In the UK recently there has been a spate of blogging about whether blogging is causing the death of planning or not. See here for the ongoing debate. There was in fact an actual debate (the details of which I can no longer find). I wonder if the issue here is about something else: control. Who has the control over ideas, thoughts, approaches and who decides if they are right or not?
I personally think that blogging is a "good thing", however I'm very aware to the power of the mass. I thought this entry on Edge was really interesting. It's about how digital collectivism (such as Wikipedia) and the sense that pertains there that the collective has some kind of greater knowledge than the individual. Now I'm not saying that they don't. I am saying however that we need to be very wary of letting the mass dictate how knowledge develops. There are cases (and this is where I think John Lowery of Grey London) is coming from where expert knowledge is necessary.
It reminds me of Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" and the idea he develops there of the "tyranny of the majority". It's quite simply: if lots of people don't know what they are talking about together, they can still dominate the few who do know what they are talking about.
However in this case, I feel that the people who are blogging still know what they are talking about. And the other thing that no-one seems to mention is, I'm sure none of them are going into their day job and saying "NO I am not going to read and comment on that brand tracking report because I blog!"
And for light relief after this heavy post, a short ad about the virtues of planning from someone who is obviously an expert on his parents.