Anybody else in the middle of reading Bombast right now? I stayed up half the fricking night glued to Chris' brain surgery and other brain altering experiments. I feel strung out just from having read it--can't imagine living it. Although, having lived in Rochester without doing acid, I think I got the raw end of the deal. No matter what you think of GM, or the state of marketing, or whether you're to the left or the right of the cluetrain (or onboard), you have to admit that Locke is an astounding writer and story teller and Internet historian. Anyway, just thought I'd check in because I thought I'd read a few of you who said you were also reading Bombast. Wondering your thoughts so far.
here's to monday (ugh).
A Conversation sparked by Christopher Locke's 'Gonzo Marketing: Winning Through Worst Practices'. Started by Jeneane Sessum in 2001, Gonzo Engaged was the first Blogger.com team weblog. Let the games continue.
Monday, January 28, 2002
How about this for a relevant quote:
"Samlermennesket dukker frem igjen, men nå som informasjonssamler. I denne rollen er det elektroniske menneske en nomade i like høy grad som sine paleolittiske forfedre" (McLuhan citeret i Bakke & Julsrud 1996: 5).
"The hunter gatherer is cropping up again, but now as an information gatherer. In this the role the electronic man is a nomad just as much as his pæleolithic forefathers" Marshall McLuhan.
- Andy A
"Samlermennesket dukker frem igjen, men nå som informasjonssamler. I denne rollen er det elektroniske menneske en nomade i like høy grad som sine paleolittiske forfedre" (McLuhan citeret i Bakke & Julsrud 1996: 5).
"The hunter gatherer is cropping up again, but now as an information gatherer. In this the role the electronic man is a nomad just as much as his pæleolithic forefathers" Marshall McLuhan.
- Andy A
This is a strawman I think, since that ain't what Mr Locke ever said. Indeed, what he said could perhaps be better paraphrased as "If you want to do mass marketing on the web, you'd better not do it the way you do it on TV or Radio."
He seems to shit on "mass" too much in the book for this to have ever been what he was trying to say.
He seems to shit on "mass" too much in the book for this to have ever been what he was trying to say.
Tom, AT&T's equity went into a huge bet on circuit switching aginst packet networks. Packet networks are simpler, cheaper and more efficient. They do require more subtle billing, but most telco's don't want to overhaul their billing systems to enable this, as that would involve writing off their exisiting investment. I can dig you out some links if you like.
Clay, you are missing part of the point of Gonzo. A big chunk of time in any business environment is speant in having conversations with people - colleagues, people you are buying or selling to, or just water cooler chats. As originator of the term 'render wander', I appreciate that many jobs often include times when you are waiting on something or someone. Historically this would mean reading the paper, or chatting about last nights game. The net lets you use this downtime to tallk in public, as we are doing here. Enlightened employers encourage this, or at least don't condemn it, as it adds value to the employees insight and hopefully to the companies perception.
I work on QuickTime at Apple as a software engineer. While compiling code, I join in many mailing lists loosely related to video, media and so on. I don't spend all my time selling Apple or QuickTime, but when it is relevant I'll mention them as options. I think this works - someone recently paid me the compliment that if you are looking for information about an aspect of QuickTime, adding "Kevin Marks" to your google query improves your hit quality no end.
Clay, you are missing part of the point of Gonzo. A big chunk of time in any business environment is speant in having conversations with people - colleagues, people you are buying or selling to, or just water cooler chats. As originator of the term 'render wander', I appreciate that many jobs often include times when you are waiting on something or someone. Historically this would mean reading the paper, or chatting about last nights game. The net lets you use this downtime to tallk in public, as we are doing here. Enlightened employers encourage this, or at least don't condemn it, as it adds value to the employees insight and hopefully to the companies perception.
I work on QuickTime at Apple as a software engineer. While compiling code, I join in many mailing lists loosely related to video, media and so on. I don't spend all my time selling Apple or QuickTime, but when it is relevant I'll mention them as options. I think this works - someone recently paid me the compliment that if you are looking for information about an aspect of QuickTime, adding "Kevin Marks" to your google query improves your hit quality no end.
I think there's a bit of terminological confusion here.
First of all, you've switched from criticising GM for saying that traditional spammer marketing methods (one way, full noise, low brow, etc) don't work on the net, to now saying that it claims mass marketing of any sort can't work on the web.
This is a strawman I think, since that ain't what Mr Locke ever said. Indeed, what he said could perhaps be better paraphrased as "If you want to do mass marketing on the web, you'd better not do it the way you do it on TV or Radio."
Apropos of which I would note that neither Tescos nor Amazon are nuts enough to spam their actual or potential cutomers with loudly insulting crap.
For example:
Human voices are expensive, and products like bleach don't do well with expensive marketing -- how much more bleach are you going to get someone to buy by engaging micromarkets? and at what cost?
Isn't that what I said?
i.e. True, But Clay still has a point: I don't want to listen to engaging voices discussing bleach any more than I want to be spammed about it across 7 different media.
Not the exact words, but I was agreeing with you on that point. There isn't any milage in changing from a low cost to a high cost method when the low cost one already works. Not for me the customer and not for you the marketer.
Why do you think I started my rant with "Clay, you got your head screwed on straight mate" ?
Did you think I didn't mean it?
I did, sincerely.
I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that the web is inherently inimical to mass marketing, but it surely hasn't shown any signs of rewarding the traditional broadcast techniques which have been unthinkingly attempted. There's an important difference here I believe.
And, just in passing, I'd note that Amazon is far from making any profit. It *may* survive and indeed prosper - I sure hope so, I buy a lot of stuff off them because I (mostly) like the way they operate - but it is far from certain. IIRC, they are still well over 2 Bills in the hole. Hardly a shining example by any means.
Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money - the Shit has hit the Fan
- Warren Zevon
First of all, you've switched from criticising GM for saying that traditional spammer marketing methods (one way, full noise, low brow, etc) don't work on the net, to now saying that it claims mass marketing of any sort can't work on the web.
This is a strawman I think, since that ain't what Mr Locke ever said. Indeed, what he said could perhaps be better paraphrased as "If you want to do mass marketing on the web, you'd better not do it the way you do it on TV or Radio."
Apropos of which I would note that neither Tescos nor Amazon are nuts enough to spam their actual or potential cutomers with loudly insulting crap.
For example:
Human voices are expensive, and products like bleach don't do well with expensive marketing -- how much more bleach are you going to get someone to buy by engaging micromarkets? and at what cost?
Isn't that what I said?
i.e. True, But Clay still has a point: I don't want to listen to engaging voices discussing bleach any more than I want to be spammed about it across 7 different media.
Not the exact words, but I was agreeing with you on that point. There isn't any milage in changing from a low cost to a high cost method when the low cost one already works. Not for me the customer and not for you the marketer.
Why do you think I started my rant with "Clay, you got your head screwed on straight mate" ?
Did you think I didn't mean it?
I did, sincerely.
I didn't say (or didn't mean to say) that the web is inherently inimical to mass marketing, but it surely hasn't shown any signs of rewarding the traditional broadcast techniques which have been unthinkingly attempted. There's an important difference here I believe.
And, just in passing, I'd note that Amazon is far from making any profit. It *may* survive and indeed prosper - I sure hope so, I buy a lot of stuff off them because I (mostly) like the way they operate - but it is far from certain. IIRC, they are still well over 2 Bills in the hole. Hardly a shining example by any means.
Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money - the Shit has hit the Fan
- Warren Zevon
Sunday, January 27, 2002
b!x, I think you're coming at what I'm coming at, from a different angle. Gonzo, from my point of view, *isn't* about selling bleach, but most marketing dollars go for products like bleach, or toilet paper, or dishwasher detergent. Where I think Cluetrain is right, and Gonzo is wrong, is in being too literal about the nature of 'markets are conversations.' Human voices are expensive, and products like bleach don't do well with expensive marketing -- how much more bleach are you going to get someone to buy by engaging micromarkets? and at what cost?
Denver's answer is "I don't buy bleach on the net", but that misses the point -- just because he doesn't do something on the net doesn't mean no one does it. To takes Tom's call for examples, take a look at what Teso is doing with online groceries. Two points of note: their current home page features a contest relating to diswasher detergent -- doesn't get much more mass market than that -- and they are the world's biggest online grocery store, and growing like mad -- $450 million in revenues last year, $22M of which was profit.
So Denver's idea that the net is inherently inimical to mass marketing seems to me to be off the mark -- if people are making money doing it, it isn't going away. Tesco is making money doing it, as is Wal-Mart, and Amazon, etc. In this view, Gonzo is an addition to the marketing mix, not a replacement.
Sometimes examples help. This brief one to suggest the nature of changes are taking place due to market forces that include consumer choice, but go beyond it: I used to use AT&T for long distance. The company's "brand" bollocks of reliability, quality and service was good enough for me. As a journalist, I remember about 6 years ago asking an AT&T spokesman if the company had any qualms about voice-over-net technology. None whatsoever, the more the merrier, etc., came the reply, with the assuredness of a Titanic engineer. Cut to today - AT&T stock is shit; it's losing customers to companies like ZoneLD - (not a VON play, just a cheaper way to bill and service accounts). Now when I tell telemarketers for AT&T or Worldcom that I pay 4.5 cents a minute anytime, day or night, with no monthly fee, they melt away. When another AT&T rep explained to me that I am paying $1.50 for the privilege of being presented with AT&T's monthly bill, and that anytime I make a calling card call over their lines from a pay phone, the meter starts at $5, I offered the observation that there was no surer way to guarantee that I and many others would never use their lines, services, hardware or investment opportunities again. There is a trend out there, I think - a growing one - in which old industrial stalwarts like AT&T are adopting the nickle-and-diming-to-death tactics of rural Georgia police departments (no offense, Jeneane), homeless windshield washers, and entirely disreputable appliance service cheeseballs. In fact, that is what it is: the cheeseballification of the industrial elite. The question is, where did that AT&T equity go?
Cafepress is the shiznit. I wonder if they are making money. They've been around for quite awhile now, but I don't know if I've ever seen any ads for them. Could they really have lasted this long purely on word of mouth from all their satisfied store owners like myself?
Whe who are transforming the fucking world are in the house. I write to Gary Blogstickers Turner and say, Gary, let me know when you have t-shirts and stuff, because I want to wear one to my family reunion, and crap I think it would be cool to walk through the halls at work with my bogsticker mug. We exchange a couple of emails on how to, how it might work, then Gary shoots me this email:
-------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: okay, merchandise now?
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:56:48 -0000
From: "Gary Turner"
To: "Jeneane Sessum"
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=blogstickers
how's that for time to market?
gary
-----------------------------------------------------
I proudly dropped 30 bucks on a mug and shirt. Anticipating bumper stickers and caps. But don't wait, go get your blogwear on!
-jeneane
-------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: okay, merchandise now?
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 18:56:48 -0000
From: "Gary Turner"
To: "Jeneane Sessum"
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/store/store.aspx?storeid=blogstickers
how's that for time to market?
gary
-----------------------------------------------------
I proudly dropped 30 bucks on a mug and shirt. Anticipating bumper stickers and caps. But don't wait, go get your blogwear on!
-jeneane
True, But Clay still has a point: I don't want to listen to engaging voices discussing bleach any more than I want to be spammed about it across 7 different media.
I don't recall gonzo being about this either, but hey maybe RB does some sort of weird 180 in the last 1/3 of the book and I should hush until I'm done.
But somehow I doubt it.
I don't recall gonzo being about this either, but hey maybe RB does some sort of weird 180 in the last 1/3 of the book and I should hush until I'm done.
But somehow I doubt it.
True, But Clay still has a point: I don't want to listen to engaging voices discussing bleach any more than I want to be spammed about it across 7 different media.
What I think Clay is missing is the central differences between the net and the broadcast media:
1. A fundamental difference in the *nature* of the medium (many to many/bidirectional as opposed to unidirectional/one to many)
2. A massive difference in demographics.
The net is not TV (as if that needs stating) so it is not really a source of wonder that insulting TV ads don't particularly work on it.
Does anyone imagine we fervid freakshow fetishists are making a TV program?
What do they imagine? Survivor?
There is no TV analog to Blog. RadioPossibility.com notwithstanding, there is no broadcast radio analog to Blog. The astounding science fiction successes of online news magazines and papers notwithstanding (HA!), there is no print media analog to Blog.
There is no top-down, insult shouting, work or get fired, 2% efficient, elitist bullshit, 127 GigaWatts, analog to Blog.
There is no analog to Blog.
What I think Clay is missing is the central differences between the net and the broadcast media:
1. A fundamental difference in the *nature* of the medium (many to many/bidirectional as opposed to unidirectional/one to many)
2. A massive difference in demographics.
The net is not TV (as if that needs stating) so it is not really a source of wonder that insulting TV ads don't particularly work on it.
Does anyone imagine we fervid freakshow fetishists are making a TV program?
What do they imagine? Survivor?
There is no TV analog to Blog. RadioPossibility.com notwithstanding, there is no broadcast radio analog to Blog. The astounding science fiction successes of online news magazines and papers notwithstanding (HA!), there is no print media analog to Blog.
There is no top-down, insult shouting, work or get fired, 2% efficient, elitist bullshit, 127 GigaWatts, analog to Blog.
There is no analog to Blog.
Now its obvious to me that Gonzo will work well in places where cost is large (e.g. cars, computers), so that there is enough money to pay for real human voices, but I am fairly sure that Gonzo will not work where cost is already small, i.e. high-volume/low-margin commodities -- bleach, beer, flour, rice, on and on, the stuff that accounts for most marketing dollars spent.
Um. Did I miss something? Where was it argued that the point of gonzo is to pay for real human voices as if real human voices aren't already inside companies -- they're just not getting paid for using those voices. None of this has anything to do with having to hire more people. On the company end, it's about getting out of the way of the real human voices that already exist.
Um. Did I miss something? Where was it argued that the point of gonzo is to pay for real human voices as if real human voices aren't already inside companies -- they're just not getting paid for using those voices. None of this has anything to do with having to hire more people. On the company end, it's about getting out of the way of the real human voices that already exist.
No, I got that shit OK Clay.
Just letting you know its mutual.
But I don't buy bog rolls or bleach on the net.
See? You're still assuming that the net = mass market in there somewhere, aren't you?
The phone call thingy? I suspect nobody knows who made it up to impress whom. I'd bet a Democrat invented it myself.
Just letting you know its mutual.
But I don't buy bog rolls or bleach on the net.
See? You're still assuming that the net = mass market in there somewhere, aren't you?
The phone call thingy? I suspect nobody knows who made it up to impress whom. I'd bet a Democrat invented it myself.
Half the world has yet to make a phone call.
I doubt this statistic. Where does it come from, and more importantly, when? because I think global teledensity is too high for this to be accurate.
-clay
I doubt this statistic. Where does it come from, and more importantly, when? because I think global teledensity is too high for this to be accurate.
-clay
I *will* have your respect and your consideration or there will be NO SALE! Now, you may well conclude that I'm the lone voice of whatever, lunacy or reason, take your pick. But like I say, I'm at least fucked up enough to think I ain't so different from anyone else out there.
No, you're not different from anyone else out there. In fact, you're pretty much the same as everyone else out there. Everybody hates most advertising. No surprises there.
What I don't think you grok is about the companies selling bleach (or beer, or rice, or socks, or...) is that the don't care about you, and in particular, they don't care whether they sell to _you_ or not. They only care that they make _a_ sale, and the miracle of the market is that anybody else's money is as good as yours.
People here are going on as if telling the truth about advertising will cause the whole edifice to crumble, but the people who do it for a living have you beat in the 'understanding what works and what doesn't' department. Direct Marketing has an average response rate of around ~2%, or, put in Gonzo terms, they have a failure rate of 98%. And this is success. If your ad is only ineffective for 49 people out of 50, you're doing good. So they go to work every day knowing that most advertising doesn't work.
And you know what? They make crazy money doing it, because the cost is so low that 2% efficiency makes them like baleen whales. They don't concentrate on the the big hunt, they just swim around in the seas of the mass market, sucking up krill. If you can get enough throughput, 2% efficiency at low cost beats 50% efficiency at high cost.
So your rant, while amusing, is a poor predictor of a change in the way those companies do business. The fact that you demand some sort of "considersation" before you buy a roll of toilet paper just makes you too expensive to service as a customer for a large category of goods.
-clay
No, you're not different from anyone else out there. In fact, you're pretty much the same as everyone else out there. Everybody hates most advertising. No surprises there.
What I don't think you grok is about the companies selling bleach (or beer, or rice, or socks, or...) is that the don't care about you, and in particular, they don't care whether they sell to _you_ or not. They only care that they make _a_ sale, and the miracle of the market is that anybody else's money is as good as yours.
People here are going on as if telling the truth about advertising will cause the whole edifice to crumble, but the people who do it for a living have you beat in the 'understanding what works and what doesn't' department. Direct Marketing has an average response rate of around ~2%, or, put in Gonzo terms, they have a failure rate of 98%. And this is success. If your ad is only ineffective for 49 people out of 50, you're doing good. So they go to work every day knowing that most advertising doesn't work.
And you know what? They make crazy money doing it, because the cost is so low that 2% efficiency makes them like baleen whales. They don't concentrate on the the big hunt, they just swim around in the seas of the mass market, sucking up krill. If you can get enough throughput, 2% efficiency at low cost beats 50% efficiency at high cost.
So your rant, while amusing, is a poor predictor of a change in the way those companies do business. The fact that you demand some sort of "considersation" before you buy a roll of toilet paper just makes you too expensive to service as a customer for a large category of goods.
-clay
Check out RageBoy's little find on the Enron that was. Don't you love that companies have souls and always tell the truth and do such meaningful, caring work? I love that. Then they bail on us completely, shoot some people in the head, and devastate the rest. It's just what I fucking love about business and marketing. The trust. The love. The joy. I'm glad nothing's changing because of this here net. Really. I wouldn't have it any other way.
"it's the journey you take yourself on..."
"it's the journey you take yourself on..."
Clay, you got your head screwed on straight mate.
Did I mention that broadcast advertising (spamming) doesn't work on the web? Yeah, we did that thang, I'm pretty sure.
I have a rampaging doubt that the Internet population can in any way be considered a mass market yet. Say what you like about the intelligence of the average American, - no, no, I won't have them maligned any further - I for one believe that the smartest and most prosperous people on this planet are hooked into the net.
Some of the sanest people are elsewhere, but I digress . . . . .
Half the world has yet to make a phone call. Maybe a third or more of them don't have electricity. I ain't blaming anyone for any of this; just trying to put things in perspective, see? Even in the US of A, where more millions of households own more TV's than any dumbfuck Kiwi can possibly imagine while standing in the dole queue (where you can have some pretty amazing epiphanies, let me tell you!) - well, even there, how many of those households are on the net?
The nature of the net marketplace *is* different. You better fuckin believe it, shitkickers. The spirit of monkey was - irrepressible. Just thought I'd throw that in there to screw this thing all to hell before I accidentally come to some meaningful point.
Oh yeah: I don't buy bleach. I have never, to my knowledge, bought bleach. I have no idea who or what Clorox is, nor do I care and nor, I suspect, will I ever. I don't know what's in a bleach, I don't want to know, and I don't know who makes it and nor do I care. I don't want to be told about it, and certainly not in some saccharine coated smarmy look how fucking erudite and enthusiastic I am haven't I got a big one tone by some bouffant hairdo without two brain cells to rub together as if I give a fuck.
The absolutely *last* thing I would ever want to do with my more expensive than you could possibly believe Internet connection would be to look for, look at, or be spammed with, anything to do with fucking bleach!
I would rather suck sand.
I'm also just nuts enough to think maybe a lot of other people out there aren't that different from me. I know that's shamefully 19th century of me, but hey - nobody's perfect, huh?
I recall once reading a piece by a guy who talked about the Wrigleys Man. The Wrigleys Man would visit his store and he'd say (to the Wrigleys Man) "How many cases you got for me today?" None of this can I help you with the presentation shit. None of this how many cases do you want rubbish. None of this we've got some exciting new flavours mucky mucking. This is what you get, take it or fuck off. The Wrigleys Man was The Man. Wrigleys owned the market and every damned soul that sold was beholden to them.
But slowly the world changed. Slowly, retailers acquired knowledge about what sold and where and when. Slowly, point of sale systems delivered to them intimate knowledge of what was selling, where it sold best, and how much they could sell how fast. Slowly, information systems evolved to give even deeper insight into the behaviour of different products within their stores.
The Wrigleys Man ain't The Man no more. At least one retailer, according to this perhaps apocryphal account, remembers the depredations he suffered at the hands of a supplier who thought tomorrow never comes. The Wrigleys man, apparently, now earns his living like any other salesman; he tries, as much as he is able, to please his customers to some degree not sufficiently marginally inferior to his competition so that changing suppliers would be worth the hassle.
Transfers of power can and do happen. They typically happen with most catastrophic effect to people who think they can't happen. Think British Empire, think fall of Singapore, think - hell, just think! Even if all you say is absolutely 100% genuine take it to the bank true and correct in every respect, and Locke is no more than a living parody of Sesame Streets' Animal, i.e. hairy, smelly, and mildly entertainingly loud for the first five minutes, I'd still look into it.
Sure, all Gods chilluns gots ta take care a bizzz-niss. I gotta make dough. I have the enviable task of living with a beautiful woman and a 7 year old girl neither of whom understand that you need to spend less moola than you earn. When I as a one man business talk with my customers about their business, I tell them I understand the need for a margin of value. I understand that businesses whose employees don't deliver more value than they consume don't stay in business for long. (Only the government and CEO's can do that indefinitely, apparently). I give them my commitment that they *will* get more value in return for paying me my fees than it costs them to do so. That is how they make a profit.
But if you want a piece of the dough that I make, let me tell you, it ain't coming your way in return for no flyers in my letterbox. You ain't getting it in return for the 47 emails in my Hotmail Inbox today touting Viagra, Girls With Girls!, Make Money Fast, Online Casino (Free $20 Stake Money), Human Growth Hormone, Big Jugs!, Lose Weight Fast, Hi - I'm Suzy, spam, spam, Spam, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM. Nor for the 20 or so that invade my "private" email address each day.
No Sir. Over. My. Dead. Body.
You ain't getting it for "Imagine this liquid is Colgate Toothpaste, and your teeth are this chalk. See, it *does* get in!" on the TV.
No. Not now, not ever.
You ain't getting it for Radio ads: "As Seen on TV!"
No way, No how.
Speak to me like I'm a fucking intelligent autonomous human being or fuck right off! I *will* have your respect and your consideration or there will be NO SALE!
Now, you may well conclude that I'm the lone voice of whatever, lunacy or reason, take your pick. But like I say, I'm at least fucked up enough to think I ain't so different from anyone else out there.
That is why (that is why),
That is why, (that is why),
You are my sugar-diddy.
- Otis Day and The Nights, in the movie Animal House.
P.S. "Marek J" ? You got anymore of those emails, you send em to me. I need to fucking swear more.
Did I mention that broadcast advertising (spamming) doesn't work on the web? Yeah, we did that thang, I'm pretty sure.
I have a rampaging doubt that the Internet population can in any way be considered a mass market yet. Say what you like about the intelligence of the average American, - no, no, I won't have them maligned any further - I for one believe that the smartest and most prosperous people on this planet are hooked into the net.
Some of the sanest people are elsewhere, but I digress . . . . .
Half the world has yet to make a phone call. Maybe a third or more of them don't have electricity. I ain't blaming anyone for any of this; just trying to put things in perspective, see? Even in the US of A, where more millions of households own more TV's than any dumbfuck Kiwi can possibly imagine while standing in the dole queue (where you can have some pretty amazing epiphanies, let me tell you!) - well, even there, how many of those households are on the net?
The nature of the net marketplace *is* different. You better fuckin believe it, shitkickers. The spirit of monkey was - irrepressible. Just thought I'd throw that in there to screw this thing all to hell before I accidentally come to some meaningful point.
Oh yeah: I don't buy bleach. I have never, to my knowledge, bought bleach. I have no idea who or what Clorox is, nor do I care and nor, I suspect, will I ever. I don't know what's in a bleach, I don't want to know, and I don't know who makes it and nor do I care. I don't want to be told about it, and certainly not in some saccharine coated smarmy look how fucking erudite and enthusiastic I am haven't I got a big one tone by some bouffant hairdo without two brain cells to rub together as if I give a fuck.
The absolutely *last* thing I would ever want to do with my more expensive than you could possibly believe Internet connection would be to look for, look at, or be spammed with, anything to do with fucking bleach!
I would rather suck sand.
I'm also just nuts enough to think maybe a lot of other people out there aren't that different from me. I know that's shamefully 19th century of me, but hey - nobody's perfect, huh?
I recall once reading a piece by a guy who talked about the Wrigleys Man. The Wrigleys Man would visit his store and he'd say (to the Wrigleys Man) "How many cases you got for me today?" None of this can I help you with the presentation shit. None of this how many cases do you want rubbish. None of this we've got some exciting new flavours mucky mucking. This is what you get, take it or fuck off. The Wrigleys Man was The Man. Wrigleys owned the market and every damned soul that sold was beholden to them.
But slowly the world changed. Slowly, retailers acquired knowledge about what sold and where and when. Slowly, point of sale systems delivered to them intimate knowledge of what was selling, where it sold best, and how much they could sell how fast. Slowly, information systems evolved to give even deeper insight into the behaviour of different products within their stores.
The Wrigleys Man ain't The Man no more. At least one retailer, according to this perhaps apocryphal account, remembers the depredations he suffered at the hands of a supplier who thought tomorrow never comes. The Wrigleys man, apparently, now earns his living like any other salesman; he tries, as much as he is able, to please his customers to some degree not sufficiently marginally inferior to his competition so that changing suppliers would be worth the hassle.
Transfers of power can and do happen. They typically happen with most catastrophic effect to people who think they can't happen. Think British Empire, think fall of Singapore, think - hell, just think! Even if all you say is absolutely 100% genuine take it to the bank true and correct in every respect, and Locke is no more than a living parody of Sesame Streets' Animal, i.e. hairy, smelly, and mildly entertainingly loud for the first five minutes, I'd still look into it.
Sure, all Gods chilluns gots ta take care a bizzz-niss. I gotta make dough. I have the enviable task of living with a beautiful woman and a 7 year old girl neither of whom understand that you need to spend less moola than you earn. When I as a one man business talk with my customers about their business, I tell them I understand the need for a margin of value. I understand that businesses whose employees don't deliver more value than they consume don't stay in business for long. (Only the government and CEO's can do that indefinitely, apparently). I give them my commitment that they *will* get more value in return for paying me my fees than it costs them to do so. That is how they make a profit.
But if you want a piece of the dough that I make, let me tell you, it ain't coming your way in return for no flyers in my letterbox. You ain't getting it in return for the 47 emails in my Hotmail Inbox today touting Viagra, Girls With Girls!, Make Money Fast, Online Casino (Free $20 Stake Money), Human Growth Hormone, Big Jugs!, Lose Weight Fast, Hi - I'm Suzy, spam, spam, Spam, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM. Nor for the 20 or so that invade my "private" email address each day.
No Sir. Over. My. Dead. Body.
You ain't getting it for "Imagine this liquid is Colgate Toothpaste, and your teeth are this chalk. See, it *does* get in!" on the TV.
No. Not now, not ever.
You ain't getting it for Radio ads: "As Seen on TV!"
No way, No how.
Speak to me like I'm a fucking intelligent autonomous human being or fuck right off! I *will* have your respect and your consideration or there will be NO SALE!
Now, you may well conclude that I'm the lone voice of whatever, lunacy or reason, take your pick. But like I say, I'm at least fucked up enough to think I ain't so different from anyone else out there.
That is why (that is why),
That is why, (that is why),
You are my sugar-diddy.
- Otis Day and The Nights, in the movie Animal House.
P.S. "Marek J" ? You got anymore of those emails, you send em to me. I need to fucking swear more.
Saturday, January 26, 2002
Tom had a pretty good gloss of my point of view when he said "Assume that we are not dealing with people, but with mathematical and economic mechanisms that have no way of understanding that anything else matters, really, other than the lifeblood of their revenue streams."
Think of the business world as an evolutionary landscape, where the goal is to survive. Gonzo will win in such an environment when companies that adopt Gonzo outperform companies that don't. So the issue is the definition of "outperform".
A company's survival -- the willingness of its investors and creditors to offer their capital -- is not based on the popularity of its marketing, or the tone of voice in which it speaks to its audience, or the good feeling it engenders among its customers. It is not based on customer loyalty, or sales volume. It is not based on revenues, or even on revenue growth.
It is based on profitability.
Despite the contempt for the bean counters, the only thing that can guarantee a company's survival (and I mean *every one*, from freelancers to General Electric) is a making sure that every year, "beans in - beans out > 0". So a company will only adopt a new form of marketing when effectiveness divided by cost adds up to somethign more efficient than its current methods.
Now its obvious to me that Gonzo will work well in places where cost is large (e.g. cars, computers), so that there is enough money to pay for real human voices, but I am fairly sure that Gonzo will not work where cost is already small, i.e. high-volume/low-margin commodities -- bleach, beer, flour, rice, on and on, the stuff that accounts for most marketing dollars spent.
So I'm not buying that telling the people who run the corporations "The revolution is coming and you better get on board, even if, uh, we can't really be sure that you'll earn any more money when it happens..." constitutes much of a revolution, and without seeing how Gonzo creates cheaper marketing campaigns when indexed to effectiveness, I can't see how it helps anybody compete in a mass market.
-clay
Think of the business world as an evolutionary landscape, where the goal is to survive. Gonzo will win in such an environment when companies that adopt Gonzo outperform companies that don't. So the issue is the definition of "outperform".
A company's survival -- the willingness of its investors and creditors to offer their capital -- is not based on the popularity of its marketing, or the tone of voice in which it speaks to its audience, or the good feeling it engenders among its customers. It is not based on customer loyalty, or sales volume. It is not based on revenues, or even on revenue growth.
It is based on profitability.
Despite the contempt for the bean counters, the only thing that can guarantee a company's survival (and I mean *every one*, from freelancers to General Electric) is a making sure that every year, "beans in - beans out > 0". So a company will only adopt a new form of marketing when effectiveness divided by cost adds up to somethign more efficient than its current methods.
Now its obvious to me that Gonzo will work well in places where cost is large (e.g. cars, computers), so that there is enough money to pay for real human voices, but I am fairly sure that Gonzo will not work where cost is already small, i.e. high-volume/low-margin commodities -- bleach, beer, flour, rice, on and on, the stuff that accounts for most marketing dollars spent.
So I'm not buying that telling the people who run the corporations "The revolution is coming and you better get on board, even if, uh, we can't really be sure that you'll earn any more money when it happens..." constitutes much of a revolution, and without seeing how Gonzo creates cheaper marketing campaigns when indexed to effectiveness, I can't see how it helps anybody compete in a mass market.
-clay
I thought you'd like to read an inspired email I received from Marek of soapbox, radio possibility, and monkey-is-not-enough fame on his recent bookstore read of Seth Godin's latest marketing BS dump... I got Marek's pahmishon to reprint the email here. I promised no one would sue him. It shows how passionate some people can be about their likes and dislikes (maybe even bordering on murderous rage from time to time) especially here in the world of blogs, where it counts. I think Marek meant "bald" yoyo instead of "bold" yoyo, but you'll have to stop by soapbox and ask him.
Subject: This fucker Godin is pissing me off.
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:08:09 -0600
From: "Marek J"
Guys,
Jez, sorry but I just wanted to fire off a message to someone. I need help, cause my mental abilities have been insulted by a fucking bold yoyo man who wants me to have sex with my boss. If you feel spammed by me with this message I apologize. Just delete it or just tell me to stop bothering you and never send stupid emails again.
OK, here we go.
This fucker Seth Godin is really pissing me off. Yeah, I've had some fun with soapbox* and this Agent of worst practices shit but it was mainly 'good sport' shit, few laughs, some parody and stuff...
I just read the book 'survival is not enough' (whatever the fuck that means). Mind you, I did not spend any money on this shit at all. I was at a local Barnes&Noble and I picked it put and started reading. And reading I was, like a fucking retarded farmer from Poland, cause that fucking book is written like a fucking carefully constructed scheme of some fucking enlightenment and shoved up my 5th grade educated polish peasant's ass. Mind you the enlightenment can be had only after a secret handshake has been exchanged with the guy who does the shoving up....
First off (on page 6 I think) Godin rips off Rageboy's 'Entropy' reversals metaphor. As a 'good sport', Godin could've mentioned Chris, but NOooooooooo, the motherfucker steels ideas right and left and repackages them with new phrases. So you can imagine that from page 6 to the end my fucking 'filter' was set. It's a fucking WAR with the yoyo bold motherfucker. Speaking of 'filter' shit metaphor, Godin is so slimy in its usage as if HE invented the fucking paradigm of 'holographic context that shapes, bends and colors everything created by holding on to a point of one's view of the world', whatever.... , my mind comes up with strange phrases when I am pissed, forgive me.
OK, slow down..... deep breath. man. Pace yourself....
Fuck, why do I swear so much? Cause I'm fucking pissed as shit. I considered Seth a 'Good Sport' you know but noooooooo, the fucker had to write this fucking retarded book for fucking retarded middle-fucking managers who want to zooooommm the fuck into the future on the backs of the fucking peasants......He really created a problem for me cause now I'm gonna work for these managerial Zoom-Monkeys and surly they will want me to zoom with them...
What's the most insulting about this book is that it's written for a specific audience with a specific purpose - The middle managers who need a new meme to celebrate their imbecility by calling it Zoometry.....
Looking back I am glad I got kicked out of FastCompany's message boards for saying some shit like the above on some other enlightened topic some other fucker was shoving up....
I don't think this review would be allowed to be posted at amazon.com, you think?
OK, I got to go now and get a beer and some cigarettes now and regroup.
I thank you for your generous attention.
Marek J
Subject: This fucker Godin is pissing me off.
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 00:08:09 -0600
From: "Marek J"
Guys,
Jez, sorry but I just wanted to fire off a message to someone. I need help, cause my mental abilities have been insulted by a fucking bold yoyo man who wants me to have sex with my boss. If you feel spammed by me with this message I apologize. Just delete it or just tell me to stop bothering you and never send stupid emails again.
OK, here we go.
This fucker Seth Godin is really pissing me off. Yeah, I've had some fun with soapbox* and this Agent of worst practices shit but it was mainly 'good sport' shit, few laughs, some parody and stuff...
I just read the book 'survival is not enough' (whatever the fuck that means). Mind you, I did not spend any money on this shit at all. I was at a local Barnes&Noble and I picked it put and started reading. And reading I was, like a fucking retarded farmer from Poland, cause that fucking book is written like a fucking carefully constructed scheme of some fucking enlightenment and shoved up my 5th grade educated polish peasant's ass. Mind you the enlightenment can be had only after a secret handshake has been exchanged with the guy who does the shoving up....
First off (on page 6 I think) Godin rips off Rageboy's 'Entropy' reversals metaphor. As a 'good sport', Godin could've mentioned Chris, but NOooooooooo, the motherfucker steels ideas right and left and repackages them with new phrases. So you can imagine that from page 6 to the end my fucking 'filter' was set. It's a fucking WAR with the yoyo bold motherfucker. Speaking of 'filter' shit metaphor, Godin is so slimy in its usage as if HE invented the fucking paradigm of 'holographic context that shapes, bends and colors everything created by holding on to a point of one's view of the world', whatever.... , my mind comes up with strange phrases when I am pissed, forgive me.
OK, slow down..... deep breath. man. Pace yourself....
Fuck, why do I swear so much? Cause I'm fucking pissed as shit. I considered Seth a 'Good Sport' you know but noooooooo, the fucker had to write this fucking retarded book for fucking retarded middle-fucking managers who want to zooooommm the fuck into the future on the backs of the fucking peasants......He really created a problem for me cause now I'm gonna work for these managerial Zoom-Monkeys and surly they will want me to zoom with them...
What's the most insulting about this book is that it's written for a specific audience with a specific purpose - The middle managers who need a new meme to celebrate their imbecility by calling it Zoometry.....
Looking back I am glad I got kicked out of FastCompany's message boards for saying some shit like the above on some other enlightened topic some other fucker was shoving up....
I don't think this review would be allowed to be posted at amazon.com, you think?
OK, I got to go now and get a beer and some cigarettes now and regroup.
I thank you for your generous attention.
Marek J
Heranai says:
This new system is not based on the mass concept. The micromarkets and communities creates the new audience.
Yes, I understand that. This makes the new system good for anything that doesn't need a mass audience, and bad for anything that does. Which is why bleach and Jell-o are problems for Gonzo, which in turn limits Gonzo's revolutionary potential, since the majority of marketing is CPG marketing.
-clay
This new system is not based on the mass concept. The micromarkets and communities creates the new audience.
Yes, I understand that. This makes the new system good for anything that doesn't need a mass audience, and bad for anything that does. Which is why bleach and Jell-o are problems for Gonzo, which in turn limits Gonzo's revolutionary potential, since the majority of marketing is CPG marketing.
-clay
Feet of clay? Perhaps... it has come to my attention that he who has registered the RageBoy trademark skirts the truth. Sometimes. For example, before I dug into the Rants and Screeds I was pleased to believe the claim that Locke had been a brain surgeon in a former life. But monkey brains? Anyone who has taken a Chinese cooking class has had access to monkey brains. We're talking high tech sophomoric pither here... a far cry from human (as one NATURALLY infers) brain surgery. Talk about your inflated resumes.
And later, as a flack for the Carnegie smart people foundation, Locke leaves his phone number with potential interviewees. But the number he leaves in the narrative is Pennsylvania area code 412 information which I think trivializes the work and lacks a certain verisimilitude. Relying on the device of the 555- prefix jerks the gentle reader out of the marvelous suspension of disbelief into which s/he has been lulled. From RageBoy I expected more. Perhaps Cheney's cell phone. He's a public figure for christ's sake, you think he's gonna sue? But no-ooooooooo. Rageboy lays in the old (412) 555 NPA/Nxx and we're left shaking our head and wondering: "I paid $17.50 for this piece of crap?" I'll finish the book I'm sure, since there seems to be plenty of sex and drugs in it, not to mention the potential for violence and nostalgia-fostering references to old time rock n roll and a literary allusion or two which is not bad for a geezer who still can't spell Hiaasen.
But at this point, I'm hoping it gets better.
And later, as a flack for the Carnegie smart people foundation, Locke leaves his phone number with potential interviewees. But the number he leaves in the narrative is Pennsylvania area code 412 information which I think trivializes the work and lacks a certain verisimilitude. Relying on the device of the 555- prefix jerks the gentle reader out of the marvelous suspension of disbelief into which s/he has been lulled. From RageBoy I expected more. Perhaps Cheney's cell phone. He's a public figure for christ's sake, you think he's gonna sue? But no-ooooooooo. Rageboy lays in the old (412) 555 NPA/Nxx and we're left shaking our head and wondering: "I paid $17.50 for this piece of crap?" I'll finish the book I'm sure, since there seems to be plenty of sex and drugs in it, not to mention the potential for violence and nostalgia-fostering references to old time rock n roll and a literary allusion or two which is not bad for a geezer who still can't spell Hiaasen.
But at this point, I'm hoping it gets better.
Gonzo Marketing is not about marketing at all. It´s an anti marketing standpoint. It advocates to the markets. Since the markets are conversation, hyperlinks subvert hierarchy and the people is getting smarter because the mouth to mouth accelerator. But if you analyse by the corporation point of view... money is money and profits is the god to reach.
The Web is the real world. We are building it mirrowing at our own existence. And nobody can deny that the commom people is becoming more powerfull. The relation between corporations and people is mutating (at least). The digital markets have destroyed the old concepts and are constructing itself in another way. Lists, blogs, sites are translating the common word to the commom people. And everybody in the Net enjoys the micromarkets approach. Internet is the new media that live altogether with the old one. Internet is a new layer. A very more sophisticated way to communicate and interact. This new system is not based on the mass concept. The micromarkets and communities creates the new audience. It´s where the voice is and where the new media is. Locke on The Gonzo Model suggests “... corporate underwriting is a way – perhaps the only viable way at present – for companies to put their own money where the mouth is”. That´s it!
The Web is the real world. We are building it mirrowing at our own existence. And nobody can deny that the commom people is becoming more powerfull. The relation between corporations and people is mutating (at least). The digital markets have destroyed the old concepts and are constructing itself in another way. Lists, blogs, sites are translating the common word to the commom people. And everybody in the Net enjoys the micromarkets approach. Internet is the new media that live altogether with the old one. Internet is a new layer. A very more sophisticated way to communicate and interact. This new system is not based on the mass concept. The micromarkets and communities creates the new audience. It´s where the voice is and where the new media is. Locke on The Gonzo Model suggests “... corporate underwriting is a way – perhaps the only viable way at present – for companies to put their own money where the mouth is”. That´s it!
The idea of corporations started with organisations granted monopolies in a particular endeavour by the crown - think of the British East India Company, or the orginal bubble, the South Sea company whose manipulations of government debt and parliamentary bribes make Enron look amateurish.
Many companies today subsist on similar government-backed monopolies - think of the companies that 'own' the broadcast spectrum, or telephone networks. Both of these are under threat from grass roots networks based on open-spectrum protocols like 802.11.
The economies of scale don't hold true when people will no longer put up with identical products, and can connect with each otehr to express their dissatisfaction.
Many companies today subsist on similar government-backed monopolies - think of the companies that 'own' the broadcast spectrum, or telephone networks. Both of these are under threat from grass roots networks based on open-spectrum protocols like 802.11.
The economies of scale don't hold true when people will no longer put up with identical products, and can connect with each otehr to express their dissatisfaction.
Friday, January 25, 2002
I take your point, Tom, that we should not focus too much on supplier-customer interaction at the point of sale. Perhaps simplistic analogies obscure the pervasive nature of change and shifting balances of forces. Bearing in mind that I question a real, IT-driven transfer of power from the corporation to the customer (as b!X posits), let's assume that we are indeed the locus of a fulcrum of power capable of restructuring "the way we do business" along the axis and across the spectrum. All I'm asking is, "Has this not always been the case?" Businesses are incorporeal entities comprising consumers at work. We all, to differing degrees and at different levels, carry out the functions of the company and the customer. We should therefore know whether or not we are the locus of such power. If we accept that we are, we have to accept responsibility for what we have done with that power to now or put ourselves in the camp of the disenfranchised. When we speak of reshaping capital formation, corporate law and generally accepted accounting practices, we are talking of using that power to effect fundamental social and economic change across national boundaries. Beyond our ability to communicate so readily on the Web, where is this power to change the way we "do business" in evidence? In Houston? Palestine? South Asia. South America? I can't find it anywhere.
We either don't have it or we have abused it. With globalization and the rise to power of the IMF, WB, and WTO, we've seen how some wield the power we give them. History has shown us that government is influenced as much by economic forces as the local gas station pump jockey. Over the past 150 years, all we appear to have done is shift the Dickensian conditions under which First World labor suffered, to the greater part of the planet while reserving consumption for an increasingly small elite. We, at the locus of the fulcrum of power, have done precious little, despite the massive progress made between 1900 and 1970, to slow the increasing gap developing between the rich and the poor (who, we are told, will always be with us). Since the emergence of information technologies wielding immense economic clout, have we seen a slowdown in the growth of disparity? No, it has speeded inequity. At a macro level, I see little evidence that the consumer who fouls the planet even wants to effect positive changes to business practices, the laws governing them, and the type of person they wish to see reflecting their new sense of community.
I am beating no drum here, Tom, I'm merely trying to understand the difference between that which is evident and that which Chris foresees. I am a high-school dropout whose world view has been naively acquired. I read, watch, and listen. A couple of years ago, I happened across an article by Thomas Frank, editor of The Baffler (defunct?), entitled "The Rise of Market Populism: America's New Secular Religion". A poorly constructed review of his book, "One Market, Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy" (Doubleday), highlights the value of Frank's thesis in the aftermath of September 2001, and an interview with the New York Times makes for thought-provoking reading. Frank's loathing of market populism makes perfect sense to me. He details how, during the 90s, the notion or markets as mediums of exchange and consent was subverted and, ultimately, gave rise to the sick situation whereby Dubya could give tax breaks for corporations and a cut in the capital gains tax as a response to "terrorism". While his views do not seem to conflict with those articulated in GM, they do perpetuate my skeptical approach to a ready acceptance that consumers have the power to do very much at all.
Hmm, as I've wandered up this creek far away from GM, perhaps I should close with a question. "What, if anything, is the difference between Thomas Frank and Chris Locke? Put another way, what does Locke see that Frank does not?" I am looking for answers here, by the way. Treat me as you would any slow learner. Educate me.
We either don't have it or we have abused it. With globalization and the rise to power of the IMF, WB, and WTO, we've seen how some wield the power we give them. History has shown us that government is influenced as much by economic forces as the local gas station pump jockey. Over the past 150 years, all we appear to have done is shift the Dickensian conditions under which First World labor suffered, to the greater part of the planet while reserving consumption for an increasingly small elite. We, at the locus of the fulcrum of power, have done precious little, despite the massive progress made between 1900 and 1970, to slow the increasing gap developing between the rich and the poor (who, we are told, will always be with us). Since the emergence of information technologies wielding immense economic clout, have we seen a slowdown in the growth of disparity? No, it has speeded inequity. At a macro level, I see little evidence that the consumer who fouls the planet even wants to effect positive changes to business practices, the laws governing them, and the type of person they wish to see reflecting their new sense of community.
I am beating no drum here, Tom, I'm merely trying to understand the difference between that which is evident and that which Chris foresees. I am a high-school dropout whose world view has been naively acquired. I read, watch, and listen. A couple of years ago, I happened across an article by Thomas Frank, editor of The Baffler (defunct?), entitled "The Rise of Market Populism: America's New Secular Religion". A poorly constructed review of his book, "One Market, Under God: Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy" (Doubleday), highlights the value of Frank's thesis in the aftermath of September 2001, and an interview with the New York Times makes for thought-provoking reading. Frank's loathing of market populism makes perfect sense to me. He details how, during the 90s, the notion or markets as mediums of exchange and consent was subverted and, ultimately, gave rise to the sick situation whereby Dubya could give tax breaks for corporations and a cut in the capital gains tax as a response to "terrorism". While his views do not seem to conflict with those articulated in GM, they do perpetuate my skeptical approach to a ready acceptance that consumers have the power to do very much at all.
Hmm, as I've wandered up this creek far away from GM, perhaps I should close with a question. "What, if anything, is the difference between Thomas Frank and Chris Locke? Put another way, what does Locke see that Frank does not?" I am looking for answers here, by the way. Treat me as you would any slow learner. Educate me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)