Post Snark Snark Post

Matt at Enter the Octopus and I have been talking about various things blogging/internet and I’ve been working on a piece concerning that subject, focused primarily on ’snark’ and the negative impact it has on everyone/thing that it comes in contact with.

The subject has obviously been gnawing on him as evidenced by his post of a couple of days ago.? I guess now I’ll have to address it as a post rather than continuing to try and write an epic clarion call that covers everything in detail.

Matt is a marketer and promoter and as such he owes his financial survival in some small part to making sure that he doesn’t step on toes.? I, on the other hand, would seem to be free to say just about anything I want to without fear of real consequence since I’m not billing folks who I might take to task.? But like everyone else in the world, I don’t exist in complete isolation.? Something I say just might piss off the wrong person – say, an editor at one of the publishing firms I hope will some day purchase a novel I’ve written.

So rather than point fingers at people that I believe are guilty of what Matt has summed up as ’snark’, I’ll try to deal with this in an all encompassing way by suggesting that all of us, at one time or another, are ‘guilty’ of the sin of snark and that if we address this sin as a community, we can all benefit.? (The community I refer to is the one that is centered around genre fiction, fandom and the wider community of blogging that has its roots in those older communities.)

I specifically include myself amongst the guilty parties, but so saying, I really want folks to read this with the understanding that we should move past the guilt part and move on to creating an all-inclusive, self-sustaining and self-promoting community.

First though – what do we mean by snark and? what do we mean by ending it?? Is this an attempt to censor free speech?? Are we trying to curtail dissent?? Silence criticism?

No.? Snark, in this context, is not speech – it’s attitude.? An attitude that says ‘My opinion is more important than yours because I’M more important than you are’. ‘If you don’t agree with me there’s something wrong with you’.? ‘If you identify with the group that I’m criticizing, I’m criticizing you.’? ‘Any defense you might offer is pointless – because you’re a part of it.’? ‘The only way to really enjoy something I’m critical of is to poke fun at it’. ‘It’s not enough to find the flaws, it is necessary to belittle as well.’? ‘It’s not only necessary to belittle – it is imperative that we humiliate.’? ‘We do this not because we are offering a substantive, contrary point of view, but because we can and because doing so draws attention and builds not only our egos but our traffic.’
This is not speech, it is a marketing tactic.? The formula is a fairly simple one:

Train wrecks draw crowds.? In the absence of real train wrecks, fake, ginned up ones will do just as well.

Crowds are then portrayed as influence.? THAT train wreck must be more spectacular than THIS one – look at the size of the crowd watching it!

Crowds do what they inevitably do – they call their friends.? The marketers who use this ploy then stay in front of the crowd by offering a constant stream of train wrecks; they morph from the ‘first witness’? into the Source of all Things Train Wreck.

Advertisers like crowds, of course.? While it is true that many of them are getting much more discerning these days (targeted is better than broad brush), they’re still drawn to crowds.? They spend money with the marketers and the marketers use it to create ever more spectacular train wrecks, which draw in larger crowds.? Vicious circle.

The above description isn’t just limited to those who have a profit motive.? In essence, it describes the internet – social networking, YouTube rushes, slashdotting.? Sticking a profit motive on top of all of that doesn’t make it any worse or any better.

Snark/train-wrecking isn’t necessarily a problem in and of itself:? one hopes that the vast majority of people, having already visited a wreck or two will begin to exercise a little judgment and a little discernment – such as I do when standing in the grocery store check out line.? Sure that headline about the bat faced boy getting it on with Oprah is enticing – I wouldn’t be human if it weren’t – but having already perused the tabloids on a few previous occasions, I already know what I’ll be getting if I stoop low enough to read that trash:? unattributable statements from non-existent sources about meaningless subjects alongside photoshopped images.? That, or the elevation of some poor woman’s pregnancy status to stop-the-presses headline, simply because she has the misfortune to be a movie star.

Having already been there, I do not need to go there again.

A mostly harmless past-time for some and the source of a great joke in the film Men In Black.? But nothing else.? (Personally, I take the view that reading such tripe actually causes brain damage or is indicative of the continued decline of the species, but I digress.)? The point is that such meaningless crap is ignorable and mostly harmless.

It is only when such trash conjoins with the mistaken belief that an influential position entitles one to become the ONLY source that our penchant for rubbernecking turns into a problem.

This works in a relatively subtle way.? A site or a blogger, having acquired a sizeable audience selectively stops outward-bound linking and attribution.? At first they usually concentrate on critics and dissenters.? Critique and Dissent can still occur – but only within the confines of the sites and forums and blogs they control – where they can keep an eye on it and where they can cut it off if necessary.? The outside sources simply aren’t mentioned.? (In fact, I’ve seen one forum that has gone to the extent of placing the names of what they consider to be competing websites in their swear filter; posters can’t even use the name, let alone link, attribute or comment.)

Worse yet, the outside sources are sometimes mined for their content.? (Again, I’ve seen a site that actually edits their time stamps so that it seems as if their story on subject X appeared before a “competitors” story.)? The unsaid statement to the crowd on the site is – no need to go elsewhere for a train wreck -? we’ve got the one you’re looking for right here.

The stage of squashing dissent and competing viewpoints is usually followed by a complete absence of the recognition of the world outside their direct control; virtually no attribution, links only to content from sources that pay for advertising (or influential sites that will remain so until all of their traffic is absorbed into the collective).? The aim is to drive all traffic concerning a particular niche market to one source in order to accomplishes two goals: increasing their numbers - attracting more and more investment and – if your (competing) site can’t get mentioned, it simply no longer exists, at least in the view of the (majority) traffic perusing that niche.? This is like pulling the rug out from under while simultaneously chopping the head off of your so-called competitors.

The flaw is, of course, that websites and blogs that cover the same topics – and even compete for the same advertising dollars – aren’t really in competition.

How many genre-related websites/blogs have you subscribed to in your syndication reader?? One – or every single one you can lay your hands on?

Did you pay anything to subscribe to any of those feeds – or did each one of them cost exactly the same – nothing?

The web, as the proponents of the ‘new’ economy will tell you, is all about sharing.? It’s all about each individual having the tools and the capabilities to create unique content, and then using the interconnections to make others aware of that content – so others can take it, mash it up, inject their own personality and keep the chain going.

This is supposed to be (and by all the evidence currently at hand is) an additive exercise.? Even when the content added is negative in nature (The remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still is going to suck – to use one of my own examples of snarkiness) – the result is additive – so long as I connect to others.? Someone who violently disagrees with my position is going to comment.? They’re going to provide a link to their contrary commentary.? MY readers are going to read that contrary viewpoint.? Some of them will visit that bloggers site and some of them will subscribe.? I’ve lost nothing.? The contrarian has lost nothing.? Both of us may have gained a few new readers. The great collective that is the internet gains additional content.? You, the reader, get more timesuck and maybe some interesting info.

Not connecting to others when you have no audience makes not a bit of difference.? No one reads you now and no one – except random Googlers – is going to read you in the future.? Not connecting when you do have an audience is a sin and a shot in your own foot.? It’s a sin because one of the great freedoms that the internet has bestowed upon us is the freedom from worry about criticism and dissent.? If everyone in the world writes in to your blog to tell you how stupid, misguided and wrongheaded you are – not only did you get a bunch of traffic and attention, but you can still write more tomorrow.? No one can take the platform away from you.

Now some are going to argue that the ’solution’ to this is to simply create a bigger and better site than the folks who aren’t cooperating have and do to them what they’ve been doing to you (except in a nicer, more open, sharing and connecting way) and they’d be right – except for two other considerations.? The strategy of becoming a better competitor implies competition (not to mention time and resources most are not interested in applying) and a long-term look at things.? I’m talking about the near-term.? Sure, sure, the bad-asses will eventually trip up, someone else will come along and knock them off the throne, the readers will eventually get tired of the snarkiness, they’ll get bought out and things will change.? And I have every faith that that dynamic will come into effect.? Over time.

But I’d much rather find a way to convince those folks that do engage in snark as a marketing strategy that they can have their cake and eat it too by doing things the internet way. If they just cooperate by relaxing, we’ll get this taken care of now, instead of later. Sites with lots of traffic and lots of resources that allow them to continue to produce interesting content will continue to be at the top of the heap.? And they’ll get even more traffic if they share the limelight.

There’s a certain website/blog out there that’s done pioneering work along these lines and is thriving because of it.? I won’t name them because I’m staying away from specifics here.? That site has guests writing for them – and they almost go over the top in making sure everyone knows that the guest has their own blog/website/book/magazine/radio show.? They scrupulously link to everyone and anyone who sends in material that they use.? They offer random shout-outs from time to time.? Their traffic, market share and influence is booming.

This is because they understand that what they do is ADDITIVE.? Yes, the guest blogger probably benefits MORE, in terms of sheer numbers, than the hosting site does.? But the hosting site has Guest A one week and Guest B the next, and Guest C after that. The host site gets visits from all of the guest’s traffic.? They may be big, but they are not the ‘only’.

Looking at it another way: if I write something critical of someone else’s blog entry – what happens when I link to that other blog or don’t link to that other blog?

In the first instance – most, if not all of my readers immediately head over to the other blog to see what that person said – most especially because I disagree with them.

In the second case – most, if not all of my readers get pissed at me for not including an easily clickable link, find the post on their own, go to the other bloggers site and spend the day wondering why I’m so weak-willed or scared of that other blogger that I couldn’t include a link.

Upshot? the blog I criticized gets traffic, from me, in one fashion or other.? I either keep my reader’s goodwill, or I damage it to some extent or another.

The dynamic is that there will always be one or a few headliner sites and a whole slew of smaller sites in any given niche market.? The balance is that the big site(s) can send a lot of traffic, for a couple of days, to the individual smaller sites and the smaller sites can collectively send a lot of traffic (on many, many days) to the big site(s).? And they all should because – in the long run – not playing the game may not lose you traffic, but it will lose you good will.

Now there are a whole lot of other considerations that play into the desire to end the ’snarkiness’ – the general state of the economy being one, the questions about the various genre’s survival another, the overall state of publishing yet another.? Cooperating and building in such an environment is never bad; at worst, the basic foundations remain to build on in better times ahead.? But we certainly don’t need the added weight of internal sniping, denigrating, dismissing and belittling to add to our woes.? That alone ought to be reason enough to think more about working together and supporting one another – building and sharing rather than controlling and tearing down.

I suppose that in all likelihood, most reading this will not find much to disagree with and the folks who are guilty of snark ‘for a reason’ will dismiss it as one of those grassroots bleats for all the bleeding hearts to get together, act as one and storm the walls of the Bastille.? There’s only a few stormings recorded in the history books because most times they don’t work, but I do think I’ve come up with a way to make it work – if such a thing should be necessary. Actually, two ways.

The first, much like the tactic of disemvoweling (Teresa Nielsen Hayden gets the cudos there. This is the practice of removing all of the vowels from a disagreeable post). This tactic leaves everything in place, preserves free speech and doesn’t overtly attack anyone.? And it’s quite simple.

If a site is identified as one that is routinely engaging in snark and not playing fair, just turn off the links.? If you have occasion to cite the offender – go ahead and do so, just don’t link to them.? Take them out of your blogroll and your subscriptions.

See, when they do it to you – you only lose one inbound link (and yes, the traffic they might have sent you).? If we do it to them, they lose hundreds, if not thousands, of inbound links.

Letting everyone know why there aren’t any links to so-and-so takes care of the goodwill aspect. It’s pretty plain and simple:? Those guys don’t send traffic to anyone else but themselves, so I’m helping them out by not sending any traffic either.

I surely and sincerely hope that such will not be necessary.? I hope that instead, my second suggestions works instead. Those who are already doing things the right way should let everyone else know that they are. I offer a pledge (maybe I’ll even draw up a badge or some other kind of marker) to avoid snark, play fair, share openly and often, ? I’ll do that now.? I promise to avoid snark in my blog and on my site.? If I am to be critical of something, I’ll do so in a positive way – by citing my reasons and by avoiding personalities or speculations about sexual practices.? I’ll assume that anyone writing something on the web is at least a hair above an idiot (hey, they can log on and type) – unless they amply demonstrate otherwise.? And even then, I’ll try to stick to the argument, rather than the person making it.? If I comment on a post from elsewhere, I’ll make sure to include a link and an attribution – whether I agree with it or not.? In fact, I’ll look for opportunities to stick in mentions of other sites, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of my post, simply because I can.? And above all I’ll keep in mind that at the end of the day we all want the same thing – health and prosperity for the genre(s) that we love.

If a good percentage of us just do what we’re already doing – but take the time to let others know that we’re doing it – the bad apples (if there are any) are going to stand out.