Bloggingstocks, Pt. II

Perhaps you'll think we're just griping about the fact that AOL has moved onto our turf, covering the finance beat, but I assure you that's not the case.  If anything AOL is validating invalidating the space, but that's ok -- eventually blog readers will have a flight to quality.

But seriously, check out this nonsense:

TNT's is about to drop yet another original drama series on us. It's called Saved, and AOL products will be integrated into the actual show.

Saved will air Mondays at 10 p.m. starting June 12. The series launches with a commercial-free premiere episode, sponsored by Quizno's and Dodge.

"Our integration with both Saved and [the TNT series] The Closer -- an established hit -- allows us to tap into new audiences and broaden our reach in a unique way," says Richard Taylor, senior vice president of brand marketing for AOL. "We can showcase the value of AOL within the actual storyline, making it relevant to the characters' lives."

Yes, this is from a website that claims to "... cover some of America's most widely-held stocks deeply, analytically and obsessively". Sorry, this isn't analysis; it's an ad for AOL.  And while we tend to think disclosure rules are somewhat silly, it's surprising that the entry makes no mention that bloggingstocks is owned by AOL.

Even if the author thought that somehow AOL's integration with some TNT shows counted as stock analysis, all we have to say is "TMI" (Too much information).

Comments

[Henry Miller]

Actually, it still seems like you're kind of just griping about AOL.

I mean, if you read through to the end of the entry, instead of just taking that section out of conext, the entry is actually quite clever.

Obviously, it's clear that the author is mocking AOL's practices more than she is advertising its products.

Furthermore, unless you are total moron, you know that the site is owned by AOL.

Sounds like someone has a bad case of sour grapes...

[Dominic Jones]

You're right in both posts. It's not the correct approach for investment blogs. They don't have to be experts to play a role. But if they're not experts, then there should never be an "I think" in any of their posts and they should only quote real experts.

Rather than go into it, I've posted my own response here:
http://irwebreport.blogsome.com/2006/04/28/why-blogging-stocks-is-getting-bashed/

[danny]

I think the site just plain sucks. I don't see any value thus far and now it looks like they're trying to mix in a Dealbreaker-esque humor, too.... Ummm, no.

I have sour grapes, dude. I emailed Jason Calacanis to do a stock blog over a year ago. It took that sonsabitch 18 months to roll it out and this is the best they could come up with?

[Coruscation]

Quoted passage looks more like numerology than analysis.

Glad to see Stalwart back to more frequent posting.

[Jason]

I think you have some fair points on us doing more indepth posts, and you'll be seeing those shortly.

However, we see bloggingstocks in some ways as the bridge between the indie voices in the blogosphere and the mainstream.

Look at it this way... we're going to get more traffic in a day then you get in a month. So, if we can pull the best opinions in the blogosphere and bring them to the huge AOL audience that is an amazing thing for everyone. I don't think we'll ever have more insight than someone who work at MSFT, GOOG, or YHOO--how could we?

however, we can pull the insiders on the outside (i.e. bloggers) from the blogosphere to the mainstream--that's the reason we're here.

We're not here to "beat" any individual bloggers... we're here to showcase them to the world!

In terms of this post you quoted it out of context and that is suspect to me. I mean, you're talking to us about doing a better job and you've done a really bad job here of making your point! The bloggers goes on to make fun of the marketing of the show and you call it an ad? Are you not reading the whole post or are you really sloppy?

Anyway, give us a couple of weeks and you'll see/understand what value we're going to bring to the table. One link from us will double your monthly audience... we're going to be the best thing that ever happened to the indie stockblog space because we're going to highlight the indie voices more than anyone ever has.

best jason

[Jason]

For example...
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2006/04/28/insider-blogging-msft-and-the-great-headcount-cut-leonsis-love/

The public has no idea who Scoble is and now they do.

Also, compare the traffic your site and BloggingStocks. We've got huge reach and we're going to use it to bring the conversation happening on blogs to the main stream audience. We're not going compete with individual bloggers--we're going to help them grow!!! Heck, we're going to pay individual stock bloggers more money this year than anyone else--we're also going to be the best place to blog if you're a stockblogger (if you want to blog somewhere that is).

Bloggingstocks:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s24bloggingstocks&r=12

TheStalwart:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm6thestalwart&r=12

[Theo]

StokBlogs takes a totally different approach to stock-oriented blogging. Our bloggers each have their own model portfolios:

http://www.stokblogs.com

You can see all their trades and track their portfolio performance in real-time. That way, when someone blogs about a stock, you can tell - over time - whether they were right or wrong. And with a long-term track-record, you can tell who knows their stuff and who doesn't.

-theo

[Jason]

Theo... very cool idea!

We'll def. be watching what you're doing!

[Brian]

AOL's reach is what BloggingStocks.com is all about. Why is it needed, you may ask?

- there is a huge amount of daily stock data with various, dry (and sometimes witty) analysis, with an incredibly fragmented way to read all this, and it comes from whomever with/without an agenda and for whatever reason. \/ check

- there's a severe lack of humorous, opinionated commentary on some of the largest-cap stocks being brought to a large mass audience from a 'decently large' and well-known portal (quotes added for emphasis). \/ check

- the purpose of BloggingStocks.com is to fulfill a need -- and like Jason said, bridge a gap to a wide group of people who may not even know that there are finance/stock blogs in existence. Now, they do. \/ check

The above are just a few points of interest. I can see why this has ruffled feathers, but the goal is not to provide investment advice, write dry statistics and analysis or be a redundant mouthpiece to any stock. The three (out of many) points above is what we're all about. The thinking behind stating that this is an "investment blog" is understandable (I guess), but misguided. Otherwise, the site would be "www.InvestmentBlogging.com". Investments and stocks (large world and focused world, respectively) are two different animals, yes? Sure, some may connect those dots, and this is easily understandable.

And, Dominic, I agree with you on one point -- a core competency of a stock analyst is communication, although I see that competency being smashed more often than not. Cramer is one of the better heads of state here -- he nails it (and screams in on his TV show, heh). Most, if they're in the mainstream, don't. Another thing is reach, which is uber-important. Combine reach with an untapped, yet pent-up need, and that's where we come in.

Best wishes for a prosperous 2006.

Brian
www.BloggingStocks.com (WMT and GOOG)

[michael]

Interesting that this whole post went up without a mention of www.seekingalpha.com and all of its stock blogs like internetstockblog.com. This is where I go. They cover many more stocks, ETFs etc.

Looks like Jason is getting after seekingalpha more than the individual bloggers.

[Joseph Hosteler]

Michael, I was thinking the same thing -- it seems to me that Seeking Alpha's the one that's really helping the small blogger to grow, by giving them a platform to write on their own, with their own picture, posts, author page, etc., reaching a much broader audience than they can on their own.

With this bloggingstocks, the individual blogger can only 'hope' the AOL blogger links to you... nothing new or revolutionary there.

-- Joseph

[steve]

Jason, what's your point with the sitemeters? I don't think anybody would dispute that your sites get more traffic than The Stalwart -- but that's symptomatic of the fundamental flaw of WIN: substituting quantity for quality.

[Johnny Debacle]

I don't know where to begin but the representation from BloggingStocks.com between Jason and Brian has highlighted their lack of getting it. I'll just start in the middle of things.

"Investments and stocks (large world and focused world, respectively) are two different animals, yes? Sure, some may connect those dots, and this is easily understandable."

Stocks ARE investments. They are NOT widly different animals; Investements are the entire group of animals and stocks are lions. And things that effect lions also effect all the other animals in their area and in the end, lions cannot be understood well without appreciating the context in which they live and their relationship with the hippos, gazelles, and the waddling wildebeests that populate the savanna. This is a really crucial point that needs to be understood. The dynamics within the capital structure, within the industry, within the geopgraphic region, within the currency, all affect the equity and the fact that you would say that stocks are different than investments belies that you don't get that.

Some things in no order.

A 1% stock move means nothing. A 2% stock move probably means nothing. A 3% stock move is about 50% likely to mean nothing. A 4% stock move is exponentially more relevant than a 3% stock move. Your blog pratters on about that which is largely just noise. This is a waste of your traffic and a dillution of any possible value you could bring to a reader.

The constant stream of news is almost all chaff. There is so much to know in this world, so much information being created, that the aggregator type sites who add value are those that add value with digestion and analysis or at least only put out the information which will allow people to do something of use. There isn't much of use on your front page, and nothing that would help me make an informed decision and (I hope) nothing that would make an individual investor make a decision. It's like noodles thrown against the tile.

"And, Dominic, I agree with you on one point -- a core competency of a stock analyst is communication, although I see that competency being smashed more often than not. Cramer is one of the better heads of state here -- he nails it (and screams in on his TV show, heh). Most, if they're in the mainstream, don't. Another thing is reach, which is uber-important. Combine reach with an untapped, yet pent-up need, and that's where we come in."

That's a poorly written paragraph. I find your site wordy, uninformative, difficult to navigate, Chistmas colory, so much so that I had six seizures before I was able to find anything. When I found the bio section I was confused as the people seem like reasonably competent types with the odd-financial reporter or two thrown in to lower the bar. But the content is bad. Maybe these people are just more writers and less financially savvy than they ought to be?

I'm sure that this site will be a success in some sense, I'm sure it will generate lots and lots of traffic, but I don't think it will really add value. It seems like a noise aggregator. If the contributors are being paid real world amounts for their time than I would expect this to be a losing money endeavour, unless the posting frequency is seriously reduced. If the contributors are being paid Gawker world amounts for their time than I would expect this to make money hands over fists...and still not add any value.

[SWINGERS]

Our IT department will be happy with you. Ha ha!

[the mentat]

The U.S.-Mexican border fence works, doesn't work

[japanese candy school girl]

Juvenile delinquents should be sentenced to bootcamp

[9 series simpsons]

Water pollution is the World's biggest problem today

[cultural]

People should be allowed to go naked in certain recreational areas only

[adjustable]

We are better off today than we were eight years ago

[accord]

I haven't been up to anything. My mind is like an empty room, but such is life. Maybe tomorrow. Today was a loss, but eh.

[bab]

Not much on my mind right now. Today was a complete loss. So it goes. I've just been sitting around waiting for something to happen. I've basically been doing nothing , but I guess it doesn't bother me.

[frame]

I haven't been up to anything. That's how it is. Not much on my mind right now. I can't be bothered with anything recently, not that it matters. It's not important.

[dwarf]

Prayer in public schools are wrong, not wrong

amend amount cinema theater bass rnb singer bicycle human wheel frame europe region china netherlands toy fitness military police application courier shape basic model chain modern material cultural industrial technology pop construction idea velocipede document hobby feet mechanical rear pedal streel dwarf diamond comfort tire club driver light lamp noise

[asian parade]

The Aging Population Hurts The Economy

[visual dvd]

Al consumo critico antiracket lÒOscar della partecipazione civica