any blog, whether “trustworthy” or not is a valuable text

True. I even like to be marketed to when it’s done well. Apple is a great example of a company that doesn’t always act transparently, but I still have trust in them.

jg, while Guy’s blog is not an official blog, it does point to the fact that people trust third party blogs and companies should be aware of the conversations that are happening on them.

Roy, commenting is an important aspect of blogging. In fact, it’s the heart of what makes a blog a blog and not regular news. I think people are less inclined to leave comments when they feel like there is not a person they are connecting with. It goes to the point that businesses are more successful with a blog if they can connect it to an individual, such as Robert Scoble on behalf of Microsoft. While people may still be suspect of Microsoft as a company, at least they can feel good that Scoble is there and may represent their opinion in the boardroom where they don’t have access.

Sabrina, you make a great point here, that people will turn to the blogosphere for a background check on a company they’ve heard of. It’s a more trustworthy source than the marketing info coming from the horse’s mouth. I think it also further underlines the importance of a business paying attention to the conversations happening about them in the blog world, and maybe even joining the conversation where it makes sense.

I still feel that because of the deception, the “perfect picture” Second Life has painted for everyone that they are not being honest so I am more likely to trust those that had negative experiences. I am sure the technology has a long way to go before it becomes what it says it is. Transparancy people, is important.

But, I just noticed that New Media luminary Geert Lovink’s new book is called Zero Comments, an obvious statement on the failure of blogs to incite real conversations. I agree that, in a lot of ways, we’re all just talking at each other. Blogging corporations face the same pitfalls (i.e., of their readers not feeling welcome to comment).

1) These ideas are not new, but their implementation is. In The Cluetrain Manifesto, the four authors saw that markets were conversations and called for corporations to get involved. Well, now that the technology has finally proliferated enough for that to happen (it was available seven years ago, but not on the scale — nor on the scale of awareness — that it is now), we’re seeing some of them try it. Which leads me to,

2) In The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell describes how eliminating graffiti in an area of New York reduced the overall crime rate in that area. Just by presenting the impression of reduced presence of crime in the area, the authorities saw crime diminish. The admission of fault by JetBlue’s CEO established trust in a similar way. When an ontology or a relationship looks a certain way on the surface, it is accepted that way until that impression is contradicted. While not completely analogous, the idea in Gladwell’s book and the gesture of JetBlue’s CEO have similarities that speak to the value of radical transparency. Graffiti on walls and broken windows (much like the general mistrust of large corporations) indicate a hostile environment (or relationship). When these are cleaned up (or a CEO admits guilt in an act of honesty and openness), the environment (or relationship) seems open and welcoming.

Obviously, openness in general is a good thing, but it takes an act of goodwill (such as the examples above) to establish trust beyond that.

So I would say yes, absolutely they can, but they have to be sincere and personal. Readers are pretty quick to identify marketing “dribble” (no offense intended) that is posing as a personal blog entry.

–jg
http://metroknow.blogspot.com

Dave Allen Nemo Design.