Two years in the making, BuzzLogic debuted today at the DEMOfall conference in San Diego. A lot of work by an amazing development team, coupled with a UI that rivals consumer apps for elegance and ease of use, played to really terrific response in the ballroom and later in the big tent. Our station was packed pretty much non-stop from the moment the tent opened to the beginning of the next session.
Rob and Todd closed our presentation by announcing the opening of our Series A from the stage. DEMO Exec Producer, Chris Shipley, suggested we could have ensured ourselves of a DEMOgod award if we had announced the series A at the start, and closed the round at the conclusion of the six minute presentation. We should have thought of that in advance.
It was also interesting to talk to a couple of folks who are taking issue with influence as the central idea of our business. They're unhappy with the science that calculates influence as specific and contextual, and with the observation that neither they or anyone else is influential on every single topic. This isn't surprising to me -- ideas that disrupt the established order are seldom embraced by everyone at once. Although it is funny that a cottage industry has emerged around A lists and being a popular blogger. And as Mitch Ratcliffe, one of our co-founders is apt to say, the A-list is being blown up, replaced by a million A-lists. Based on the feedback in the tent and in the hallways, we're going to be very disruptive.
We're in some great company here, with some very cool products being introduced in rapid fire order. And overall, the vibe is very collegial and supportive. It's a great place to be at a great moment for our company.
Comments (2)
I think you have the potential to make a huge impact if people trust your method. Given the way magazine advertising is valued, and the shift of advertising dollars to online media, this would be very useful.
In your post you stated one of the criticisms but they avoided answering it: "the observation that neither they or anyone else is influential on every single topic". My view is that neither is a magazine, yet advertisers place ads based on the audience and circulation, and a web site isn't any different. How would you answer that criticism?
Posted by mark madsen | September 27, 2006 9:22 AM
Posted on September 27, 2006 09:22
Hi Mark
Sorry for the tardy response. DEMO was great but it is taking a little while to dig out from under it.
You raise a good point.
Gross measures, such as reach, frequency and circulation, worked ok for analog media. The very process of publishing in the analog world required significant resources, contributed to a certain amount of scarcity and probably inferred influence. I think it may have gotten tougher to sustain that idea over time but that may be another discussion.
Obviously there is no scarcity in social media. And bloggers have to earn their audience every day.
Publishing useful insights on query and reporting tools day over day may earn someone a following; other folks interested in the topic may seek out his thoughts and recommend him to their colleagues. But the influence earned on BI doesn't automatically transfer to a post about Taylor guitars...
Influence in this case is not generic but rather very specific. And if our example starts writing goofy stuff about BI, he will almost certainly lose that influence.
So why not measure influence, and use it as an organizing principle for understanding and engaging with social media?
Posted by Bob Schettino | September 28, 2006 9:30 PM
Posted on September 28, 2006 21:30