Since when is a reader a lurker?

May 6th, 2007 by Glenn

I read and comment on blogs. It is what I choose to do. But when I am reading a blog - even one where I have commented - and the ‘readers are lurkers’ attitude comes out, increasingly I am finding I don’t like it. This is maybe just me, but it got me to thinking. Blogging is publishing, and lurking is a negative term. Why would publishers pin a negative label on their audience?

Is lurker a negative term?

There are two camps here. But lets get real - its derogatory if people think it is. Go look it up in the dictionary, and overwhelmingly its a negative. On what basis can we assume people don’t see it as negative? In the absence of research to the contrary, lets assume most people see it as a negative. And definitions don’t matter, what matters is how readers respond. Don’t try and persuade me, the court of public opinion will decide. And denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

Have you heard of the 1-9-90 model (from Bill Tancer)? There are others, but this would mean 90% of a blog’s readers are lurkers, 9% are the ‘participators’ who comment and 1% the content creators. When the ‘lurker’ tag emerges on a blog, in posts or in comments, what if a negative perception is created? What if negative emotions are evoked? What effect might that have on readership? Is it likely to create positive emotions? Hardly.

Imagine this. An author issues a press release stating that he thinks most of his readers are ‘lurkers’. Or worse, that a lot of members of his fan club are wackos. What would be the result? Other than blogging, can you think of an example where a communicator (artist, author, or otherwise) criticises their own audience in public? Criticise others, sure. Communicators aren’t afraid of controversy (or the publicity it may bring). But criticise their own audience? It doesn’t happen. Why not?

Why use a negative label?

So why would bloggers get involved in labelling their own readers - maybe 90% of them - as lurkers? I’ve even seen examples of bloggers criticising their commenters (the 9%) because the comments weren’t in the right style. Wow.

If you blog for your business, its a good thing to enjoy being read! Think like a publisher. The more interesting and engaging you make your writing for your audience, the better. And there is definitely a place for ego, no doubt about it. In the company of great authors, film makers, musicians (and business people) - ego abounds. Ego and an audience are not mutually exclusive (far from it). Enjoy your audience

When non-lurkers lurk

How does lurking appear in other media conversations?

If you read a novel and don’t send a letter to the author - are you a lurker?
If you watch a film and don’t participate in the fan club or write a review, are you a lurker?
If you listen to music on your iPod but don’t go to concerts or be an active fan club member, are you a lurker?
If you read a newspaper and don’t write letters to the editor, are you a lurker?
If you have seen Star Trek, but don’t dress up in Star Trek costume or attend Trekkie conventions, are you a lurker? (and no, I’m not into Star Trek, but I do think that a diversity of sub-cultures is very healthy)

If your favourite author labelled you as a lurker because you read their book but didn’t ‘participate in a conversation’, how would you feel towards that author? Would you read another of their books? Would you recommend their books to your friends? Robert Cialdini, in The Psychology of Influence, gives pretty strong evidence that if you like someone, they are more influential. And people like people who like them.

My point isn’t to label people lurkers. Quite the opposite. Where is the (’non derogatory’) lurker equivalent in the author:reader, film-maker:viewer musician:listener etc relationships? Nowhere. The concept of a lurker doesn’t exist in other publishing relationships. Why not? Because communicators don’t criticise their audience. Or maybe not those that have survived. For those blogging to build an audience, it might pay to reflect on that.

Comments do of course continue a conversation, and that is a great characteristic of blogs - they facilitate conversation. But an author also gains a benefit from comments. It shows their blog is popular, and has a lot of readers. Not a bad thing. And because comments sometimes are a form of fan mail (’great post!’), they make the blogger feel good.

What are the similarities between blog commenter communities and fan sub-cultures? Where egos are involved, quite a lot I am guessing. Film stars, celebrity authors et al often use media consultants to help them learn about dealing with fan subcultures - because there is an awareness that dissing the fans is a very bad move. Imagine a celebrity author being perceived as criticising readers because they don’t send her enough fan mail. Ouch! Maybe bloggers who use the ‘lurker’ term need to research this in more detail. Because there could be a fine line between being perceived as ‘encouraging participation’ and soliciting fan mail. Once again, it doesn’t matter what the blogger (or I) thinks. The audience will make up their own mind. I’m just making the point there is a risk to audience numbers if they decide it is the ego involved.

Journey back in time

Blogging derives from web log, or a personal journal style of communication. But perhaps some bloggers have brought the bulletin board model with them. Or open source / open content models, where everybody contributes because everyone is a volunteer (and equal). The bulletin board is where the ‘lurker’ label arose, after all. And it wasn’t a positive one then.

I take the view that if you want to contribute your knowledge to a community, why not do so freely without expecting anything in return? Others may also choose to contribute, but don’t have to. If you’re not happy contributing if others don’t do the same, then its not going to be as rewarding. Or put another way, if you give a gift when you expect something in return, its not really a gift. People can still set up communities for participators only - absolutely, whatever floats the boat. But if you want to think like a publisher, maybe its not good to assume this is the way blogs work. IMHO, they don’t.

Blogs are different to bulletin boards and Internet discussion groups. People who read blogs aren’t lurkers. They are readers. They are an audience.

Old media and new media

Seth Godin: Respect or Lurk? I like this Google Fight between “lurker + seth godin” and “respect + seth godin”. Its clear what Seth spends more time talking about. Bloggers who learn from the successful communicators of the ‘old’ media, and make use of the opportunities provided by the new media, will be the most successful communicators.

All communication is a conversation, and blogging joins an age old tradition. Respect your audience, respect your customers! There is a huge amount of literature that supports these principles, including some of the best bloggers and influencers of people:

Using the term lurker? Based on the gut test, I feel it shows disrespect to an audience, to readers and may alienate a significant number of readers. Some bloggers might not agree. But until the split tests and Taguchi results are conclusive, the risk is there for them to take.

How about this as a better alternative? Whatever the media, believe in your content. Enjoy people reading it and commenting on it, and respect and encourage both.

Posted in Blogging. Permalink for this post: permalink. If you are a Digg user, please digg Digg this post. | Stumble It If you use use Del.icio.us, then add us in: Del.icio.us

What do you think?

Leave a comment! Or send a trackback from your own blog.