I was looking back at Stephen Johnston’s post about mobility in the enterprise. (See my coverage from a few days ago). I remember he referred to the "meritocracy of ideas than a hierarchy of job titles" in reference to the 2.0 paradigm and how people collaborate. And this strikes a thought back on a discussion I recently had with co-workers regarding blogging.
A colleague inquired as to the primary reason why a person would start to read my blog (or start reading anyone’s blog for that matter). Do they read because of the merit of one’s ideas? Or do they read it because of "the Persona Quotient", or in other words, the perceived level of the writer’s background whether it be prior success, education, title or place of work.
It is an interesting question? Do people read me for the context of what I say? Or do they read me because my Persona Quotient is driven by my position at Dow Jones or former position at About.com. Would I read blog.pmarca.com if it wasn’t written by a Netscape founder and successful serial entrepreneur? Would I read A VC if it wasn’t written by the Managing Partner of two well-respected firms? Both individuals have high Persona Quotients…
My instincts tell me yes, I still would. I have a number of blogs I subscribe to based on the quality and insightfulness of their contributions. That is the great thing about the b’sphere. But I must admit I found them in many cases via the high Persona Quotients.
So, what is the driver of the real or perceived value? The Meritocracy of the Ideas or the Persona Quotient? Interested in your views…
Sphere: Related Content