The Power of Words

Note: I'm not trying to turn this post into a he said/he said affair, but context is very important. I encourage the reader to re-read my post here (although leave the comments for later), then go to this site to get some background on the comments on my post, and then read those comments. Then come back to this post to read my (lengthy) clarification.

After reading the reaction to my last post I could only think of a phrase my wife routinely uses:

"Impact is very different than intent."

I did not intend to insult all bloggers who provide free content by insinuating they do not make quality posts, but clearly that is how a number of them took it. Clearly, I missed the mark and have a bit of explaining to do. This post is an attempt to do so.

Obviously, I am a big fan of Paul Tompkins, his site, and his approach he takes as an author of numerous books. That last post was an attempt to explain to my readers why they wouldn't be able to view my latest material mixed in with a bit of brown nosing. It was also a statement of support in that I feel Tomkins' site is well worth the money I spend every month even though I could be getting the content for free. The topics I explore in my blog and his are borderline academic - they are very deep in numbers and often take a substantial amount of mathematical calculation and numerical research. That's not to say other blog authors don't work harder to generate their content - I am sure many do. I am more making a differentiation on the type of content and not the work rate. The basis of my posts lately - Tomkins' Pay As You Play and the associated Transfer Price Index database - is something I clearly feel would not be put together by someone unless they were getting some sort of remuneration. Thus, when I focus on "quality" I am also focusing on a certain type of soccer blogging, one heavily dependent upon published material that demands payment to justify the research in the first place. It's the type of quality that turns out some of my favorite books - Soccernomics, Gaming the World, Soccer Against the Enemy, Brilliant Orange, and (of course) Pay As You Play. Such endeavors require compensation, especially if the book is parlayed into blog content.

Given that mindset, I never meant to insult other bloggers who choose to give their content away for free. I am a huge fan of the ever expanding and improving quality of soccer blogs - free or not. My Google Reader account is populated by the likes of Zonal Marking, The Swiss Ramble, and a number of other free soccer blogs that I read on a daily basis. I subscribe to them because they are high quality, they are free, and they offer a better value than newspaper analysis. If any soccer market understands the paucity of quality "mainstream journalism" when it comes to soccer and the need for supporter/fan fueled analysis via blogs, it's those of us in the United States. There may be no more underserved fan base than us - both in the quality of our professional game and its coverage. So, my intent was not to offend free bloggers and I apologize. I could have chosen my words a bit more carefully to make my advocacy for Tomkins' site a bit more narrow, and possibly avoided the confusion I caused.

At the same time, my reading of the Two Hundred Percent message board suggests I may have inadvertently been caught up in a long existing dispute. Clearly, the comments on that thread indicate an existing dislike for Paul Tomkins and those who advocate for pay walls, which the authors believe is a (real or perceived) slight of their free content. The choice to charge or not to charge for content is a personal one, but apparently it is a controversial one. Clearly, there is a philosophical difference between Paul and those on the message board:

Putting the ridiculousness of that article aside, I would like to go on record as saying I have no beef with Tomkins or the author of the article. Their modus operandi is theirs to choose. So long as they don't decide to drag the whole football blogging community down, which they seem intent on doing so.


In terms of charging for content though, I really don't see the point. Sure, it would be nice to make money out of it, but that's not why I do it.

I can't help but feel that those who took issue with my last post were taking me a bit out of context and looking for a fight. The original link on the Two Hundred Percent message board came from someone who saw Paul retweet my post and referred to him as the "Professor of Paywalls" - surely not out of endearment. Most of the quotes he offered up from my piece were, I feel, totally out of context.

The most out-of-context quote had to have been the following.

My original post:

For too long we've been getting blogs, newspapers, and all kinds of other information for free on the internet. Frankly, much of the content probably wasn't worth much so free was probably the right price for it. That's not the case with The Tomkins Times - you will struggle to find a better value for your hard earned dollar (or quid).

The quoted text and commentary from Two Hundred Percent:

Frankly, much of the content (of football writing on the internet) probably wasn't worth much so free was probably the right price for it.

Clearly, I was not indicting all "football writing on the internet" - I was making a general comment on the philosophy that everything on the internet should be free, a subset of which is soccer related. As Paul pointed out in the comments in my original post, it's a viewpoint we both share and one that I believe isn't incompatible with finding good free and paid content on the web.

Overall, this has been a teachable moment for me. The power of words is clear, especially if unintended. The impact is what matters. I will freely admit that I may never read Les Rosbifs because its subject matter does not interest me personally. Nor do I see myself subscribing to a number of the non-Premiership blogs highlighted by Lanterne Rouge because I have limited to no ability to view any of the lower levels of the English soccer pyramid here in the US. But that doesn't mean they're low quality. On the contrary, the reaction of Gav clearly indicates his passion for his (and others) blogs and their product. My intention was never to offend, but rather to advocate for a concept of paying for good content when you find it. I reward great content with my money when I see it - whether it's the engineering in my diesel powered Jetta, the great beer through my friend's brewery, or a fellow blogger who's given me a bigger platform than I could have ever asked for.

I hope those who commented on my previous post accept my sincere apology in leaving them with the impression that I felt "free blog = crap". That was never my intention.

Perhaps, more than anything, this will reinforce why I stick to numbers and let them do most of the talking.