Editor’s note (May 2026): This article is part of the Blog Herald’s editorial archives. Originally published in 2007, it has been revised and updated to ensure accuracy and relevance for today’s readers.
At a conference in Philadelphia in 2007, an idea for something called “open source marketing” began to circulate. The premise was simple, but ahead of its time: blogging wasn’t just publishing. It was participation. Your thinking has become public, your expertise has become discoverable, and your network has become real.
Almost two decades later, most instruments have changed beyond recognition. The feed is already an algorithm. Blog comments migrated to Discord threads and Twitter replies. Self-publishing, championed by early bloggers, has spawned an entire creative economy worth hundreds of billions of dollars. But the basic logic holds up better than almost anything written about the blog at the time.
If you’re building a content strategy today, this old framework is worth revisiting—not for nostalgia’s sake, but because it clarifies something that a lot of modern content advice obscures.
What “open source” really meant to bloggers
The term open source originally described software development: make the code available, everyone contributes, the collective effort improves the whole.
You weren’t just broadcasting to an audience—you were contributing to a shared body of knowledge, inviting others to build on your thinking, and making your expertise available for anyone to find and use.
This was significant because it upended the old media model. Expertise was gatekept before blogging. If the publisher has selected you, you are published. If a radio station or magazine decided your voice was valuable, you were heard. Blogging broke that door down. Anyone with domain knowledge and regular writing discipline can be a reliable resource.
Liveblogging, in the sense of frantically copying things as they happen, misses the point. The real value comes from processing what you see and hear—before, after, and in between—and offering your own interpretation. This is not just a conference tip. This is the content philosophy.
Three arguments have been reconsidered
There were three main claims. First, blogging is live – your feed is always on and always reflects your thoughts in real time. Second, this blog post is self-published – your expertise can be found and reused. Third, blogging builds relationships, and the tools to do so are cheap, even if the conversations aren’t.
Each of these aged differently.
The live streaming argument has certainly become more true, not less. In 2007, “always on” was a novelty. Now is the main expectation. Readers, viewers and subscribers expect a consistent signal from creators they trust. The problem is “can you post regularly?” changed from the question. “can you maintain quality and differentiation in volume?” Orbit Media’s annual blogger survey consistently show that bloggers who publish longer, well-researched posts report stronger results—a direct endorsement of Maltoni’s depth-over-frequency argument, as most people race to post as often as possible.
The self-publishing argument was validated on a scale he could not have imagined. The examples he cites are from Chris Anderson Long tail and Bob Sutton No ass ruleboth stemming from blog conversations—were early proofs of concept. Today, newsletter writers regularly turn their archives into books. Podcasters sell courses. YouTubers build software companies. The blog-to-book pipeline he described became a blog-to-brand pipeline and then a blog-to-business pipeline. The principle is the same: consistent public opinion translates into credibility and, ultimately, commercial value.
The relational argument is the most perplexing argument. Social platforms have fragmented the conversation. Comments moved to Facebook, then Twitter, then Substack threads. As the signal-to-noise ratio worsened, it became harder to build genuine professional relationships through blogging. But the basic truth – that people recommend people they know, work with people they respect, do business with people they like – hasn’t changed. What changes is where the relationship building takes place. Today, many serious creators treat their blogs as anchors and their social platforms as distribution channels to bring people back to that anchor.
This is where this framework goes wrong for modern creators
There is a version of the “open source” metaphor that misleads people. Open source software works because contributions are cumulative – your code builds on everyone else’s code. Content doesn’t always work that way. Writing thoughtful posts and putting them out there is not automatically collaborative. The tape does not organize itself. You should actively participate: reply to others, cite other people’s work, be visible in the conversations happening around your topic.
Many bloggers produce content that is technically public but functionally closed – no internal links, no connection to other voices in the field, no clear invitation to dialogue. It’s not open source, it’s broadcast. The difference is important.
Another thing that the 2007 framework doesn’t fully account for is platform dependency. When he wrote this, the blog was a platform. Your feed, your domain, your archives – you own them. This ownership enabled the change and combination of purpose he described. Today, many creators have rebuilt “open source marketing” on rented land: Instagram profiles, TikTok accounts, Twitter/X followers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has long documented the risks creators face when platforms change their rules, algorithms or business models. The open source marketing argument is only valid if you own the platform you publish on.
What this means for your content strategy today
2007’s three-part framework maps cleanly on three questions every content creator must ask now.
Are you posting consistently enough to maintain a live signal and is it worth following? Consistency without differentiation is just noise.
Are you building a working set that you actually own – on a domain you manage, reassigning archives? Or are you gathering followers on platforms that may change conditions tomorrow?
Are you actually participating in a conversation or just broadcasting in one? Relationship building happens when you engage as a peer, not just as a publisher.
Open source marketing tools are cheaper and more powerful than they were in 2007. The principles have not changed. This is usually a sign that the principles are worth following.
