What's in a name?

The tragic end of TWL sparks some interesting questions – what is in a name and what’s in this name when it’s on a blog? 

While TWL’s undeniable interest, writing talent and acerbic wit definitely had something to do with its success, would it have been as popular if he had just used his own name?

While other PR blogs use a real name, they frequently benefit from the status of the writer: Drew Benvie, Wadds' Tech PR Blog, Byrne Baby Byrne. But what hope would there be for a blog called ‘Brown Blog’…maybe I just have a crap name – I may as well call it Brown’s Boring Blog. Perhaps we’re better placed with ‘Buffalo’. Is there anything in this?

Also, what’s the benefit of anonymity when, with the ever growing number of prosecutions for ‘cyberlibel’, you’re just as likely to be pulled up in front of the beak for an untoward comment as any other blogger. 

Was TWL simply fulfilling the destiny created by its ingenious name, or was it simply great blogging that took it to the top? And what hope is there for those at the bottom? To name or not to name that is the question…

Comments

[Tim Hoang]

Rafi, i think its success was down to the fact that there isn't a blog of similar ilk out there. It's great to know that we are not the only ones getting stuff wrong and everyone in tech pr should've read it. I think the anonymity contributed to its success because it leant it a bit of edge - in the same way pop bitch has lost some if credence since the founder appeared in the glossys.

[Toby]

Thanks for the comment Tim.

Now, who's up to the challenge of taking TWL's place?!

[Drew B]

'ang on a sec. Wadds and Colin run PR firms, so yes they are names. But when I started my blog I was an anonymous account manager at a regional PR agency, and I wouldn't say now even that have a status that gets me readers, do I? Thanks for the kind words nonetheless and keep up the good blogging :-)