In Blogs We Trust

As an academic and "natural born sceptic" I have a problem with blogs and all sorts of other UGC...which I don't have as a marketer. That problem is authority. "Authority" is related to "author" which in turn comes from the Latin word auctor, meaning to originate, increase, promote. Yes bloggers certainly originate and promote their ideas. But today authority (in the sense that a written work has authority) has come to mean "an influence exerted on opinion because of recognised knowledge or expertise". Authority should not be confused with authenticity, which incidentally comes from the Greek "authentikos" which means principle or genuine. What's the difference you say? Well authentic, means something is the original, genuine undisputed article... but something has "authority" because of the relative influence it exerts on others.

This is why as a marketer I have no problem with blogs and their power to shape opinion. In the blogosphere you can say what you like and as long as enough people read what you say and agree/disagree with it it has AUTHORITY.

Take the simple example of hotel reviews. Anyone can review any establishment on the many review sites, and their review can gain AUTHORITY through acceptance by bloggers and readers. However, this does not mean the review is AUTHENTIC. Marketers the world over are writing false reviews of establishments they have never been to which gain authority, promote business, but are essentially untrue. Authority does not equal authenticity.

But fortunately the law of averages kicks in. For every evil genius out there promoting their ideas, product or service through disingenuous blogging, there is another person saying the opposite for equally twisted reasons. The net effect is that for most topics people can gain a view by filtering a number of other opinions. The authority comes not from the single author, but from the mass of authentic authors...so ultimately in blogs we trust.