric Eggertson]

Thanks for dropping by, Warren. You think I'm a bit over the top? I was aiming for WAY over the top, but my Photoshop skills limited me a bit!

[Robert French]

Eric, I think you reached the top - and more. Enjoyable post. My favorite line: "The food here is terrible! And such small portions!" Ah, blogs ... such fun.

Ya' know, they should do this match on one of the WCW/WWE televised wrasslin' programs. There are actually rules. http://tinyurl.com/cy5wb

Rage in a Cage

A match held in an oval-shaped cage. It is typically used as the arena for the "blowoff match" of a feud. It can be used for a tag team or singles match. In this match, wins are usually by pinfall.

Now, how scary that I actually looked this up?

[Eric Eggertson]

Robert:

It all brings back memories of All-Star Wrestling, when Gene Kiniski (west coast Canada) was the bad guy, and barefooted little Erich Froehlich was the good guy. It had none of the bombast of modern "wrestling", but the good guy vs. bad guy thing was already well established on the wrestling circuit.