We’re getting used to introspective head-bangings from all over the Paul Scrivens collection (I forget how many networks and how many companies are involved). Now Scrivs has reduced Fine Fools to only four blogs. Writing on the Work Boxers blog he admits:

“Oh my god, what happened?! Everyone has left Fine Fools! Well, not really. … When looking at Fine Fools I saw a Network that more and more people were talking about and one where I admit to not helping reach its full potential because it had simply outgrown me and broke so many rules that I myself had established for blog networks. …”

Difficulties have arisen because: “… I had no idea what the Fine Fools brand was because every site was so different.”

Now things are better, he says: “… this is the first time I have felt that FF is a real Network now, not because of the writers or sites (almost impossible to find such talent), but because of the focus I am able to put into it now.”

So the basis of the argument is that each blog in a network has to have a similarity of content, never mind design. In the real world though, things are very different.

Take a best-selling magazine or tabloid newspaper. The Entertainments, Sports, Current Affairs, Features and Op-ed sections will bear little resemblance to the others in terms of feel, content and audience targeting.

The French Nouvelle Vague film-maker Francois Truffaut said he made his movies like circuses: first came the elephants, then the clowns, then the high-wire acts. So with a blog network.

Syntagma Media is not ten publications, it’s one with different sections, each different from the rest. Making everything the same is a mistake, because it ultimately limits the network’s expansibility and constrains diversification.

Sameness spells the death of a network, which should be allowed to grow organically.