This is why you are taking a risk when blogging. High risk, high profitability they say, which is the same result as having a good competitive advantage. So does blogging = competitive advantage itself? Is it a complete and self-fulfilling notion, a prime number?

Even if you can easily spot the logical gap, there qualities in blogging that make it as weird as a prime number.

For instance, I wonder about the prescription force a blog can have…

Why do CEOs bother blogging apart from their annual shiny letter to people, at the risk of commoditizing their intellect?

Why do blogs of pink-people (those who create a fairy-tale out of everyday tasks (like shopping peanuts, and walking the dog to the bus-stop) are equally attractive as CEO blogs?

Maybe “everything is interesting”, and then is a question of matching niches of bloggers and micro-audiences. So why is TechCrunch successful and not really niche? At this moment (beginning of the 2.0 era) it fits the medium culture, which is an advantage: it addresses the internet and tech passionate people. But what would be the scores of a newspaper writing about journalism, a TV show presenting how to make a TV show? I take these media because they are relatively mature. A blog talking about internet can be degraded to a gossip show, a plumbers’ little helper show, or a political analysis show: the parameter differentiating the one from another is obviously Quality.

So if we consider blogging as a massive-niche communication procedure…its competitive advantage is quite dynamic, changes as fast as niches change size and orientation.

I don’t know if I am trying to solve an Erlang equation here or answer the chicken and egg loop, so I stop.

I vote for energy and quality.

What’s your mysterious new blog?

But I do prefer to focus on the positive. As far as CEO-blogs are concerned, one blog I do like is Frank Addante’s blog, which seems both practical and unpretentious to me.