The rest of it is about bucks.

Hence the "market" portion of marketing, right?

Blogs are more like newspapers than movies or novels. Being deemed "great" once will get you momentary attention from a very small group of people. Hearing that a year ago some blogger did a single piece that was brilliant? I'll look, but net years are like dog years -- as a "what to read *now*" guide it'd be useless.

I noticed this just from the books that I've done. The shelf-life of a book is just hugely different than that of a magazine or an online post. And it winds up engaging in a public dialogue for a much longer time.

We did the Bubblegum book many years ago but its still the definitive reference on that particular tiny niche market. So when stuff comes up, we still get media hits for comments etcetera. Goldmine - the record collector's magazine - did a huge Bubblegum issue a few years before our book, but it doesn't maintain the same kind of media longevity.

Gus, I don't think advertising is ever going to be dead. It's just going to keep mutating like a retrovirus trying to be unrecognizable as advertising. But that's what it will be.

Somehow, Strega and I are at war. So be it.

In terms of what the Pulitzer influences, I am biased toward fiction. I've bought fiction because of a Pulitzer, when I'd otherwise be disinterested.

If they would point me toward a blogger of interest, I would peek in.

For the Academy ... if it has an Oscar and I have not seen it, I will press "record " on the DVR. What the hell, I'm giving all those dollars to Cinemax. I might as well see what's on.

This is the influence I am speaking of.

The Nobel ... I work in the sciences. They only reward effort after it is expended. Long after it is expended.

You said that the Pultizer had enormous influence on readers, and that it was a fact. I asked for evidence. And explained why I thought you were overstating things.

If that's war, I guess I'm out. G'night.

No...Bill Hicks thought people in marketing should kill themselves and that they were also sucking the devil's dick. Really, Hecubus. Get your facts straight. And how much do I love profaning a discussion about literature by saying "sucking the devil's dick." Enough to stay out of grad school, that's how much.

The Pulitzer is like the Caldecott--if you know what it is, it can influence your consuming. If I am looking at a nonfiction book and see it has won the Pulitzer, I am more inclined to give it a go than another book on the same subject.

The Pulitzer is a big BIG deal in the theatre--plays that win usually get produced at regional theaters all over the country and they use the prize as a selling point.

The Pulitzer is a big BIG deal in the theatre

Did you notice that there wasn't one this year?

This is all about mediation. Who gives a rusty frimp if the Pulitzer people were watching a play this season?

People who are selling the play. That's who. If the Pulitzer Committee had said that such-and-such a blogger always has her ducks in a stack about theatre and she digs such-and-such show the most, said blogger could make the play.

That is how it really happens, now. Print reviews are entirely after the fact. Ditto breaking-news in print/broadcast. When you release a movie, you pound the refresh key on "Ain't It Cool". What The Times said a week ago machs nix.

Pulitzer in newspaper would be v. different from a blog, if only becuase even these days when most newspapers have most of their stuff online, if I see "oh, the Portland Gazette got a Pulitzer for their series on meth!" I'm unlikely to go read it. If I see "Congratulations to bobsblog.com, for the Pulitzer post on underwear (read it here!)", I'd go read it, and then if I liked it, possibly become a regular reader.

If meara's link didn't go to a 404, her argument would be utterly compelling.

Other than this, I agree with meara.

If it weren't 3AM, I might not have made up a fake link.

Or I might've anyway. I make no promises.