Friday, January 04, 2002

I understand that it is about micromarkets -- what I can't see is how servicing those micromarkets doesn't increase costs without increasing revenues. The part of your (Jeneane's) analysis I disagree with is that group communication is cheap. In fact, though group communication is cheaper than it used to be (the internet is the most important group forming network the world has ever seen), it is still more expensive than broadcast.

You pay $45 a month for DSL, plus how many hours of your time? At what hourly rate? Divided by what audience size? When you're done with that math, the (dollars spent/audience reached) figure is gonna look pretty grim.

So no, Gonzo is not free, and I'm not a baby. It has the same costs any marketing operation has, particularly people's time, but because it isn't broadcast, it doesn't scale well. (Complexity in broadcast networks scales with N; in group-forming networks it scales with 2^N. Ruh roh.)

As for "So what if paying attention involves a re-allocation of operating expenses? Learn to like it." there's only one thing that would make me like Gonzo Marketing or Total Quality Management or Learning Organizations or any other new thing, and that's if it allows me to raise my prices, lower my costs, or increase my volume without additional investment. What I'd like to see are some assertions about the math, because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that profit maximi-Zing, and it seems to me the math is Not Good for existing mass market goods.

Oh, and its my real name. Why wouldn't it be?


No comments: