aaargh, the technology bites me bum again
i hate it when it does that (is that a meme too chris)
i'm not so sure that all the high falutin language or the salubrious use of expletive that chris wraps around his advertising makes it any superior to any other form of marketing
i'm not even sure that chris makes any attempt at even hinting at such an implication in his book (since those larcenous fucks at amazon havent delivered it yet) but he certainly is not afraid to use rageboys list as an effective marketing tool
i'm not convinced that the fact that web-marketing is on the web makes it essentially different to any other form nor makes the relevant success factors any different
and nor has the humble blog escaped his mercantile endeavours so the simultaneous claim that the web is somehow different and ought to be approached differently ought not necessarily to be greeted with unqualified enthusiasm by those who remember fondly the good old days of the net in all its irrelevant academic publicly-funded self-indulgent adolescent glory nor anyone else for that matter
while there may indeed be technical nuances to be learned and assimilated by marketers venturing anew into net territory, it is far from clear that these nuances are, ipso facto, evidence of some fundamental difference in the medium - or its adherents - that makes tradmarcomm obsolescent or even a bit stale
this is a bit like saying that wanting snow-tires proves that the fundamental nature of the ground beneath the snow has changed things so much that maps are no longer sufficient or adequate some other means of finding your way must be learned
as noted chris himself has not hesitated to include blogging as simply one more marketing tool and to consistently use it to point not only to the product he so candidly must sell but to showcase all the other avenues hes assimilated into his marketing campaign as well
it is this fundamental sameness of treatment - that marks the web blogging email and indeed the whole gamut of net-dependent technological advances as simply one more string to the marketers bow - that most upsets the nostalgic ivory tower dwellers of the net
maybe that is why dave winer objects
far from differentiating the web or chris - its apparently most ardent defender of the newly protestant web-marketing faith - as inherently new radical upsetting and possibly dangerous this fundamental sameness shows that neither chris nor any other marketing walla has changed all that much no matter how much the web might have allowed them the opportunity to change our views of (some of) them or just to get to know them better
still hustling still moving product still taking care of business
nothing at all wrong with that
but -
that chris does it with such good humour such admirable rancour such sly wit and purloined genius such eclectic insight and such disturbing rage shouldn't blind anyone to the fact that marketing - as a meme if you like - is not only far from dead it is alive and kicking sand in the face of the puny weaklings cowering in blogs and cursing in futile emails to contact addresses that go nowhere
as i loved to tease my folks when i was a lad "we are the people our parents warned us about - and we are everywhere!"
be afraid - be very afraid
Sunday, November 11, 2001
The "Written Word" has a certain gravitas that supercedes the medium. Everyone who's ever made up a price tag for baked beans knows this, as in some way do all the people who've ever bought baked beans. (Who the hell ARE they, anyway? Does anybody consider that shit to be food?)
Anyway, maybe I've led a sheltered existence, but I've never ever seen anyone try to haggle over the tins of baked beans down at the supermarket, - OTOH you can bet your sweet ass if there was no price written up there on the shelf or stuck to each can then no-one'd ever get out of the damned place for all the queueing. Just imagine the body count! It'd be enough to make Arnie squint.
Baked Beans are my favourite bugbear of marketing as propaganda; the ultimate proof of the perfidious lies of the slickest professional whores since the lawyers became respectable. (Huh??? When did that</b> happen?)
You'd be better rewarded, nutritiously speaking, if you ate the paper label wrapped around each can.
It'd be cheaper, by a substantial margin, to just buy reams of paper directly and eat it with Tomato Sauce.
And much MUCH more is spent on marketing the product than on making, shipping, or selling it.
So, for one day only, my theme song has to be Baked Beans, by Mother Goose>.
Anyway, maybe I've led a sheltered existence, but I've never ever seen anyone try to haggle over the tins of baked beans down at the supermarket, - OTOH you can bet your sweet ass if there was no price written up there on the shelf or stuck to each can then no-one'd ever get out of the damned place for all the queueing. Just imagine the body count! It'd be enough to make Arnie squint.
Baked Beans are my favourite bugbear of marketing as propaganda; the ultimate proof of the perfidious lies of the slickest professional whores since the lawyers became respectable. (Huh??? When did that</b> happen?)
You'd be better rewarded, nutritiously speaking, if you ate the paper label wrapped around each can.
It'd be cheaper, by a substantial margin, to just buy reams of paper directly and eat it with Tomato Sauce.
And much MUCH more is spent on marketing the product than on making, shipping, or selling it.
So, for one day only, my theme song has to be Baked Beans, by Mother Goose>.
First order of business-Angela, if I had to pick one, it would be "A Remark You Made," written by Joe Zawinul and aptly underscored by Jaco Pastorius. I don't have any fun (read: hysterical) links like Helen's tribute to Vanilla Ice and his testicles. [I tried to put a link here to an mp3, but I must not know what I'm doing. Industrious types will find it on their own, on the Heavy Weather album, by Weather Report.]
Onto Helen, who gave me plenty of food for thought-especially on a Sunday, a day when I typically waver between cranky and braindead.
I've been thinking hard about your notion that language wears us, we don't wear it, and I hope I'm close to getting it. At first, I sat puzzled (not new for me), at your idea that "online interaction gives us a (blurry?) snapshot of the way that language uses us." I started thinking about how I form my thoughts when writing. I decided that ultimately, they are formed at the keyboard, and are more or less the same, regardless of whether I'm crafting them on or offline, or for a medium that's on or offline. That's why sticking me in front a new computer renders me useless for a good three days.
So, once I have a thought in my head--and hey, let's not minimize that little success--I taper my language differently because, as we all know, words and thoughts are perceived differently when they look up at us from the paper page in any number of fonts, than they are blaring at us on 640x480 (or whatever it is) glorified light bulb.
Even within the online world, thoughts, meaning, and voice are wrapped within smartass and witty san serif fonts (fishrush and sweet fancy moses come to mind), or serious and informed serif fonts (amaon.com comes to mind). So in that way, I suppose language does wear us--the theme of control comes back into orbit--demanding of us that we conform our thoughts to based on such edicts and the supposed perceptions of others.
But still, I wasn't quite getting it--eh?
So then I went back to what I know best. Motherhood. Specifically, the art and science of creating a human life, which, after all, is the ultimate act of meme propagation. Consider that when you are pregnant, you are said to be forming this child within--but ultimately, the child takes over your form. You are said to give birth and new life to the child, but I contest that every woman is reborn through childbirth. In other words, the life you create creates you, and re-creates you. So, somehow I am getting closer to getting it, by relating this notion of "who wears whom" to what I know best.
So taken this way, yes, we are created by language at least as much as we create it. Right? I like to think that language is under my control to craft and play with any way I want. But then…. Yes, I can accept the possibility that maybe I am more or less under its spell.
Thanks for "making those little hamsters in my head run faster," as one of Chris's readers said recently.
Onto Helen, who gave me plenty of food for thought-especially on a Sunday, a day when I typically waver between cranky and braindead.
I've been thinking hard about your notion that language wears us, we don't wear it, and I hope I'm close to getting it. At first, I sat puzzled (not new for me), at your idea that "online interaction gives us a (blurry?) snapshot of the way that language uses us." I started thinking about how I form my thoughts when writing. I decided that ultimately, they are formed at the keyboard, and are more or less the same, regardless of whether I'm crafting them on or offline, or for a medium that's on or offline. That's why sticking me in front a new computer renders me useless for a good three days.
So, once I have a thought in my head--and hey, let's not minimize that little success--I taper my language differently because, as we all know, words and thoughts are perceived differently when they look up at us from the paper page in any number of fonts, than they are blaring at us on 640x480 (or whatever it is) glorified light bulb.
Even within the online world, thoughts, meaning, and voice are wrapped within smartass and witty san serif fonts (fishrush and sweet fancy moses come to mind), or serious and informed serif fonts (amaon.com comes to mind). So in that way, I suppose language does wear us--the theme of control comes back into orbit--demanding of us that we conform our thoughts to based on such edicts and the supposed perceptions of others.
But still, I wasn't quite getting it--eh?
So then I went back to what I know best. Motherhood. Specifically, the art and science of creating a human life, which, after all, is the ultimate act of meme propagation. Consider that when you are pregnant, you are said to be forming this child within--but ultimately, the child takes over your form. You are said to give birth and new life to the child, but I contest that every woman is reborn through childbirth. In other words, the life you create creates you, and re-creates you. So, somehow I am getting closer to getting it, by relating this notion of "who wears whom" to what I know best.
So taken this way, yes, we are created by language at least as much as we create it. Right? I like to think that language is under my control to craft and play with any way I want. But then…. Yes, I can accept the possibility that maybe I am more or less under its spell.
Thanks for "making those little hamsters in my head run faster," as one of Chris's readers said recently.
Christopher, it is my profound fear that I am, in fact, quite bonkers and that this imbalance precedes any dalliance with Theory. My abundant thanks, however, for daubing me with a brush of fractional sanity.
Tom, I am not certain that I wanted to chart an alienated voice. It’s my demi-conviction not that we have become somehow alienated as speaking subjects (and excuse me if I am ‘misreading’ you) but that the act of speech is itself immanently ‘alienating’. This apparently downbeat surmise does not take its cue from the assumption that language is somehow representational nor a means of ‘expression’. I don’t reckon that subjects are striving to exact some kinda meaning when they use language, cos, y’know, the author and the speaker died shortly after God, or so I’m told ;).
The ‘meaning’ that we endeavour to ‘express’, in this reading of language and conversation, is, in fact, a by-product and demand of language, not its motivation. (To return, briefly, to the topic of marketing by way of analogy; products could be viewed as the side-effect of the gauche semaphore that is advertising, and not the other way around.) Language clamours for and synthesises meaning. Language entices selves, the bearers of meaning, into existence. I am not overly fond of Virginia Woolf - nor, it ought be noted, the thousands of fey lassies with nascent eating disorders and bad poetry habits who have that pretty profile of her on their bedroom walls - but I do find this quote, taken from Orlando, handy when thinking about the nature of language and meaning
I would like, if you and others are amenable, to explore this idea that online interaction gives us a (blurry?) snapshot of the way that language uses us - as frankly, I am not entirely satisfied by works on the subject. Personally, I am not really intrigued at all by pop-psychological ramblings re how the internet impinges on the way subjects interact in the Real space. I am more interested to learn how the real inheres online. I am fascinated by the mechanics of discourse online and what this can tell us about our non-virtual chatter. The architecture of our online communications is still, happily, clumsy and transparent. Let's 'talk' before it gets opaque.
Tom, I am not certain that I wanted to chart an alienated voice. It’s my demi-conviction not that we have become somehow alienated as speaking subjects (and excuse me if I am ‘misreading’ you) but that the act of speech is itself immanently ‘alienating’. This apparently downbeat surmise does not take its cue from the assumption that language is somehow representational nor a means of ‘expression’. I don’t reckon that subjects are striving to exact some kinda meaning when they use language, cos, y’know, the author and the speaker died shortly after God, or so I’m told ;).
The ‘meaning’ that we endeavour to ‘express’, in this reading of language and conversation, is, in fact, a by-product and demand of language, not its motivation. (To return, briefly, to the topic of marketing by way of analogy; products could be viewed as the side-effect of the gauche semaphore that is advertising, and not the other way around.) Language clamours for and synthesises meaning. Language entices selves, the bearers of meaning, into existence. I am not overly fond of Virginia Woolf - nor, it ought be noted, the thousands of fey lassies with nascent eating disorders and bad poetry habits who have that pretty profile of her on their bedroom walls - but I do find this quote, taken from Orlando, handy when thinking about the nature of language and meaning
- there is much to support the view that it is clothes that wear us and not we them; we may make them take the mould of arm or breast, but they mould our hearts, our brains, our tongues to their liking.
I would like, if you and others are amenable, to explore this idea that online interaction gives us a (blurry?) snapshot of the way that language uses us - as frankly, I am not entirely satisfied by works on the subject. Personally, I am not really intrigued at all by pop-psychological ramblings re how the internet impinges on the way subjects interact in the Real space. I am more interested to learn how the real inheres online. I am fascinated by the mechanics of discourse online and what this can tell us about our non-virtual chatter. The architecture of our online communications is still, happily, clumsy and transparent. Let's 'talk' before it gets opaque.
Saturday, November 10, 2001
Yay Helen!
"This notion of privileging the ‘phonocentric’ and the Real at the expense of text or ‘lesser’ forms of exchange is not one with which I am comfortable." Yes! Yes! I'm cheering over here to discover someone who's cleary into theory but isn't entirely crazy. How's that for a left-handed compliment? But really. Wonderful.
"This notion of privileging the ‘phonocentric’ and the Real at the expense of text or ‘lesser’ forms of exchange is not one with which I am comfortable." Yes! Yes! I'm cheering over here to discover someone who's cleary into theory but isn't entirely crazy. How's that for a left-handed compliment? But really. Wonderful.
Your sense of alienated voice is anything but alien to me. See this conversation for a possibly relevant exchange. Delay will now occur while I wait for a riposte to yours to come to me. Conversations, after all, take time.
Friday, November 09, 2001
Guilty of lurking, oh miss megaphonetic jeneane :). I was simply waiting for a gap in the pleasantly high-octane exchange in which to bloat a sense of posting bravery. As no lacunae seem forthcoming…well, I shall ramble untethered anyway.
Tom I dunno if I can concur that the web is not one-to-one and/or, somehow – as you suggest - a privation of “real” interaction. A coupla q’s (or one, in any case): what constitutes “one-to-one” discursive exchange? I remain doubtful that ‘authentic’ interactivity can ever be truly present. That one presence, or identity or whatever, can ever engage utterly and equally with another without there being some kinda obfuscation by means of power or the sheer inadequacy of a ‘representational’ language. For mine, the web – and particularly loci such as blogging or newsgroups – while it does not ‘correct’ the problem of our endlessly thwarted conversation (in which participants struggle to point to absent truths) certainly provides a graphic map of our frustrated desire to speak ‘meaningfully’. Answers or rejoinders to questions and ideas posed in the digital space are (mechanically) deferred by email, comments <script>, guestbooks, nasty moderators or good old international datelines. When ripostes come, they can contain hyperlinks, digital footnotes, to unambiguously borrow and indicate that all speakers are engaged in a colossal economy of ideas and text. Delayed answers, deferred meaning and appropriated ideas are what I’m all about in everyday conversation, in any case :).
This notion of privileging the ‘phonocentric’ and the Real at the expense of text or ‘lesser’ forms of exchange is not one with which I am comfortable.
Tom I dunno if I can concur that the web is not one-to-one and/or, somehow – as you suggest - a privation of “real” interaction. A coupla q’s (or one, in any case): what constitutes “one-to-one” discursive exchange? I remain doubtful that ‘authentic’ interactivity can ever be truly present. That one presence, or identity or whatever, can ever engage utterly and equally with another without there being some kinda obfuscation by means of power or the sheer inadequacy of a ‘representational’ language. For mine, the web – and particularly loci such as blogging or newsgroups – while it does not ‘correct’ the problem of our endlessly thwarted conversation (in which participants struggle to point to absent truths) certainly provides a graphic map of our frustrated desire to speak ‘meaningfully’. Answers or rejoinders to questions and ideas posed in the digital space are (mechanically) deferred by email, comments <script>, guestbooks, nasty moderators or good old international datelines. When ripostes come, they can contain hyperlinks, digital footnotes, to unambiguously borrow and indicate that all speakers are engaged in a colossal economy of ideas and text. Delayed answers, deferred meaning and appropriated ideas are what I’m all about in everyday conversation, in any case :).
This notion of privileging the ‘phonocentric’ and the Real at the expense of text or ‘lesser’ forms of exchange is not one with which I am comfortable.
Thanks for the welcoming post Jeneane! You characterized this blog as an 'improv on the life and death of marketing', and it occurs to me that one could slightly reword that and say 'life, death and marketing, what else is there?' That paints with a rather broad brush, but since new concepts in marketing are at the heart of our discussion it wouldn't be out of line to suggest that virtually all of human interaction is, in some sense, a form of personal marketing. We learn from childhood how to be accepted and how to interact with our fellow space travellers. Our parents 'market' their view of the world to us from infancy. Now Chris Locke is pointing out the somewhat obvious yet incomprehensible event that is overtaking us... the global Tsunami of the Web... of Blogging... of recognizing and interacting with virtual entities that heretofore we would have had no means of even realizing they existed, much less communicating with them. This seems like a very comfortable yet challenging forum to me. I first read Thompson when he chronicled the Hell's Angels, which I think must have been the very first item of Gonzo Journalism. I was involved in the music business, and therefore a regular reader of Rolling Stone when the Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas series was written. So much of what Chris mentions in his book seem like milestones in my own life it's kind of eiree, but pleasantly so.
He mentions things that 'get out of the box' and then can't be put back in it. I've had a name for that for years. I call it the Pandora Principle, and I most often cite it when defending the basic human right to free speech and publishing. Everyone knows the Pandora parable, wherein evil is released when she opens the box, but in my version I lose the concept of good or evil. Whatever a human being ever thinks, makes, invents, communicates or dreams of is immediately "outed". The lid to Pandora's Box is a one way portal, what goes out stays out! The Nazis tried to destroy knowledge by burning books by the thousands, but all those books had been read already... indeed to go one step further, as stupid as it may sound to say it, all those books had been written, and therefore are known to the human race at large. For someone to write a book presumes a wealth of prior knowledge (just look at the long list of citations in Locke's book), and so burning a book is about as sensible as closing the barn door after the proverbial horse is already halfway to the horizon. Onward!
He mentions things that 'get out of the box' and then can't be put back in it. I've had a name for that for years. I call it the Pandora Principle, and I most often cite it when defending the basic human right to free speech and publishing. Everyone knows the Pandora parable, wherein evil is released when she opens the box, but in my version I lose the concept of good or evil. Whatever a human being ever thinks, makes, invents, communicates or dreams of is immediately "outed". The lid to Pandora's Box is a one way portal, what goes out stays out! The Nazis tried to destroy knowledge by burning books by the thousands, but all those books had been read already... indeed to go one step further, as stupid as it may sound to say it, all those books had been written, and therefore are known to the human race at large. For someone to write a book presumes a wealth of prior knowledge (just look at the long list of citations in Locke's book), and so burning a book is about as sensible as closing the barn door after the proverbial horse is already halfway to the horizon. Onward!
Eureka Tom. That's what I was looking for!
I must learn to stop thinking in broadcast terminology. Those bastards are hard to shake out of your system.
Voice-to-sensibility will be my new watchphrase.
We must move on from here to develop a 12-step plan BursonMarseller can use to rehabilitate Third World dictators and make millions (just kiddin' there)
And I too must move on. Today I clear my desk in preparation for three months changing nappies (ahem, diapers) as I bask at home on parental leave building up huge debts and thinking huger thoughts.
Vi ses lige om lidt, hjemmefra
Andy A
I must learn to stop thinking in broadcast terminology. Those bastards are hard to shake out of your system.
Voice-to-sensibility will be my new watchphrase.
We must move on from here to develop a 12-step plan BursonMarseller can use to rehabilitate Third World dictators and make millions (just kiddin' there)
And I too must move on. Today I clear my desk in preparation for three months changing nappies (ahem, diapers) as I bask at home on parental leave building up huge debts and thinking huger thoughts.
Vi ses lige om lidt, hjemmefra
Andy A
Thursday, November 08, 2001
It amazes me that this blog doesn't implode under the pure weight of the intellect contained herein. Jack, you are a welcome addition to our little ongoing improv on the life and death of marketing (and other stuff--we sometimes get carried away). I indeed know the feeling you speak of in your Temple of Doom analogy, and I can only say thank you for your kind words on what we're trying to achieve here, which we may from time to time forget, but in the very act of forgetting, somehow move forward anyhow. And even if we don't do anything, we've each met some pretty cool people.
With the addition of Jack, fellow blogians, our little team now numbers 12. Amazing, huh? I encourage the lurkers to speak up... maybe shut me, andrew, and denver up for five seconds. ;-) But either way, we're all glad we're here... I've learned a lot! And to that end, if you guys have blogs of your own, please email me the link (if it's not already listed on the left), so I can add you to the blog bog--and to that big footprint in the sky.
Anyway, I just had to say welcome to Jack and celebrate our twelveness with you.
-jeneane
With the addition of Jack, fellow blogians, our little team now numbers 12. Amazing, huh? I encourage the lurkers to speak up... maybe shut me, andrew, and denver up for five seconds. ;-) But either way, we're all glad we're here... I've learned a lot! And to that end, if you guys have blogs of your own, please email me the link (if it's not already listed on the left), so I can add you to the blog bog--and to that big footprint in the sky.
Anyway, I just had to say welcome to Jack and celebrate our twelveness with you.
-jeneane
Do you guys remember the last of the Temple of Doom series of Harrison Ford adventure movies... there is this scene near the end where Indy has to step off a cliff in a leap of faith, and as he steels his nerves to the task and closes his eyes in fear his foot comes down on firmament, not the abyss his fear was anticipating. Upon realizing that he was not falling his eyes popped wide open and one can only imagine the plethora of emotions and realizations he was experiencing at that moment.
All this wordiness is by way of explaining how I felt when I discovered blogging. Not every site withstands the "leap of faith test", but this one certainly does. I have stepped off the cliff many times since I discovered the world of Blog, and sometimes jumped right back onto it again because I found myself within someone else's box, and like the Intro to Gonzo points out, sometimes you don't even know where the exit is. But this site is replete with reflections of spirit and intellect too numerous to be acknowledged in a single pass, so I will simply begin by introducing myself and saying thank you for the opportunity to participate in this forum. I have thoughts on the inherent nature of blogging, on the 1 to however many theme and on several other ideas touched on in the few posts I have read so far. I read most of the Intro and am amazed at how it's author is able to make me feel that I know what he's talking about. At first, when I realized that this site was specific to a book on marketing I thought, "Jeez, who gives shit about marketing... I go out of my way to avoid being 'marketed to'". But by the time I got to the second paragraph or so I realized that this was really interesting, and it's author has turned the concept inside out and made it not be onerous. So here's to having fun and not being onerous!!!
Bye for now...
All this wordiness is by way of explaining how I felt when I discovered blogging. Not every site withstands the "leap of faith test", but this one certainly does. I have stepped off the cliff many times since I discovered the world of Blog, and sometimes jumped right back onto it again because I found myself within someone else's box, and like the Intro to Gonzo points out, sometimes you don't even know where the exit is. But this site is replete with reflections of spirit and intellect too numerous to be acknowledged in a single pass, so I will simply begin by introducing myself and saying thank you for the opportunity to participate in this forum. I have thoughts on the inherent nature of blogging, on the 1 to however many theme and on several other ideas touched on in the few posts I have read so far. I read most of the Intro and am amazed at how it's author is able to make me feel that I know what he's talking about. At first, when I realized that this site was specific to a book on marketing I thought, "Jeez, who gives shit about marketing... I go out of my way to avoid being 'marketed to'". But by the time I got to the second paragraph or so I realized that this was really interesting, and it's author has turned the concept inside out and made it not be onerous. So here's to having fun and not being onerous!!!
Bye for now...
Leeeve My Blogs Alone Pleeeze.
They're addictive and distracting enough already without making them more engaging.
Over on Technology Review they have this item on improving the web, which is worth a read in it's own right. One of the ideas is a means of storing your level of trust in the opinions of various people so that your browser can automagically determine which opinions you'd rate highly and therefore rate items specifically for you.
One of the problems with such an idea is who is going to store this info. It would seem in keeping for the open source community to provide the mechanism stored locally so we don't all have to become marketing fodder for the beast of Redmond.
Ignoring all that, such a mechanism would be a neat adjunct to the blogging world. I'd certainly like to be informed of other public utterings of good people like yourselves, without necessarily having to depend on your narcissistic self aggrandisement to do the job - since I'd be unlikely to want anything to do with narcissistic and self aggrandising people in the first place.
(Don't ask me why I like RageBoy's stuff - I never said I was consistent!)
And for anyone foolhardy enough to be interested in my feckle opinions and strange rantings, depending on my skills with blogbuddy and html just ain't gonna do it.
They're addictive and distracting enough already without making them more engaging.
Over on Technology Review they have this item on improving the web, which is worth a read in it's own right. One of the ideas is a means of storing your level of trust in the opinions of various people so that your browser can automagically determine which opinions you'd rate highly and therefore rate items specifically for you.
One of the problems with such an idea is who is going to store this info. It would seem in keeping for the open source community to provide the mechanism stored locally so we don't all have to become marketing fodder for the beast of Redmond.
Ignoring all that, such a mechanism would be a neat adjunct to the blogging world. I'd certainly like to be informed of other public utterings of good people like yourselves, without necessarily having to depend on your narcissistic self aggrandisement to do the job - since I'd be unlikely to want anything to do with narcissistic and self aggrandising people in the first place.
(Don't ask me why I like RageBoy's stuff - I never said I was consistent!)
And for anyone foolhardy enough to be interested in my feckle opinions and strange rantings, depending on my skills with blogbuddy and html just ain't gonna do it.
Okay, I can agree with my good colleagues that blogging ain't all that..... yet.
Like Tom (though not so eloquently--man, this guy's amazing), I've been blogging outside of Gonzo Engaged, off in left field somewhere inside my own little blog double-wide. A couple of days ago, I was thinking about tools and apps that could move blogging up a notch. I'm not sure what's already out there (me, the resident blog expert of a whole month), but maybe something like this:
----------------------------
"Maybe blogs that let you host interactive chats in a separate window--so you can talk real-time about the post of the day. Sure, you can do this now--I'm no wizard, but I use instant messaging--no reason you couldn't get the team together to chat about today's post. But who's willing to go that extra step? What, I'm gonna say, "Hey, RageBoy, can I have your Yahoo screen name so I can bother you all day long?"
"No, go away," he's likely to reply in his quick-witted RB style.
But if our little team could chat amongst our blog, that would be fun.
---------------------
And there's more--if you care to explore my maunderings* in detail.
I'll get into the one-to-one thing with you later... i think. Tom, keep talkin--we are so glad you're here!
later, j.
*big-word courtesy of RageBoy.
Like Tom (though not so eloquently--man, this guy's amazing), I've been blogging outside of Gonzo Engaged, off in left field somewhere inside my own little blog double-wide. A couple of days ago, I was thinking about tools and apps that could move blogging up a notch. I'm not sure what's already out there (me, the resident blog expert of a whole month), but maybe something like this:
----------------------------
"Maybe blogs that let you host interactive chats in a separate window--so you can talk real-time about the post of the day. Sure, you can do this now--I'm no wizard, but I use instant messaging--no reason you couldn't get the team together to chat about today's post. But who's willing to go that extra step? What, I'm gonna say, "Hey, RageBoy, can I have your Yahoo screen name so I can bother you all day long?"
"No, go away," he's likely to reply in his quick-witted RB style.
But if our little team could chat amongst our blog, that would be fun.
---------------------
And there's more--if you care to explore my maunderings* in detail.
I'll get into the one-to-one thing with you later... i think. Tom, keep talkin--we are so glad you're here!
later, j.
*big-word courtesy of RageBoy.
Quantitative snapshots, e.g., 1-to-1, 1-all, all-1, seem to miss something vital to the relationship voice-to-sensibility. One can be doing 1-to-1 and have all the broadcast arrogance in the world. One can do 1-to-many and not have it. At least, it seems. In response to Chris Locke's thoughts on blog (en blague?), I wrote a bit on my blog. One possibly relevant snip:
''Unlike Jeneane, I don't see blogging as a perfected form. (To be fair, neither does she - having invited others to a colloquy on her blog.) I see it as a highly imperfect mode for a very large array of individuals to begin to get a sense of their otherness. It's a first step - an exploratory one - toward something else. Something that will exhibit neither the deafness of Big Mediated Money nor the bafflement of innumerable unquiet maunderings. I look forward to watching it take form.'' (The full comment is here.)
OK as this Blog's Mr Contrary I would like to throw this into the fray...
I don't believe the Web is one-to-one.
Ad agencies and marketing gurus and even the esteemed Mr Locke state that the Web is "one-to-one".
My contention is that there is SO MUCH one-to-many communication out there it merely appears to approach one-to-one communication. Therefore, the term is a misnomer and slows down development because content providers delude themselves.
I will concede that there are many places where interests coincide; where like minds meet. However, one-to-one communication is face to face and no more. There needs to be true interactivity - listening, even - from a Web site before I will admit to one-to-one communication being present.
Unless you know different...
Andy A
I don't believe the Web is one-to-one.
Ad agencies and marketing gurus and even the esteemed Mr Locke state that the Web is "one-to-one".
My contention is that there is SO MUCH one-to-many communication out there it merely appears to approach one-to-one communication. Therefore, the term is a misnomer and slows down development because content providers delude themselves.
I will concede that there are many places where interests coincide; where like minds meet. However, one-to-one communication is face to face and no more. There needs to be true interactivity - listening, even - from a Web site before I will admit to one-to-one communication being present.
Unless you know different...
Andy A
Wednesday, November 07, 2001
See this
for a beautiful example of stealing a voice to say something otherwise incredibly difficult to put into words. Note that the author is pillorying his victim by stealing someone elses voice and ascribing it to the victim - "putting words in his mouth" - you might say . . . . .
Neither his own voice nor that of his target, and certainly not the One True Voice of either, yet it expresses his views more strongly than he probably could do unaided.
Beautiful To Watch.
for a beautiful example of stealing a voice to say something otherwise incredibly difficult to put into words. Note that the author is pillorying his victim by stealing someone elses voice and ascribing it to the victim - "putting words in his mouth" - you might say . . . . .
Neither his own voice nor that of his target, and certainly not the One True Voice of either, yet it expresses his views more strongly than he probably could do unaided.
Beautiful To Watch.
Blogs are like arseholes, everyone's got one . . .
Who wants to look at mine, then?
Woops, haven't got one.
That's gotta hurt.
Sorry Jeneane - I didn't meant that passion is restricted to intelligent people. Hell, even the boffins can't agree on how you figure out who is which.
And as Scott Adams says, everyone is stupid, anyway.
My point was that passion is an intelligent emotion, you can't claim passion simply as an outcome of intensity of feeling, it demands some involvement with the object of your passion.
All, of course, imo.
Who wants to look at mine, then?
Woops, haven't got one.
That's gotta hurt.
Sorry Jeneane - I didn't meant that passion is restricted to intelligent people. Hell, even the boffins can't agree on how you figure out who is which.
And as Scott Adams says, everyone is stupid, anyway.
My point was that passion is an intelligent emotion, you can't claim passion simply as an outcome of intensity of feeling, it demands some involvement with the object of your passion.
All, of course, imo.
Well, they've almost got it. Not quite--but you can feel a hint of optimism in this, if you're a "the glass is half full" kinda guy. Today's Business 2.0 features an article called Looking for Better Results, Some Advertisers Head to Niche Sites. The article touches (barely) on why companies' are missing the boat by targeting their ad dollars macromedia style.
The article plugs Performics, a chicago-based pay-for-performance online ad agency, and its marketing VP Kate Bergin, who has this to say about why companies should reconsider buying ads on big portals.
"Our clients don't like to leave money on the table," Bergin says. "We're convinced that there's much more opportunity beyond the major portals. We look deep into the top 200 for it."
Okay, so they don't have it quite right yet. A) quit with the fucking ads. B) redefine what you mean by niche. (or better yet, don't use that word... okay?) and C) "deep into the top 200?" Comeon Kate--take a risk. Think about what you're doing for a living. Read Gonzo. You're heart's in the right place, but you're hanging around with the wrong crowd. Quit that job over at Performics and join our side. We'll show you how deep deep can be.
How did I get here?
The article plugs Performics, a chicago-based pay-for-performance online ad agency, and its marketing VP Kate Bergin, who has this to say about why companies should reconsider buying ads on big portals.
"Our clients don't like to leave money on the table," Bergin says. "We're convinced that there's much more opportunity beyond the major portals. We look deep into the top 200 for it."
Okay, so they don't have it quite right yet. A) quit with the fucking ads. B) redefine what you mean by niche. (or better yet, don't use that word... okay?) and C) "deep into the top 200?" Comeon Kate--take a risk. Think about what you're doing for a living. Read Gonzo. You're heart's in the right place, but you're hanging around with the wrong crowd. Quit that job over at Performics and join our side. We'll show you how deep deep can be.
How did I get here?
Blogs are like arseholes - everyone's got one. That do you, Chris?
By the way the link for Lucy Kellaway (spelled correctly this time) is here. Read every Monday for a large dose of common sense - in an annoying English, down the nose sort of way.
Let's not overstate passion, by the way. By restricting passion to "intelligent" people is a little bit too Ubermensch for me. Passion is exactly what it claims itself to be, neither more nor less. I object to people insisting that I am passionate about my work or the product I sell. What defines passion for me is that I decide what I am passionate about. It is my democratic right to be passionate about clarity in communication or Bolex Standard 8mm cameras. Or a perfectly executed triple jump (there's a little tuning fork that goes "bong" when you see and hear it; feel the rhythmn). Neither of the last two require any degree of intelligence.
By the way the link for Lucy Kellaway (spelled correctly this time) is here. Read every Monday for a large dose of common sense - in an annoying English, down the nose sort of way.
Let's not overstate passion, by the way. By restricting passion to "intelligent" people is a little bit too Ubermensch for me. Passion is exactly what it claims itself to be, neither more nor less. I object to people insisting that I am passionate about my work or the product I sell. What defines passion for me is that I decide what I am passionate about. It is my democratic right to be passionate about clarity in communication or Bolex Standard 8mm cameras. Or a perfectly executed triple jump (there's a little tuning fork that goes "bong" when you see and hear it; feel the rhythmn). Neither of the last two require any degree of intelligence.
Tuesday, November 06, 2001
My entry into blogging is obviously new. But my time in publishing isn't, dating back to the days of typesetting--I mean real typesetting. So the most stunning news to me as I came upon Blogger.com was how unbelievably easy blogging is. Pick a name, pick a template, pretend you read the user agreement, and click your way into edit mode. Speak, post, and publish. That's all. It's that simple.
Blogging doesn't require an IT degree or extensive HTML experience (though you can do cool tricks with just a little know-how). And you don't need your own domain name or Web site to find your blog a home, since sites like Blogger take care of that for you. It's 1-2-3 publishing for the regular guy. Instant voice. And, if the blog is good, instant notariety.
Consider this. The three years of toiling over the two Web sites we maintain at our house resulted in nary a mark on this over-informed world. Until recently searching up my own name on google (yeh, I do it a lot--got a problem with that?) brought up one meaningless result: my "unsubscribe" to the Acid Jazz list. What kind of legacy is that, I wondered?
Then came my first blog. After three weeks of blogging, I did the search again. Search results on me, myself, and I suddenly filled a whole google page and spilled onto a second. That's the beauty of bloggin. Brother and sister blogs always makes room for new ideas, fresh voices, as they seek to stay current by adding links to the coolest newcomers. A perfect, self-sustaining model, really.
On an interest scale of 1-10, blogs score a perfect ten for web audiences "shopping" for information and entertainment in their spare moments--within the daily work grind--mostly because by their very nature and journal-style setup, blogs are always new. Constantly changing. Up-to-date hilarity and absurd news there for the asking each day. Where you might wait weeks (months? years?) to see changes to your favorite web site, blogs are served fresh each day. Great moments, so to speak, for the short-attention-span surfers who make the net their home.
As the newest form of micromedia, blogs give voice to microjournalists who are yet unknown. But I'm banking that we won't remain unknown for long. Otherwise, I wouldn't be staying up night after night, forgetting to pay my bills, and thinking of little else besides what else I might have to say next. Oh, yes I would. Hell, it's just too much fun!
And then there's Voice. For those of us wrapped tightly within the corporate coil of traditional communication--AKA a day job--blogs set us free. If for no other reason than to find your 'real' voice again, start blogging. This instant. NOW. You won't be disappointed as you see your 'self' re-emerge--the self you haven't seen in a long time. Blogs are contrary to the comand-and-control nature of most organizations. And yet, they can become--I believe--an incredible tool for companies who open themselves up to the possibilities of these now-underground communication vehicles. Word to your mother.
-more later--gotta run.
Blogging doesn't require an IT degree or extensive HTML experience (though you can do cool tricks with just a little know-how). And you don't need your own domain name or Web site to find your blog a home, since sites like Blogger take care of that for you. It's 1-2-3 publishing for the regular guy. Instant voice. And, if the blog is good, instant notariety.
Consider this. The three years of toiling over the two Web sites we maintain at our house resulted in nary a mark on this over-informed world. Until recently searching up my own name on google (yeh, I do it a lot--got a problem with that?) brought up one meaningless result: my "unsubscribe" to the Acid Jazz list. What kind of legacy is that, I wondered?
Then came my first blog. After three weeks of blogging, I did the search again. Search results on me, myself, and I suddenly filled a whole google page and spilled onto a second. That's the beauty of bloggin. Brother and sister blogs always makes room for new ideas, fresh voices, as they seek to stay current by adding links to the coolest newcomers. A perfect, self-sustaining model, really.
On an interest scale of 1-10, blogs score a perfect ten for web audiences "shopping" for information and entertainment in their spare moments--within the daily work grind--mostly because by their very nature and journal-style setup, blogs are always new. Constantly changing. Up-to-date hilarity and absurd news there for the asking each day. Where you might wait weeks (months? years?) to see changes to your favorite web site, blogs are served fresh each day. Great moments, so to speak, for the short-attention-span surfers who make the net their home.
As the newest form of micromedia, blogs give voice to microjournalists who are yet unknown. But I'm banking that we won't remain unknown for long. Otherwise, I wouldn't be staying up night after night, forgetting to pay my bills, and thinking of little else besides what else I might have to say next. Oh, yes I would. Hell, it's just too much fun!
And then there's Voice. For those of us wrapped tightly within the corporate coil of traditional communication--AKA a day job--blogs set us free. If for no other reason than to find your 'real' voice again, start blogging. This instant. NOW. You won't be disappointed as you see your 'self' re-emerge--the self you haven't seen in a long time. Blogs are contrary to the comand-and-control nature of most organizations. And yet, they can become--I believe--an incredible tool for companies who open themselves up to the possibilities of these now-underground communication vehicles. Word to your mother.
-more later--gotta run.
Passion. Is it just raw emotional intensity? Is the scale of emotional energy emitted the defining characteristic of passion?
Some think so.
Yet it seems to me that passion is confined to those things about which we genuinely care, which explains why all the examples that Jeneane uses are about "giving a crap".
There are lots of things that stimulate raw emotional intensity in me, but only a subset of them that I am passionate about. Even the painful ones I can't say I am passionate about avoiding, I just don't like them.
There's a bit of a trend today to ascribe noble (or noble-sounding) concepts to our basest urges, as if that excuses them. The constant substitution of "passion" for what is in reality often no more than raw emotional intensity emitted without thought or concern for - or even recognition of - consequences, has seriously devalued the word in common parlance.
Imagine yourself, Jeneane, ascribing passion to an ad simply because ads are broadcast at higher volume than the programming that people actually want to watch. You would never mistake the saccharine enthusiasm of an ad voice-over for the One True Passionate Voice - would you?
This trend is also, in my estimation (for whatever that is worth) a characteristic of the unintelligent.
Passion demands a certain amount of intelligence, and the application of that intelligence to the objects of our passion. It demands a particular understanding and involvement that the momentary impulse cannot displace nor act as substitute for. Our babies can express raw emotional intensity - it's difficult to sensibly claim that they're expressing their passion.
You may have noticed that terminological inexactitudes bother me . . . . . . .
With this in mind, when I read Jeneanes thoughts on the passionate voice, the One True Voice, and Andrews objections to that, I'm thinking that I have a small number of One True Voices that I may use to express my take on the small number of things I am passionate about.
I also have a large collection of prostitute voices that at best express a measure of disregard for their respective audiences and often enough outright contempt.
Is there a One True One True Voice? If so, I haven't found it yet . . . . . .
Some think so.
Yet it seems to me that passion is confined to those things about which we genuinely care, which explains why all the examples that Jeneane uses are about "giving a crap".
There are lots of things that stimulate raw emotional intensity in me, but only a subset of them that I am passionate about. Even the painful ones I can't say I am passionate about avoiding, I just don't like them.
There's a bit of a trend today to ascribe noble (or noble-sounding) concepts to our basest urges, as if that excuses them. The constant substitution of "passion" for what is in reality often no more than raw emotional intensity emitted without thought or concern for - or even recognition of - consequences, has seriously devalued the word in common parlance.
Imagine yourself, Jeneane, ascribing passion to an ad simply because ads are broadcast at higher volume than the programming that people actually want to watch. You would never mistake the saccharine enthusiasm of an ad voice-over for the One True Passionate Voice - would you?
This trend is also, in my estimation (for whatever that is worth) a characteristic of the unintelligent.
Passion demands a certain amount of intelligence, and the application of that intelligence to the objects of our passion. It demands a particular understanding and involvement that the momentary impulse cannot displace nor act as substitute for. Our babies can express raw emotional intensity - it's difficult to sensibly claim that they're expressing their passion.
You may have noticed that terminological inexactitudes bother me . . . . . . .
With this in mind, when I read Jeneanes thoughts on the passionate voice, the One True Voice, and Andrews objections to that, I'm thinking that I have a small number of One True Voices that I may use to express my take on the small number of things I am passionate about.
I also have a large collection of prostitute voices that at best express a measure of disregard for their respective audiences and often enough outright contempt.
Is there a One True One True Voice? If so, I haven't found it yet . . . . . .
I just now (sorta) redesigned The EGR Weblog. I've been putting other reviews of the book here, in case anyone's interested. The fishrush thing is hysterical, and the one by Tom Matrullo is terrific, imho.
I'm working on (read: trying to get myself to work on) a column about weblogs for The Guardian. Yesterday, I did phone interviews with (read: schmoozed with) Doc Searls, Dave Winer and Ev Williams. Great talking to those guys, but I've only got 800 words, so how am I supposed to fit all that stuff into this piece I can't seem to start actually writing? Also, I spent the entire morning searching and digging around in blogspace. Found all sorts of great stuff, including this excellent overview: weblogs: a history and perspective. It's from September 2000, but timeless in its own way. Also, Eric Norlin turned me on to daypop.com, which is pretty net. I mean, pretty neat. You can help me to procrastinate by posting your blog-releated observations here. I have 800 words, remember, so short and pithy (read: brilliant) statements would be most helpful. thanx. RB.
Passion - yes, but with a proviso. We can't be passionate about everything. I have limited reserves of passion that I don't care to waste on a job or a plastic widget. There has been a lot of overdoing the passionate thang in recent years and certainly too much "delighting the customer". Read Lucy Kelleway's passion in the Financial Times every Monday and you'll get a good idea of what I'm talking about.
I get it--I understand what you are saying, Arnold. But I think the idea of passion is important in how it applies to this genuine voice thing we're tossing about. All of the contexts for voice I mentioned have the common thread of passion. raw emotion. caring. giving a crap (which you and I both know we don't do while we're pretending to be polite.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)