Blogging royalty? There’s no such thing
During the four years I’ve been blogging I’ve often heard the term ‘blogging royalty’ bandied about. It really is the most nonsensical, meaningless phrase.
In Hollywood the term ‘royalty’ is used to describe those stars who are at the top of their game: Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, for example, and the criteria is fairly obvious: box office receipts. But in the blogosphere, defining who is at the top of their game is much more difficult, because the point about blogging is that it’s so subjective.
Depending on your interests, you might think a food blogger is the crème de la crème, for example, or a travel blogger or political blogger. Others might choose parent bloggers or tech bloggers or beauty bloggers or fashion bloggers. Or bloggers who make crazy amounts of money from their blogs (like Dooce).
Then there are celebrity bloggers (I don’t read any of them but I know they’re out there), and columnist bloggers, and gardening bloggers, and photography bloggers, and craft bloggers.
Does a blogger become ‘royalty’ because they’ve got a book deal (the Bloggess, for example)? Or because they’re invited on TV and radio, or appear in glossy magazines? Or because they can make the loudest noise within their circle or their corner of the blogosphere?
Blogging charts cannot be taken as the gospel indicator of blogging success either, unless they contain every single blogger within a specific category and have access to all their metrics (doubtful.)
As I wrote in this post on how to be a successful blogger, blogging success is relative. What I define as success may be the antithesis of what you define as success and that’s really just how it should be. But ultimately, the idea of a blogging hierarchy, of ‘blogging royalty’, is just nuts. All bloggers are created equal, and aren’t we all just bloggers?
In the words of the Gary Byrd Experience (this may be a new one for some of you), you wear the crown, baby. I wear the crown. We all wear the crown.