Pete Cashmore (Mashable CEO) Responds To Feedback Of His Site
Yesterday I embraced my own philosophy of never being afraid to have opinions or taking sides. I stated my opinion about the popular blog, Mashable.
And Pete Cashmore, Mashable’s CEO is smart – he actually took the time to leave a comment and continue the discussion. For that, he’s earning another post about his brand (think what you will about the first one, it’s still positive to gain more awareness). Before I get into his comment – which was a great response – I want to run through something else.
Let’s take a look at all the times I’ve offered criticism/opinions of others, their actions or content, and if that party bothered to respond:
- Brett Waters at Marketing Mag – nope
- Stephen Baker at Business Week – negative
- Chris Brogan – yup
- Izea not once – but twice- silent
- AP, RIAA, Viacom – no response
- Digital Influence Group – yes
- K-Mart, Motrin, FedEx – nothing
So we’ll add Pete Cashmore to the list of people who cares enough about their own brand/product to get into discussions about it, vs. others who don’t care. Guess what happens when you respond to someone in a constructive way? You encourage them to be constructive (although I don’t think my original thread was that snarky – I’m no Steven Hodson).
On to Pete’s response. We’ll break it into sections so we can respond accordingly:
Hey Adam,
I love this kind of post cos it helps us figure out what we can do better. Obviously I’m not in full agreement with your points, but I’d love to get your take (and the commenters’, if they can spare a moment) on what we could do to improve in your eyes. Some questions for you:
First of all, thanks for the response Pete – glad to have you here. And thanks for Tweeting/blogging my content in the past (I’ve mentioned Mashable on this blog plenty as well – like I said, there are a lot of good things on your site). I’m glad you are open to feedback from the community and I especially appreciate a bit of opinion doesn’t rub you the wrong way. That’s neat, especially for a CEO (many of your peers could learn quite a bit from you). Let’s get into your questions.
–What’s the one thing Mashable could change to make the biggest improvement, do you think?
This is a great question – my simplified response would be a focus on quality over quantity. As many of the commenters in the original thread noted, there is great content on Mashable – but in many cases it’s surrounded by fluff or off-topic material.
–With regard to brand identity: what do you see as the opportunity here? What type of content would improve this perception?
For a content based site, if developing an identity was an objective, I’d focus on two factors:
1. Framing content
Check out how Mike Masnick at Techdirt frames his stories. He’s got it down to an art, and can consistently deliver on the style day in and day out. It provides the brand a strong identity and for it he has a community interested enough to connect directly and go beyond subscribing to becoming passionate supporters (yup, I own a Techdirt t-shirt). Because they frame content so effectively and consistently some even hate them. But few are indifferent, their content stands out amongst other technology bloggers in a good way. It has character and personality – even when it’s not Mike posting, guest posters are all at a level they understand the thesis and can continue it.
2. Selective reporting
The absence of specific content positions a site against others and allows it to develop a unique identity. Only by selectively reporting can a site develop personality. If you want to be all things to all people, you become About.com – or the K-mart of the Internet (aka, no personality). There is nothing wrong with that and it can bring a lot of success in the form of numbers, but personality, character and even trust are not about metrics.
It’s tempting to publish everything to gain more traffic, pageviews and visitors – but if you’re trying to develop an identity with those who have a deep interest in a subject, you have to limit yourself strategically. That’s not the strategy of most news outlets (which Mashable has evolved into) but it is a reason a site will suffer a loss of identity. Years ago I viewed Mashable with more personality because it didn’t report everything. Another benefit of posting less is the community is able to read all the conversations, (if they are all worth reading) know where you’ve been, and where the dialog is going.
–Do you have suggestions for the types of guest posters you’d like to see? Who would add the most value here, do you think? Specific names would be super helpful, but even a broader set of suggestions would give me some action items to work with.
It feels like there needs to be some kind of quality filter on your guest posters. It cheapens your site when I see industry leaders publishing content alongside those with no business publishing on a top-100 blog. IE, I’ve seen you allow guest posters where the links back to go blogs with 2 posts (or never updated) and an obviously thrown-together company website built on a cheap template offering XYZ social media/marketing/technology consulting. I take the time click for more information on authors I don’t know – I’m always interested in the source of what I’m reading (as I know many others with an interest in the industry are). And when I see any brand tagged to someone like this, well – it takes the brand down a notch mentally. A fence is only as strong as it’s weakest link.
I’m not going to provide negatives examples as I’d like to stay constructive, so I’ll highlight a positive: more people like Dan Zarrella would be cool – he’s one of my favorite guest contributors on the site. I guess it feels like (even if it’s not true) there’s no bar for quality of who can guest post on Mashable, cheapening what a guest post should be: a breath of fresh air from the regular voices offering remarkable viewpoints that get the community talking.
–Do you have further suggestions for improvement not mentioned above?
Yes, don’t listen to me. Seriously – you have an insanely successful blog, it gets millions of pageviews – no reason to change your strategy based on the feedback of one blogger. If you want to be a part of the more intimate web conversations and have a brand with lots of character and personality, start another, smaller blog known for signal and kill the noise. I do still read Mashable posts when my network points me their direction, but I (personally) don’t find enough use in what you’re doing to go there consistently. Many do for sure, but I don’t know that I’m your target audience.
Hey readers, want to jump in and provide answers to some of Pete’s questions?









David Akermanis replied | Jan 8, 2010 (8 comments)
Hey Adam,
I totally hear you on developing a deep identity with people who are interested in your subject matter. Absolutely critical in most cases.
I’m wondering though if that’s entirely appropriate here. Mashable has a pretty wide appeal and is usually one of the first stops for those trying to get a grasp all things social media. In that case I think it makes sense for them to be covering a wide variety of topics and not overlaying it with the same kind of narrative you see on TechDirt.
For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about Mashable as you do. I’m thinking we belong to a different niche than the majority of Mashable visitors though.
Loving your blog dude, stumbled across it a few days ago. Keep up the great work.
michele smorgon replied | Jan 8, 2010 (3 comments)
Hello Adam & David,
Agree with your post; ‘Mashable’ can’t be everything to everyone I am sure Pete knows his ‘target market’ – readership numbers confirm
I love the simplicity & clarity of Mashable’s posts, however like you, I crave for more insight from what I term the ‘authorities’ I follow … Pete Cashmore, Adam Singer, Chris Brogan, Peter Kim (just to name a few)
Cheers
Michele @maxOz
andrew replied | Jan 8, 2010 (1 comment)
Here’s another thing Mashable can do: do some actual original reporting and fact checking, rather than being merely an echo chamber. Like this article, which was just flat out wrong:
http://mashable.com/2010/01/01/idn-phishing/
Jonha @ Happiness replied | May 28, 2010 (1 comment)
I agree about the quality over quantity. Though Mashable posts may be really quality contents from people that I look up to, I still think that sometimes they need to really focus and try not to cover everything. Sometimes it’s a little annoying to see a lot of updates from Pete on Facebook like its occupying my whole feed, but that’s probably one of the things that I both love and kinda hate about him. Nonetheless, I am ok with how things are.
manielse replied | Jan 8, 2010 (1 comment)
I struggle on the quality vs quantity debate for sites like Mashable. Pete has built a great source for all tech news, no matter how small it is (a Brando gadget). Is it fluff? Is it noise? It depends on the person and if there is a need to know about this new device or feature. Admittedly I don’t use Mashable (or TechCrunch) as my deep news source but I wouldn’t say that there’s not a lot of quality in them as they lead me to knowing a new topic that others may dig deeper into. Like you, I struggle with the Signal/Noise ratio but I hardly view Mashable as noise. We need a balance of sites like Mashable and deeper (more niche) sites like Techdirt. Thanks Pete for all the work you and your team does for the Internets!
Ellen Malloy replied | Jan 8, 2010 (1 comment)
The big take away for me here is the importance of commenting on one’s own brand. I come from a world of high-end restaurants where reviews can really be wrong and/or wrong-headed. It can be a dicey thing to respond to one’s critics, especially if they are haters, but there is a great lesson in the way Pete responded. Thanks for sharing.
Former Masher replied | Jan 8, 2010 (1 comment)
My advice for Pete? Don’t crush original thought. And don’t have PR and Advertising anywhere near the editorial calendar. End nepotism in hiring, that means don’t let the sales guy hire his girlfriend to over-rule other editors. Let your staff experiment with new media, and give them a budget to play with when you promise one. Listen to your experts, when you actually hire them (that means reading your own blog). Talk about your employees – the readers want to know where they go, and are suspicious of you and the brand when they disappear with nary a mention.
Most of all, stop snubbing your ex-employees (as you are want to do) as if they didn’t know all the secrets as to how Mashable actually got popular.
Catherine Lockey replied | Jan 8, 2010 (63 comments)
Humility in action makes for an honorable legacy as well as a life worth living.
Pete Cashmore replied | Jan 9, 2010 (2 comments)
Hey Adam,
Thanks so much for this. I actually think you’ve hit on something I’ve seen others mention recently, too (with regard to niche vs breadth, for instance): I’m gonna bring it up on a staff call Monday.
Thanks again for helping to make Mashable better … hopefully you’ll spot some changes in the coming weeks!
–Pete
Thanks for
Arik Hanson replied | Jan 9, 2010 (9 comments)
Adam:
I think your comment about guest posters and quality over quantity nails it for me. There are pieces on Mashable I love and value. But, when I get an email each morning with 26 new posts on Mashable, that can be a little overwhelming. Why not filter that content for me a little more?
Right on with the guest post feedback, too. However, I don’t mind hearing from an up-and-coming blogger/voice on Mashable every now and then. I agree, they have to be relatively credible, but if someone who’s just starting out online has an interesting opinion on a particular topic, I want to hear it (again, this is where the filter function for Mashable is important).
Great discussion, Adam. But, I would argue with your last point. Pete would be wise to take notice–and I think he is. Sites like Mashable are only as relevant as their community dictates. Even if it is just one person providing feedback. Obviously, your opinion is just one in a crowd of thousands. But, I think one opinion matters. Especially when it’s as well thought out as yours (again, in my opinion).
@arikhanson
Jennifer Kutz replied | Jan 9, 2010 (4 comments)
Agreed- this is a fantastic case study on how to respond (and hopefully grow from) a critical social media mention. This is how you do it, folks.
Katy replied | Jan 9, 2010 (1 comment)
When the dot com bubble burst way back in 2001, it was partly because people thought (hoped?) that basic business fundamentals such as customer service didn’t apply to them. As true internet businesses rise from the ashes, the successful ones are highly attentive to the wants/needs of their audience. Kudos to Pete for understanding that perception is reality and that if your product is primarily consumed by active members of the social media community, it’s wise to listen to their opinions and respond appropriately.
Great blog Adam – you’ve got some great stuff going on here.
Danny Brown replied | Jan 10, 2010 (17 comments)
Nice to see a thoughtful discussion happening that includes the discussed party – all too often this doesn’t happen (as you point out in your responses comparison).
I feel Mashable needs to define its identity. Its tagline has it as The Social Media Guide. But then you have stories about mobile phones (just checked now and homepage must be taken up with about 70% of stories about the Nexus). Or you have 3D TV’s, or trailers for the new A-Team movie. It’s just too scattershot. Either rebrand yourself as a tech blog, or revert to just social media-led stories.
Some of the feature writers may wish to take a class in humility as well. I’ve seen some on Twitter lambast people for having an opinion, and that doesn’t help Mashable’s image at all.
Cheers for starting the discussion, and kudos to Pete for listening.
Divyang Patel replied | Jun 3, 2010 (3 comments)
In my opinion, Mashable is doing good and need some minor tweaks. (Am I even qualified to stat that!! :O) For any social media news, I always watch over that place.
Jake Kaskey replied | Sep 26, 2010 (1 comment)
I’ll admit I also enjoy Mashable– I find many of their posts interesting, and the voices of most writers easy to follow- but, as mentioned before, the sheer number of posts just becomes overwhelming. At some point, the backlog of unread posts in my feed reader just gets too high, and it’s then I’ll likely miss a post that I would have really found value in.
But I would disagree with somehow limiting guest authors to big-name bloggers or tech industry leaders. I like the fact that I don’t recognize every name of every author– it allows me to find new sites, see what new people are doing with social media, and broaden the conversation to include less-noticed voices in the field. Obviously I don’t want anyone calling themselves a social media guru or ninja to automatically have that opportunity- you have to weed out the posers– but I like that I can visit the site and hear from people that aren’t always at the mic.
(As an aside, just found your own site, Adam, and love your writing. Keep up the excellent work!)