Man, we're getting customized now! Check out our newly designed Five Fish Blog Award, courtesy of Fish Rush!
Saturday, January 12, 2002
I live in spam city anyway... I get information on how to make a million bucks, how to improve my private parts, how to lose weight, where to buy fruit trees, zillions of messages from folks who have me on a list and are playing a bulk mail numbers game. So, a few more spams don't bother me. I'm lightning quick on the delete key. But I did read somewhere about a javascript scrambler that leaves the mailto: link functional for email porpoises, but baffles bots that are crawling the site for email addresses. Check this link and scroll down to ASS Maker (I'm not making this up... stands for Anti-Spam Script Maker). That said, I'd rather have my Sandhill Trek blog address linked at the bottom of the post than my email, because I have a target of getting as many as 2 hits a week on the blog, so it doesn't hurt to get it out there wherever possible. I was pleased as punch when Locke linked me, but unfortunately none of the other local digerati seem to have followed suit. Norlin?!? Where are ya? What about a link for your homey? I s'pose it helps that I have spent $ (US) on Locke's Literary Products and have also bowed and scraped him (actually cavilled in fact) here in cyberia. The more links that the blog gets, the more likely I am to find honest work someday and be able to feed the homeless orphans who sleep in my barn, not to mention providing them with a few sticks of kindling. I don't worry to much about feeding Fang. He seems able to live off the land...
I bought the damn Clue Train book with the rants and screeds... Amazon sez both books shipped today. Now that I've actually paid for a copy of Clue Train, maybe I can guilt trip one of those co-authors into some gratuitous blog rolling.
I bought the damn Clue Train book with the rants and screeds... Amazon sez both books shipped today. Now that I've actually paid for a copy of Clue Train, maybe I can guilt trip one of those co-authors into some gratuitous blog rolling.
Another question during this intermission, brought to you courtesy of me. Marek J. mentioned that maybe having our emails linked at the end of our posts is not the best idea on the planet and perhaps what's responsible for the increasing spam we've all been getting. He suggested having our little signature line at the end of the posts link to our blogs instead (like, i *might* be able to figure out how to do that). I'm thinking maybe the spamola is coming from the Team List I added to the left nav bar? I wanted to feature everyone on our team, but perhaps the team links should go to everyone's blogs instead of the emails? Problem with that is, most of them are already linked in the Blog Bog... Oh hell, I don't know, but if you have any ideas or phobias, post em. If there's not an outcry one way or the other, things will just stay as they are.
it's raining and crappy here in geawgia today.
it's raining and crappy here in geawgia today.
Have a favor to ask, team. If you stop by RGE on Saturday before Midnight, take a trip over to GarageBand.com and check out the Funk/Soul/R&B track of the day from LeadBelly. My husband produces (and lends his nimble bassist fingers) to the band. I'm not sure how the number of downloads/listens figures into their popularity contest over there, but I suspect that it does--and it sure can't hurt. (After midnight, you can still listen, but the tune's run as track of the day will be over.) Rock on.
Friday, January 11, 2002
meme to your mother
Well, it's been an exciting week here in the wonderful world of blogsnia for me. First, my copy of Bombast transversed its way across three states to my doorstep (you can follow its journey a few posts back). Holy Crap I really did make it on the back cover, an honor I haven't found a way to thank RB for yet. Suggestions are welcome. The more twisted the better. I was so thrilled I got weak kneed over the whole thing. I haven't dug in to the book yet, I've been too busy Bombasting in the glory. But this weekend it's me and the book.
AND the fun doesn't end there.
Yours truly is officially noted as propagator #1 of a bonafide movement in blogwear. According to Gary Turner, a great blogger and now famous creator of BlogStickers.com, my use of his "Blog Is a Four Letter Word" sticker over on Allied was the first Interblog use of one of his now highly-sought-after BlogStickers. How cool is that??? (Notice, I added one to our illustrious blog as well. I hope you like the choice.) [a post post note: gary made that sticker special for us, in what he calls our "team colors"!]
That's all for now. Gotta go pay some attention to the rest of my life now.
Well, it's been an exciting week here in the wonderful world of blogsnia for me. First, my copy of Bombast transversed its way across three states to my doorstep (you can follow its journey a few posts back). Holy Crap I really did make it on the back cover, an honor I haven't found a way to thank RB for yet. Suggestions are welcome. The more twisted the better. I was so thrilled I got weak kneed over the whole thing. I haven't dug in to the book yet, I've been too busy Bombasting in the glory. But this weekend it's me and the book.
AND the fun doesn't end there.
Yours truly is officially noted as propagator #1 of a bonafide movement in blogwear. According to Gary Turner, a great blogger and now famous creator of BlogStickers.com, my use of his "Blog Is a Four Letter Word" sticker over on Allied was the first Interblog use of one of his now highly-sought-after BlogStickers. How cool is that??? (Notice, I added one to our illustrious blog as well. I hope you like the choice.) [a post post note: gary made that sticker special for us, in what he calls our "team colors"!]
That's all for now. Gotta go pay some attention to the rest of my life now.
The seed catalog arrived! Actually lots of seed catalogs have arrived but Gurney's came via email. My wife and I have different last names so our house is a junk mail magnet. Seed catalogs are either junk mail or precious reminders of spring, depends on your mood. But when Henry Fields, Gurney, Shepherd's, Burpee, Park and Stokes hit your snailmailbox at the same time, each addressed individually (net two each equals a dozen) you're reminded of marketing run amok. Gurney's sent me an ad for apple trees. They must know that even Fang can't keep the antlered vermin out of the orchard and that each year we lose a few trees to buck rub and a lot of low branches to winter nibbling. Means I need info on trees, and I'm happy to buy mail order via the web or the catalog. Can't find Gala apples or multiple grafted trees at the local nurseries for these prices.
Yet, the scourge of push mail marketeers, the seed dealers, have found their way onto the web and are busy spamming their customers. What's a po' farmer boy to do? I know what Rageboy would do, but I don't have a 50 caliber sniper rifle with a starlight scope, much less the airborne firing position.
Yet, the scourge of push mail marketeers, the seed dealers, have found their way onto the web and are busy spamming their customers. What's a po' farmer boy to do? I know what Rageboy would do, but I don't have a 50 caliber sniper rifle with a starlight scope, much less the airborne firing position.
Hooolaaaa! I think that Clay has some good points. I'm not sure that there is a conclusive answer to them either, especially since Clay's arguments have been focussed on the quantitative aspects of the debate, whereas the responses (somewhat at cross-purposes) have been seemingly focussed on the qualitative.
I guess that, rather than trying to rebutt, I'd simply make a couple* observations:
1. GM describes and to some degree anticipates, a trend whereby broadcast advertising loses efficacy, precisely because it has no inherent connection to, respect for, or engagement with, it's audience. (You could even say target market. I for one have never wanted to be anyone's target - except maybe Cher's, but then I'm just perverse that way!)
This is not to say that broadcast advertising suddenly ceases to work at all - as the saying goes, Rome wasn't burn't in day - but it's efficacy relative to other approaches suffers, particularly as its audience/target market grow increasingly aware. This awareness encompasses self-awareness, awareness of others experience, as well as awareness of the practices and deceptions of traditional broadcast advertising. All of these growing awarenesses are nurtured and fertilised** by the nature of the web.
Not to demonise advertising, where I am sure that honesty does exist, but full and frank disclosure is not exactly the first thing that springs to mind when someone mentions the industry.
2. Further to other more learned responses below, I'd factor in the notion that no-one is an M of only one MM. Each of the M's of the hypothetical 100-M MM's is also an M of any number of other MM's. Cross fertilisation thus adds a fractal dimension to micro-market conversations that tends to make a mockery of the one-dimensional view of target markets adopted by traditional broadcast marketing methods.
Yes, every student of economics (even a dillettante like me) should understand that simplifying assumptions are often necessary for human comprehension. Still, if you simplify too much reality out of the equation you run the risk of ending up simply irrelevant. Does that ring any bells? Does it perhaps explain why most people feel simply insulted and revolted by most such advertising?
3. Speaking of which, you mention costs of acquisition, but then you discuss products like Coke (I assume you mean Coca Cola? ;-)) where these can hardly be measured? It's not like anyone is a passionate Coke customer. Not anyone sane, anyway? People drink when they're thirsty, and usually whatever that's to hand that is wet and preferably not immediately lethal. Yes, preference plays a part in the selection, but I'd argue that any existing preference owes far more to the efforts of the production people than to the advertising/marketing folks. And if such a preference is already established then acquisition costs are no longer relevant.
Perhaps GM is more relevant to customer retention? I know quite well, for example, how the profitability of a customer grows as the length of the relationship grows. At least in the financial circles where I have spent some of my former working lives.
Constantly acquiring new customers, and particularly where it is your method of acquisition and its resultant disappointment that pisses them off, is NOT the best way to spend your marketing budget. This is why churn is such a major consideration for companies that want to do business with you more than once.
4. I think that you've also missed one of clockies' points, which is: that broadcast advertising doesn't work on the web. The attempts to make it do so, on a medium which is inherently bidirectional (as TV and print are not) is what has made the vast majority of it (the web) into crapola.
The net is inherently open and conversational, by intent, by design, and in its operations. Trying to force-fit it into the exclusive (not to mention exclusionary) uni-directional model of broadcast advertising cannot be the height of wisdom.
Complaining afterwards that "no-one knows how to make money on the net" is also suspect, since it assumes that everyone is a clueless*** broadcast advertising wonk.
*OK, four is more than a couple, but it started out as only two - honest!
**Did you like that? I thought it was kinda cool, since the web is admittedly mostly shite.
***Where the net is concerned
Well it ain't what you dance
It's the way you dance
It ain't what you move
It's the way you groove.
--The Spinners
I guess that, rather than trying to rebutt, I'd simply make a couple* observations:
1. GM describes and to some degree anticipates, a trend whereby broadcast advertising loses efficacy, precisely because it has no inherent connection to, respect for, or engagement with, it's audience. (You could even say target market. I for one have never wanted to be anyone's target - except maybe Cher's, but then I'm just perverse that way!)
This is not to say that broadcast advertising suddenly ceases to work at all - as the saying goes, Rome wasn't burn't in day - but it's efficacy relative to other approaches suffers, particularly as its audience/target market grow increasingly aware. This awareness encompasses self-awareness, awareness of others experience, as well as awareness of the practices and deceptions of traditional broadcast advertising. All of these growing awarenesses are nurtured and fertilised** by the nature of the web.
Not to demonise advertising, where I am sure that honesty does exist, but full and frank disclosure is not exactly the first thing that springs to mind when someone mentions the industry.
2. Further to other more learned responses below, I'd factor in the notion that no-one is an M of only one MM. Each of the M's of the hypothetical 100-M MM's is also an M of any number of other MM's. Cross fertilisation thus adds a fractal dimension to micro-market conversations that tends to make a mockery of the one-dimensional view of target markets adopted by traditional broadcast marketing methods.
Yes, every student of economics (even a dillettante like me) should understand that simplifying assumptions are often necessary for human comprehension. Still, if you simplify too much reality out of the equation you run the risk of ending up simply irrelevant. Does that ring any bells? Does it perhaps explain why most people feel simply insulted and revolted by most such advertising?
3. Speaking of which, you mention costs of acquisition, but then you discuss products like Coke (I assume you mean Coca Cola? ;-)) where these can hardly be measured? It's not like anyone is a passionate Coke customer. Not anyone sane, anyway? People drink when they're thirsty, and usually whatever that's to hand that is wet and preferably not immediately lethal. Yes, preference plays a part in the selection, but I'd argue that any existing preference owes far more to the efforts of the production people than to the advertising/marketing folks. And if such a preference is already established then acquisition costs are no longer relevant.
Perhaps GM is more relevant to customer retention? I know quite well, for example, how the profitability of a customer grows as the length of the relationship grows. At least in the financial circles where I have spent some of my former working lives.
Constantly acquiring new customers, and particularly where it is your method of acquisition and its resultant disappointment that pisses them off, is NOT the best way to spend your marketing budget. This is why churn is such a major consideration for companies that want to do business with you more than once.
4. I think that you've also missed one of clockies' points, which is: that broadcast advertising doesn't work on the web. The attempts to make it do so, on a medium which is inherently bidirectional (as TV and print are not) is what has made the vast majority of it (the web) into crapola.
The net is inherently open and conversational, by intent, by design, and in its operations. Trying to force-fit it into the exclusive (not to mention exclusionary) uni-directional model of broadcast advertising cannot be the height of wisdom.
Complaining afterwards that "no-one knows how to make money on the net" is also suspect, since it assumes that everyone is a clueless*** broadcast advertising wonk.
*OK, four is more than a couple, but it started out as only two - honest!
**Did you like that? I thought it was kinda cool, since the web is admittedly mostly shite.
***Where the net is concerned
Well it ain't what you dance
It's the way you dance
It ain't what you move
It's the way you groove.
--The Spinners
Thursday, January 10, 2002
And, the marketers are starting to take Hernani's points to heart. Look at network television, the pinnacle forum for mass-market advertising. As TV critic David Bianculli recently observed on NPR's Fresh Air (Jan. 4 show, Real Audio file available here), "On broadcast TV meanwhile, they're taking at least a few lessons from cable...[O]n all the networks, quirky, entertaining new shows - such as Undeclared, Scrubs, Alias and Smallville - are succeeding by thinking more like cable. Instead of trying to program shows that will appeal to everyone, the networks are presenting well-made series that are more likely to please some of the people some of the time. And in this new century, in this era of narrow casting and a fragmented TV universe, that's really the best way to succeed." Whether or not you agree that Mr. Bianculli's examples are "entertaining" or "well-made," there's no denying they depart from what has come to be the mainstream, and the Gonzo Marketing ramifications are clear. If even the media conglomerates are starting to recognize and program for narrower markets, sponsors had better take heed as well. If they don't, they'll miss the chance to connect with viewers intrinsically drawn to their product or service, while paying for spots that will be shown to entire audiences who probably could care less (think VasoRect and The Screen Savers - she deadpanned).
Hahahaha, Clay... I got it right now. My excuse is that my english is a shit (sic). Thanks to clear it. OK, but I cannot change the foccus. Actually you have agreed that “Gonzo is a better way to reach those markets that are already micromarkets”. But the micromarkets are not static. It´s quite dinamic and it´s growing like the web. The markets fragmentation are the reality in the traditional markets too. The companies tried to divide it in niches. But I doesn´t work properly. And in the Web enviroment it does´t work at all (It´s not a mass media).
You talk about Jelly. But who cares? Just the manufacturer. Nobody wants to talk about Jelly.(Ok, cars are a better subject to create a debate).The traditional branding concept doesn´t matter anymore. Gonzo Marketing is an anti marketing idea. Advocates to the markets. Not to the corporation. If you want to deal with the markets you need to deal with people who are developing it. The markets are getting intelligent enough for the traditional way to marketing. Think Priceline.
You talk about Jelly. But who cares? Just the manufacturer. Nobody wants to talk about Jelly.(Ok, cars are a better subject to create a debate).The traditional branding concept doesn´t matter anymore. Gonzo Marketing is an anti marketing idea. Advocates to the markets. Not to the corporation. If you want to deal with the markets you need to deal with people who are developing it. The markets are getting intelligent enough for the traditional way to marketing. Think Priceline.
What I think GM lacks is a focus as to where it can be used.
Arnold, this is the thing that's been itching at the back of my mind since I saw clocke give a talk on the subject. (And for Hernani, GM == Gonzo Marketing, not General Motors.) It seems to me that without metrics, Gonzo Marketing might be effective, but it will be hard to show that it is efficient.
If I am called in to improve sales of Jell-O® brand gelatin with effective marketing, that's a cake walk -- we just tape a $10 bill to every 79 cent box, and that Jell-O® will be flying off the shelves. Pretty effective. If, however, I have to improve sales with efficient marketing, then I have to sell more Jell-O® with less money than is being spent now. I don't know the actual statistics, but at a guess, their cost of customer acquisition is~$1 per person, so I'm skeptical that Jeneane can get all those Tangerine-crazed moms in the doors for $25K.
It seems to me that where Gonzo works is precisely those places where it is very expensive to reach a customer, who will then take the time to think through whether or not to buy. Ford will probably spend ~$100-$200 per person who test drives an Explorer. That's a lot of someone's time to engage in a real conversation with car lovers, who tend to the Gonzo-receptive characteristics of passion. $1 per person for Jell-O®, on the other hand, does not buy a lot of anybodies time, and since it isn't a considered purchase and doesn't inspire a lot of passion, it (and other mass market goods with its characteristics) aren't a good target for Gonzo.
So though Sonambulistic Promotional Prose only beats Gonzo as long as broadcasting continues to serve up results, I think that period will be functionally forever for goods that require markets of > 1 million p.a., because the scaling characteristics of broadcast are superior to those of Gonzo. Put another way, Gonzo is a better way to reach those markets that are already micromarkets, but I doubt that subdividing mass macromarkets into micromarkets can be done more cheaply for the same effectiveness than the current system.
Arnold, this is the thing that's been itching at the back of my mind since I saw clocke give a talk on the subject. (And for Hernani, GM == Gonzo Marketing, not General Motors.) It seems to me that without metrics, Gonzo Marketing might be effective, but it will be hard to show that it is efficient.
If I am called in to improve sales of Jell-O® brand gelatin with effective marketing, that's a cake walk -- we just tape a $10 bill to every 79 cent box, and that Jell-O® will be flying off the shelves. Pretty effective. If, however, I have to improve sales with efficient marketing, then I have to sell more Jell-O® with less money than is being spent now. I don't know the actual statistics, but at a guess, their cost of customer acquisition is~$1 per person, so I'm skeptical that Jeneane can get all those Tangerine-crazed moms in the doors for $25K.
It seems to me that where Gonzo works is precisely those places where it is very expensive to reach a customer, who will then take the time to think through whether or not to buy. Ford will probably spend ~$100-$200 per person who test drives an Explorer. That's a lot of someone's time to engage in a real conversation with car lovers, who tend to the Gonzo-receptive characteristics of passion. $1 per person for Jell-O®, on the other hand, does not buy a lot of anybodies time, and since it isn't a considered purchase and doesn't inspire a lot of passion, it (and other mass market goods with its characteristics) aren't a good target for Gonzo.
So though Sonambulistic Promotional Prose only beats Gonzo as long as broadcasting continues to serve up results, I think that period will be functionally forever for goods that require markets of > 1 million p.a., because the scaling characteristics of broadcast are superior to those of Gonzo. Put another way, Gonzo is a better way to reach those markets that are already micromarkets, but I doubt that subdividing mass macromarkets into micromarkets can be done more cheaply for the same effectiveness than the current system.
Welcome to the paradox of technology Jeneane, the faster it does things for you the slower it seems to be because expectations are higher!
Now as far as measurements are concerned, Clay, of course you'll know that there aren't any ( or very few) in the traditional sense. That's why I personally believe that most large corporate entities won't use Gonzo Marketing to any great extent. (Sorry Chris). One of the most enduring myths of business is the world class company.I have worked for several supposedly market leaders and from the inside out they are a rat's nest of petty politiking and back-stabbing. The number of people who actually know what they are doing is limited.
I agree with your assesment of Gonzo Marketing versus SPP. But that only holds while broadcasting continues to serve up results.
The measurements I am talking about are the ones that actually serve those creative people that are actually doing the work in the big companies. I believe that the "Gut Feel" Ãs still the most important tool is business. When you know something is right, but can't pull out the stats to prove it. Whether you want to call that a measurement is I suppose debatable.
Othere than that I think your assessment is a very good criticism of GM. What I think GM lacks is a focus as to where it can be used. I don't believe it is univerally applicable.
Now as far as measurements are concerned, Clay, of course you'll know that there aren't any ( or very few) in the traditional sense. That's why I personally believe that most large corporate entities won't use Gonzo Marketing to any great extent. (Sorry Chris). One of the most enduring myths of business is the world class company.I have worked for several supposedly market leaders and from the inside out they are a rat's nest of petty politiking and back-stabbing. The number of people who actually know what they are doing is limited.
I agree with your assesment of Gonzo Marketing versus SPP. But that only holds while broadcasting continues to serve up results.
The measurements I am talking about are the ones that actually serve those creative people that are actually doing the work in the big companies. I believe that the "Gut Feel" Ãs still the most important tool is business. When you know something is right, but can't pull out the stats to prove it. Whether you want to call that a measurement is I suppose debatable.
Othere than that I think your assessment is a very good criticism of GM. What I think GM lacks is a focus as to where it can be used. I don't believe it is univerally applicable.
Tuesday, January 08, 2002
Where did your copy of The Bombast Transcripts ship from?
And now... for a short break in the Shirky action....
FOLLOW MY BOMBASTS’ TRIP
Amazon shipped my copy of the Bombast Transcripts from Campbellsville, Kentucky at 7:11:48 on January 7th. Did I say copy? I meant copies. I ordered four of those mothers. What do you think clocke was doing at 7:11:48 EST, when his book shipped to me? I’m guessing he was dreaming about the fun he had at those rant parties “back in the day,” or listening to the needle go thump-thump-thump at the end of the Dire Straits album he never turned off the night before. Yah, I’m betting it’s the album, not the CD.
And as he slept, my Bombasts traveled north to Lexington, then later that day, south, to Knoxville, Tennessee, where they hit the dock near midnight. They were tired, you know? Lots of miles already—just hanging in their air-bubble wrap, wondering why they didn’t just go straight from Cambellsville to Knoxville and skip the northward detour to Lexington altogether.
On the 8th of January, it was off again from Konxville at 3:20 in the morning. Who the hell put these things on the truck at 3:20 in the morning? God bless them, whoever they were. My Bombasts then fled south from Tennessee to Georgia, where they reached Pleasantdale, Georgia at 8:00 that morning.
Now here’s the kicker. I’ve never heard of Plesantdale although it’s apparently right in my sweet little Metro Atlanta area. The other kicker—my bombasts sat in Pleasantdale until 9:34 that night. Shit, it took the less than 24 hours for them to make a tour around the state of Kentucky, through Tennessee, and come to rest in Georgia. And now they’re sitting about 20 miles from my house for a whole day? I have a good mind to go to Pleasantdale and get them. I wish the guys who put them on the truck in Konxville at 3 in the morning were working in Pleasantdale.
I’m hoping that tomorrow they’ll travel northward again, to the teeny tiny town of Acworth, where I am waiting so anxiously I have just demolished a box of these new Kool Stuf (which can only be pronounced “kool stoof”) Oreo toaster pastries. Have you had these things yet? Holy cow, they are some of the best stoof I’ve ever had in the sweets department. They hit you like no-doze too. I’m good for four hours of writing on a packet of those kool stoofs, which are for all intent and purposes, pop-tarts, but Nabisco’s big bad branding guys knows better.
Got Yours?
And now... for a short break in the Shirky action....
FOLLOW MY BOMBASTS’ TRIP
Amazon shipped my copy of the Bombast Transcripts from Campbellsville, Kentucky at 7:11:48 on January 7th. Did I say copy? I meant copies. I ordered four of those mothers. What do you think clocke was doing at 7:11:48 EST, when his book shipped to me? I’m guessing he was dreaming about the fun he had at those rant parties “back in the day,” or listening to the needle go thump-thump-thump at the end of the Dire Straits album he never turned off the night before. Yah, I’m betting it’s the album, not the CD.
And as he slept, my Bombasts traveled north to Lexington, then later that day, south, to Knoxville, Tennessee, where they hit the dock near midnight. They were tired, you know? Lots of miles already—just hanging in their air-bubble wrap, wondering why they didn’t just go straight from Cambellsville to Knoxville and skip the northward detour to Lexington altogether.
On the 8th of January, it was off again from Konxville at 3:20 in the morning. Who the hell put these things on the truck at 3:20 in the morning? God bless them, whoever they were. My Bombasts then fled south from Tennessee to Georgia, where they reached Pleasantdale, Georgia at 8:00 that morning.
Now here’s the kicker. I’ve never heard of Plesantdale although it’s apparently right in my sweet little Metro Atlanta area. The other kicker—my bombasts sat in Pleasantdale until 9:34 that night. Shit, it took the less than 24 hours for them to make a tour around the state of Kentucky, through Tennessee, and come to rest in Georgia. And now they’re sitting about 20 miles from my house for a whole day? I have a good mind to go to Pleasantdale and get them. I wish the guys who put them on the truck in Konxville at 3 in the morning were working in Pleasantdale.
I’m hoping that tomorrow they’ll travel northward again, to the teeny tiny town of Acworth, where I am waiting so anxiously I have just demolished a box of these new Kool Stuf (which can only be pronounced “kool stoof”) Oreo toaster pastries. Have you had these things yet? Holy cow, they are some of the best stoof I’ve ever had in the sweets department. They hit you like no-doze too. I’m good for four hours of writing on a packet of those kool stoofs, which are for all intent and purposes, pop-tarts, but Nabisco’s big bad branding guys knows better.
Got Yours?
Monday, January 07, 2002
Happy New Year. Straight into it after a long lay-off...
It is not so much the financial maths that is the main limiting factor it is more a question of relinquishing control. The marketing department in yer standard corporate monolith is not going to give the control of their brand away. It is a question of ownership. They own it and they will continue to want to own it, no matter how much they talk about the brand being a representation of employees blah, blah etc.
A related point is that corporate culture depends on bean counting. That's why broadcast media is tailor-made for these types of companies. You punt your message out through three or four kinds of channels and then measure the results. With micromarketing you can measure results but you can't assign an increase or decrease to a particular action or set of actions. That makes 'em nervous. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. As a corollory - if you can't measure it, you don't exist.
That is not to say however, that the results of Gonzo Marketing can't be measured. But imagine this scenario: you are presenting the latest sales results to the VP of Worldwide Widget Sales (which incidentally are going very welll because you have started talking to your customers instead of shouting at them). When all of a sudden he asks how you know it is your fine new marketing tool that has achieved such spanking sales.You pause, cough and point to your bursting in-tray. "Because my customers tell me so", you venture. Ah, but what about the focus groups, and all the other paraphrenalia? Don't have any? Goodbye.
In short they won't accept the measurements it produces. One thing these påeople don't like to be is nervous. GM is a loose cannon (as they would say) Don't know when it is going to go off.
It is not so much the financial maths that is the main limiting factor it is more a question of relinquishing control. The marketing department in yer standard corporate monolith is not going to give the control of their brand away. It is a question of ownership. They own it and they will continue to want to own it, no matter how much they talk about the brand being a representation of employees blah, blah etc.
A related point is that corporate culture depends on bean counting. That's why broadcast media is tailor-made for these types of companies. You punt your message out through three or four kinds of channels and then measure the results. With micromarketing you can measure results but you can't assign an increase or decrease to a particular action or set of actions. That makes 'em nervous. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist. As a corollory - if you can't measure it, you don't exist.
That is not to say however, that the results of Gonzo Marketing can't be measured. But imagine this scenario: you are presenting the latest sales results to the VP of Worldwide Widget Sales (which incidentally are going very welll because you have started talking to your customers instead of shouting at them). When all of a sudden he asks how you know it is your fine new marketing tool that has achieved such spanking sales.You pause, cough and point to your bursting in-tray. "Because my customers tell me so", you venture. Ah, but what about the focus groups, and all the other paraphrenalia? Don't have any? Goodbye.
In short they won't accept the measurements it produces. One thing these påeople don't like to be is nervous. GM is a loose cannon (as they would say) Don't know when it is going to go off.
Saturday, January 05, 2002
I´m pretty good with math. But we are not talking about it. I give a shit to GM. The debate is in a wrong direction. The Internet is a fantastic media just because the people are talking. Person to person. The Clay´s logical is the very same of using Linux is not an advantage because the support price. Could be right. But it´s not. We are living in a mutating world. Because the cyberculture emergence is deeply changing the enviroment we live. It´s mutating, metamorphosing the human spirit. And the relation among this spirits modificates. The man kind is in mutation.
The corporations like GM don´t need to hear us. It´s an open market. The Gonzo is an Web reality. Don´t talk about the bullshit math. Maybe the companies that want to came in the Internet would pay more tham the traditional bla-bla-bla. Maybe it´s no cheap to talk to us. But don´t be blind. The markets are changing fast. We are each time more living in a globally connected digital world. Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.. That´s it, and We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.
The corporations like GM don´t need to hear us. It´s an open market. The Gonzo is an Web reality. Don´t talk about the bullshit math. Maybe the companies that want to came in the Internet would pay more tham the traditional bla-bla-bla. Maybe it´s no cheap to talk to us. But don´t be blind. The markets are changing fast. We are each time more living in a globally connected digital world. Companies that don't realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity.. That´s it, and We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.
Jenane,
The nature of my equations is the nature of everyone's equations: revenue - expenses = profit. That is as true for GM as SPP. I've presented the math for cost of acquisition through broadcast media. There seems to be a sense here, odd to me, that this sort of advertising doesn't work, but of course if that were true, QVC would be off the air and Procter and Gamble would be bankrupt.
Now you propose a system where, over some unspecified period of time, 25K extra boxes of tangerine Jello are sold, but you don't provide a sense of what it will cost to sell those boxes. How much is it to underwrite a site? To reach how many people, on average? Who will have what liklihood of buying a box of Jello? In what time frame?
If you tell P&G you have a way to sell more Jello, you'll be politely shown the door. If you tell them you have a way to sell more Jello for the same money they're spending now, you'll be told to take a number. Only if you tell them you have a way to sell more Jello for less than they are spending now will you be ushered into the marketing directors office. GM is no different than SPP, protest about the math how you may. It goes on the balance sheet as a cost center, and unless someone can explain how it improves profits, its a non-starter.
-clay
The nature of my equations is the nature of everyone's equations: revenue - expenses = profit. That is as true for GM as SPP. I've presented the math for cost of acquisition through broadcast media. There seems to be a sense here, odd to me, that this sort of advertising doesn't work, but of course if that were true, QVC would be off the air and Procter and Gamble would be bankrupt.
Now you propose a system where, over some unspecified period of time, 25K extra boxes of tangerine Jello are sold, but you don't provide a sense of what it will cost to sell those boxes. How much is it to underwrite a site? To reach how many people, on average? Who will have what liklihood of buying a box of Jello? In what time frame?
If you tell P&G you have a way to sell more Jello, you'll be politely shown the door. If you tell them you have a way to sell more Jello for the same money they're spending now, you'll be told to take a number. Only if you tell them you have a way to sell more Jello for less than they are spending now will you be ushered into the marketing directors office. GM is no different than SPP, protest about the math how you may. It goes on the balance sheet as a cost center, and unless someone can explain how it improves profits, its a non-starter.
-clay
Underwriting candidates (one may have fewer takers than the others; you decide which):
(1) The Semi-Official Small Wonder Site, devoted in excruciating detail to that 80's sitcom you no doubt remember, if not exactly fondly.
(2) The Gibson Reasearch Corporation, brainchild of super bright and talented Steve Gibson (check out his creds). Gibson makes and sells quality security and computer mainenance software, and gives away a ton more for free, just 'cause. His work and site are passionate and personal. Since most of what he does is geared toward making personal computing safer and more reliable, companies like Dell should be crawling over themselves to support him and be affiliated - especially given the thriving discussion groups also going on at his site around his products and the issues they address.
(3) TV programming for fans of Gonzo: The Screen Savers, who have hosted Doc Searls in the past, and discuss things like (1) and (2) on the show. Their viewers must form quite a micromarket, with sponsors as diverse as Intel and VasoRect...
(1) The Semi-Official Small Wonder Site, devoted in excruciating detail to that 80's sitcom you no doubt remember, if not exactly fondly.
(2) The Gibson Reasearch Corporation, brainchild of super bright and talented Steve Gibson (check out his creds). Gibson makes and sells quality security and computer mainenance software, and gives away a ton more for free, just 'cause. His work and site are passionate and personal. Since most of what he does is geared toward making personal computing safer and more reliable, companies like Dell should be crawling over themselves to support him and be affiliated - especially given the thriving discussion groups also going on at his site around his products and the issues they address.
(3) TV programming for fans of Gonzo: The Screen Savers, who have hosted Doc Searls in the past, and discuss things like (1) and (2) on the show. Their viewers must form quite a micromarket, with sponsors as diverse as Intel and VasoRect...
I understand the math. Really. But the nature of your equations is wrong. The way I see it, it's not about 1 Felicity J. Gonzo as said employee of JELL-O company reaching 100,000 micromarket members (MMMs as you call em). It's about 100,000 MMM moms talking with one another in a forum or on a blog like this about the pros and cons of private schools (or whatever), and about the side conversations that take place at light speed about things like child care and kids with asthma, and finding out that jell-o is really good when your child is sick and has an asthma flair-up because it's easy on the throat and has a high water content, and oh by the way my kid like's tangarine JELL-O brand jell-o best. And suddently the 25,000 MMMs with asthmatic kids, and a bunch without asthmatic kids, put tangerine JELL-O on next week's grocery list to keep in the cupboard.
And BEFORE all of this happens, really smart jell-o company looks for communities of interest, not necessarily directly related to their business, but in some way, I say up to five hyper-discussions away, germane. Then really smart jell-o company underwrites and supports these communities, along with others, helping to build them into really strong viable places for voice and opinion. Eventually it comes full circle. Not all the time, and not at first. But wait.
I can see it so clearly I wish I could explain it to you better--Maybe someone else will chime in and help me be more clear. I'll let another gonzoite explain why it's not a smart use of your 30K to have the goal of "reaching" 200,000 people through broadcast media.
Thanks for taking part in a lively discussion!
-j.
And BEFORE all of this happens, really smart jell-o company looks for communities of interest, not necessarily directly related to their business, but in some way, I say up to five hyper-discussions away, germane. Then really smart jell-o company underwrites and supports these communities, along with others, helping to build them into really strong viable places for voice and opinion. Eventually it comes full circle. Not all the time, and not at first. But wait.
I can see it so clearly I wish I could explain it to you better--Maybe someone else will chime in and help me be more clear. I'll let another gonzoite explain why it's not a smart use of your 30K to have the goal of "reaching" 200,000 people through broadcast media.
Thanks for taking part in a lively discussion!
-j.
Jeneane,
Your post crossed mine in the ether. I think I understand your examples, and agree thatthose are Good Things, but I also think that fewer businesses than you think can profit from such intangibles. I'm posted out now, but will flesh that idea out later.
In the meantime, take a look at the math in my last post. I think of myself as having a pretty simple objection to the general applicability of GM -- as the Santa Fe folks say, "More is different" -- so tell me if I'm expressing it clearly.
-clay
Your post crossed mine in the ether. I think I understand your examples, and agree thatthose are Good Things, but I also think that fewer businesses than you think can profit from such intangibles. I'm posted out now, but will flesh that idea out later.
In the meantime, take a look at the math in my last post. I think of myself as having a pretty simple objection to the general applicability of GM -- as the Santa Fe folks say, "More is different" -- so tell me if I'm expressing it clearly.
-clay
So here's the math I'm doing: switching to GM from the current model -- we'll call it SPP for Sonambulistic Promotional Pitches -- lowers the cost of hiring Saatchi&BBDDBO to write said SPP, and it lowers the cost of the media buy, because who needs a :30 spot on E.R. when you've got micromarkets, right?
However, it replaces these SPP costs with employee time. (Lets call phone fax etc bills a sunk cost.) Now, there are obviously situations where this is a big win -- Southwest Airlines has discovered that by letting its people talk to the customers in their own voice, they improve their bottom line. This is A Good Thing. Southwest has some pecularities to it, however -- its front line people are already in contact with the public, so there's no shelling out extra time; an airline ticket is a considered purchase; and Southwest tickets are cheaper. In otherwords, SWA is not trivially comparable to a) businesses that currently have low public contact (e.g. Intel), b) rely on smaller or less considered purchases (e.g. Staples) or c) have similar or higher prices than their cometitors (e.g. Coke).
In these situations, the resources companies would have to shift out of SPP and into GM would include a considerable amount of employee time, and since every 1000th hour of such time is a half-time job, it triggers the usual welter of W-2 related expenses. Furthermore, since you would want those employees to regard their employer favorably, you would have to pay them more than minimum wage. So lets say you have 1 FTE to devote to your GM strategy, at a salary + expenses of 30K (so this person is making maybe 23K a year -- an entry-level hire, albeit a motivated one.)
E.R. is around a $25 CPM, so for 30K I can reach an audience of something like a million two. Now lets say that a national spot is a blunt weapon, so maybe only 50% of those people would ever even consider buying Jell-o® brand flavored gelatin, and that they need to see my ad 3 times to have it register. This means I'm effectively reaching, for $30K, 200,000 people, some percentage of which will salivate over my ad showing a Regular Mom making Jell-o® brand flavored gelatin Freez-Treets® in the shape of Pol Pot.
Now how many people can our eager $23K a year hire reach? Lets say the average micromarket is 100 people. (I suspect its smaller, but we'll put our thumb on the scale...) and our new hire, Felicity J. Gonzo, has 2K hours/yr to spend with these excited, loyal, and passionately engaged MMMs (micromarket members). Lets say that Felicity has such a winning way with the MMMs that to kno-o-ow her is to lo-o-ove her, so she is 100% more effective than SPP. Ergo, she only needs to reach half as many people to be as effective as my three SPP :30 spots on ER.
To reach 100,000 people 100 people at a time in 2000 hours (assume she never talks on the phone with her friends or uses the company computer to book plane tickets while the boss isn't looking), she has 2 hours per year to spend with each micromarket.
Uh oh.
Now you can slice this math any way you like -- pay Felicity less, make micromarkets bigger, give SPP a 10% catchment or 1% even, make Felicity 5 times as effective instead of just double, but there are serious counter-forces as well -- I can run my ad on cable for single digit CPMs, and, most worryingly, I might want to reach 100 million people, not just 1.
This last bit is a corker. The single, critical advantage of the SPP strategy is that, no matter how ineffective each ad is, it scales like a motherfucker. Strategies with low fixed costs and high variable costs always look terrifically competitive when they first launch, but the costs grow like weeds because unlike media, human costs only go up. So my biggest doubt about the GM idea is that, no matter how you arrange the costs, at some point in audience size, probably in the millions and almost certainly in the 10s of milliosn, the money you saved in not paying for your SPP up front blows up in your face in labor costs.
-clay
However, it replaces these SPP costs with employee time. (Lets call phone fax etc bills a sunk cost.) Now, there are obviously situations where this is a big win -- Southwest Airlines has discovered that by letting its people talk to the customers in their own voice, they improve their bottom line. This is A Good Thing. Southwest has some pecularities to it, however -- its front line people are already in contact with the public, so there's no shelling out extra time; an airline ticket is a considered purchase; and Southwest tickets are cheaper. In otherwords, SWA is not trivially comparable to a) businesses that currently have low public contact (e.g. Intel), b) rely on smaller or less considered purchases (e.g. Staples) or c) have similar or higher prices than their cometitors (e.g. Coke).
In these situations, the resources companies would have to shift out of SPP and into GM would include a considerable amount of employee time, and since every 1000th hour of such time is a half-time job, it triggers the usual welter of W-2 related expenses. Furthermore, since you would want those employees to regard their employer favorably, you would have to pay them more than minimum wage. So lets say you have 1 FTE to devote to your GM strategy, at a salary + expenses of 30K (so this person is making maybe 23K a year -- an entry-level hire, albeit a motivated one.)
E.R. is around a $25 CPM, so for 30K I can reach an audience of something like a million two. Now lets say that a national spot is a blunt weapon, so maybe only 50% of those people would ever even consider buying Jell-o® brand flavored gelatin, and that they need to see my ad 3 times to have it register. This means I'm effectively reaching, for $30K, 200,000 people, some percentage of which will salivate over my ad showing a Regular Mom making Jell-o® brand flavored gelatin Freez-Treets® in the shape of Pol Pot.
Now how many people can our eager $23K a year hire reach? Lets say the average micromarket is 100 people. (I suspect its smaller, but we'll put our thumb on the scale...) and our new hire, Felicity J. Gonzo, has 2K hours/yr to spend with these excited, loyal, and passionately engaged MMMs (micromarket members). Lets say that Felicity has such a winning way with the MMMs that to kno-o-ow her is to lo-o-ove her, so she is 100% more effective than SPP. Ergo, she only needs to reach half as many people to be as effective as my three SPP :30 spots on ER.
To reach 100,000 people 100 people at a time in 2000 hours (assume she never talks on the phone with her friends or uses the company computer to book plane tickets while the boss isn't looking), she has 2 hours per year to spend with each micromarket.
Uh oh.
Now you can slice this math any way you like -- pay Felicity less, make micromarkets bigger, give SPP a 10% catchment or 1% even, make Felicity 5 times as effective instead of just double, but there are serious counter-forces as well -- I can run my ad on cable for single digit CPMs, and, most worryingly, I might want to reach 100 million people, not just 1.
This last bit is a corker. The single, critical advantage of the SPP strategy is that, no matter how ineffective each ad is, it scales like a motherfucker. Strategies with low fixed costs and high variable costs always look terrifically competitive when they first launch, but the costs grow like weeds because unlike media, human costs only go up. So my biggest doubt about the GM idea is that, no matter how you arrange the costs, at some point in audience size, probably in the millions and almost certainly in the 10s of milliosn, the money you saved in not paying for your SPP up front blows up in your face in labor costs.
-clay
Hi again Clay. Maybe we can agree to disagree. The problem with math is its absolute reliance on absolutes. But the absolute you are missing here is that Gonzo is not an outward bound proposition; it's inward bound. That's where the cost savings occur. And I can't give you an equation because like Denise, I hate math. But I can give you a real-life example.
Ketchum pays me well to do what I do for them. In my daily travels on the net in the course of my work day, and in my spare time, I'm deeply rooted in this other world, involved in any number of micro communities with people of shared interests and concerns. We talk about all kinds of things. Sometimes I'm involved in these conversations during work hours. Okay, let's face it, I waver in and out of my micro life and my paid-for life all day and night. And I'm not alone. I know this because I talk to people.
Seemingly--if you look at the math--this would be a worst practice for Ketchum, wouldn't it? Why are they paying me my 40-hour-a-week salary if I'm weaving in and out of blogs and side conversations all day?
Intangible number one: I now know more about net marketing than anyone else in our office thanks to these new relationships.
Evidence: New business opportunity yesterday. Prospect asks us how the consumer internet has changed PR. I explain all about what is happening, consumer-to-consumer (C2C) right now, regardless of what businesses think of it, in these micromarkets, and their potential, and the role of the agency in helping businesses to help consumers reach one another. This is what the prospect wants to hear. So, am I not helping to tailor our messages, my employer's messages, more effectively? And without them having to pay me a penny more than they otherwise would?
Intangible number two: I can tap three great candidates for senior positions at our firm from those I've met in these micromarkets.
Evidence: I have *many* inquiries from amazingly-qualified people who've expressed interest in working for Ketchum, because I, as a representative out here chatting with my friends and foes, seem like I'm pretty darn happy with my job. And maybe I seem like I'd be a cool person to work with. How much would it have cost to target these senior candidates through traditional HR means? Not to mention, would we have found them? And would they care about Ketchum if they hadn't first gotten to know me? Calculate those savings.
There's many more intangibles, which if you want to hear them, I'll summarize and post on my other blog so as not to take up too much real estate here.
As for your observation that I "pay $45/month for DSL, but what about my time? at what hourly rate? Divided by what audience size?" Again, you're hanging too much on things being linear and they are *not* linear on the net. I'm doing ALL of it at once, Clay. I'm at work, at home, in micromarkets, talking with clients, talking with peers, learning to think better, to write better, all in the course of an ordinary day, for the same paycheck. And yes, I still manage to bill at nearly 100%, which makes me ever more loved by those who pay me.
Why do I do it? JOY! Simple, plain, pure joy.
So Clay, it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense mathematically. It's happening. Maybe we need a new formula to describe what's going on? I think you'd be the perfect guy to create it.
-jeneane
Ketchum pays me well to do what I do for them. In my daily travels on the net in the course of my work day, and in my spare time, I'm deeply rooted in this other world, involved in any number of micro communities with people of shared interests and concerns. We talk about all kinds of things. Sometimes I'm involved in these conversations during work hours. Okay, let's face it, I waver in and out of my micro life and my paid-for life all day and night. And I'm not alone. I know this because I talk to people.
Seemingly--if you look at the math--this would be a worst practice for Ketchum, wouldn't it? Why are they paying me my 40-hour-a-week salary if I'm weaving in and out of blogs and side conversations all day?
Intangible number one: I now know more about net marketing than anyone else in our office thanks to these new relationships.
Evidence: New business opportunity yesterday. Prospect asks us how the consumer internet has changed PR. I explain all about what is happening, consumer-to-consumer (C2C) right now, regardless of what businesses think of it, in these micromarkets, and their potential, and the role of the agency in helping businesses to help consumers reach one another. This is what the prospect wants to hear. So, am I not helping to tailor our messages, my employer's messages, more effectively? And without them having to pay me a penny more than they otherwise would?
Intangible number two: I can tap three great candidates for senior positions at our firm from those I've met in these micromarkets.
Evidence: I have *many* inquiries from amazingly-qualified people who've expressed interest in working for Ketchum, because I, as a representative out here chatting with my friends and foes, seem like I'm pretty darn happy with my job. And maybe I seem like I'd be a cool person to work with. How much would it have cost to target these senior candidates through traditional HR means? Not to mention, would we have found them? And would they care about Ketchum if they hadn't first gotten to know me? Calculate those savings.
There's many more intangibles, which if you want to hear them, I'll summarize and post on my other blog so as not to take up too much real estate here.
As for your observation that I "pay $45/month for DSL, but what about my time? at what hourly rate? Divided by what audience size?" Again, you're hanging too much on things being linear and they are *not* linear on the net. I'm doing ALL of it at once, Clay. I'm at work, at home, in micromarkets, talking with clients, talking with peers, learning to think better, to write better, all in the course of an ordinary day, for the same paycheck. And yes, I still manage to bill at nearly 100%, which makes me ever more loved by those who pay me.
Why do I do it? JOY! Simple, plain, pure joy.
So Clay, it doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense mathematically. It's happening. Maybe we need a new formula to describe what's going on? I think you'd be the perfect guy to create it.
-jeneane
I had a bit of theory there, but if it was wrong (folks?) I'm so sorry. I'd never want to go after someone who took the time and gray matter to chime in here except in exceptionally good fun and jest - especially in response to a first post! I may have to put my amateur Sherlock Holmes kit back in the closet if RB has NOT decided to follow clocke's lead and get himself an alter ego in the shape of you, Clay, just to stir the pot a bit... Anyhoo, I've never been great with math, which ranks among the reasons I went into law. But I think some of your premises are worth further examination. Are the costs of Gonzo Marketing as high as conventional marketing? I've got to think no, since ideally you're cutting out or down the high costs of (1) the internal and external personnel who write the somnambulistic promotional pitches no one really pays attention to or believes, (2) the slick brochures no one really cares about, and (3) the one-way, you-need-this-*honest* advertising that people actively run from. Instead, you're making more effective use of resources you're already laying out good coin for - and granted, perhaps laying out more of it to accomplish a gonzo result: your employees, the phone, e-mail, the web. You're also trying new things like underwriting real specific web or broadcast content that intersects with your micromarket(s). Does it let you raise your prices? People will pay a premium for excellent service and to feel good about where their $$'s going, but let's not get unrealistic. Of course there are limits created by competition. Will it increase your volume? Bound to, 'cause loyal customers will come back again and again. And will tell their friends. Apologies again if I was smoking grass before; I hang out in Southern California, it's what we do.
Friday, January 04, 2002
I understand that it is about micromarkets -- what I can't see is how servicing those micromarkets doesn't increase costs without increasing revenues. The part of your (Jeneane's) analysis I disagree with is that group communication is cheap. In fact, though group communication is cheaper than it used to be (the internet is the most important group forming network the world has ever seen), it is still more expensive than broadcast.
You pay $45 a month for DSL, plus how many hours of your time? At what hourly rate? Divided by what audience size? When you're done with that math, the (dollars spent/audience reached) figure is gonna look pretty grim.
So no, Gonzo is not free, and I'm not a baby. It has the same costs any marketing operation has, particularly people's time, but because it isn't broadcast, it doesn't scale well. (Complexity in broadcast networks scales with N; in group-forming networks it scales with 2^N. Ruh roh.)
As for "So what if paying attention involves a re-allocation of operating expenses? Learn to like it." there's only one thing that would make me like Gonzo Marketing or Total Quality Management or Learning Organizations or any other new thing, and that's if it allows me to raise my prices, lower my costs, or increase my volume without additional investment. What I'd like to see are some assertions about the math, because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that profit maximi-Zing, and it seems to me the math is Not Good for existing mass market goods.
Oh, and its my real name. Why wouldn't it be?
-clay
You pay $45 a month for DSL, plus how many hours of your time? At what hourly rate? Divided by what audience size? When you're done with that math, the (dollars spent/audience reached) figure is gonna look pretty grim.
So no, Gonzo is not free, and I'm not a baby. It has the same costs any marketing operation has, particularly people's time, but because it isn't broadcast, it doesn't scale well. (Complexity in broadcast networks scales with N; in group-forming networks it scales with 2^N. Ruh roh.)
As for "So what if paying attention involves a re-allocation of operating expenses? Learn to like it." there's only one thing that would make me like Gonzo Marketing or Total Quality Management or Learning Organizations or any other new thing, and that's if it allows me to raise my prices, lower my costs, or increase my volume without additional investment. What I'd like to see are some assertions about the math, because it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that profit maximi-Zing, and it seems to me the math is Not Good for existing mass market goods.
Oh, and its my real name. Why wouldn't it be?
-clay
To hazard an answer to "Clay's"** question, "liking it" is both precisely the point and beside the point. Reality in general presents much to like, and much to endure. "GM" makes the simple (if brilliant) observation that the more the latter is transformed into the former, the more each of us - as customer - develops loyalties and even passions about those to whom we choose to pay our hard-earned cash.*** Those choices - the who and how - have never been greater, and continue their exponential growth. Companies that fail to pay attention to the role of loyalties and passions in the parting-with-cash calculus will find themselves lacking any quarterly numbers to shred. So what if paying attention involves a re-allocation of operating expenses? Learn to like it.
** "Not his real name." Among other things, the e-mail domain is a dead giveaway... Or, am I spoiling all the fun? If so, my apologies, and here's a consolation prize from the folks at Sanrio, self-promoters the likes of which not even this crowd can approach: Kitty Credit.
*** By the same token, the more each of us - as worker - develops loyalties and passions about those to whom we devote our precious time.
** "Not his real name." Among other things, the e-mail domain is a dead giveaway... Or, am I spoiling all the fun? If so, my apologies, and here's a consolation prize from the folks at Sanrio, self-promoters the likes of which not even this crowd can approach: Kitty Credit.
*** By the same token, the more each of us - as worker - develops loyalties and passions about those to whom we devote our precious time.
Clay, Clay, Clay... You have it wrongo. It's not about your conversations with your customers, or GM's conversations with their customers, or Coke's with theirs. It's about the conversations already going on AMONG your customers, non-customers, potential customers, your grandma, your cousins, your mama's boyfriend (i.e. micromarkets emerging on the net--well fuck emerging, they're here... we're here). It's about our conversations with one another.
You're talking about what has been, but we're talking about what's coming, and in some cases, what's here. Better yet, Gonzo is free, baby. Not expensive. It just takes some creativity, wide-open thinking, and discarding of fear on the part of businesses. Group communication is cheap (jeez, I pay $45 a month for DSL and look at who I get to talk to). So don't be so worried, Clay.
But then, maybe I'm a doofus.
You're talking about what has been, but we're talking about what's coming, and in some cases, what's here. Better yet, Gonzo is free, baby. Not expensive. It just takes some creativity, wide-open thinking, and discarding of fear on the part of businesses. Group communication is cheap (jeez, I pay $45 a month for DSL and look at who I get to talk to). So don't be so worried, Clay.
But then, maybe I'm a doofus.
Hi everyone, Clay Shirky here. I just got here, though I don't think I'm going to be much of a team member or a gonzophyte. I heard CL give a talk on GM in December (hi Chris), and was left with the sense that it was a one-sided (buy-sided, in particular) analysis. In particular, I think the GM philosophy ignores message costs.
I can buy ad space for "Women 18-35" on TV shows my media buyers tell me chicks dig, the transaction cost of that is low and the CRM costs are low -- one group, one way message, one buy, done.
If, on the other hand, I have to have genuine conversations with my customers, the number of groups goes up, message tailoring costs go way up, and my CRM costs shoot through the roof. Gonzo Marketing, in this view, automatically reduces per-transaction margins, as well as making those margins variable because of my customers' new (and expensive) desire to communicate with me. So if unit margins go down and lifetime value of a customer also goes down because of increased CRM costs, I can only make it up in volume.
This proposition may work for occaisional high-margin purchases (think Gulfstream), but it stinks for the mass market (think Coke).
Group communication costs rise with group size because the only thing that can have a genuine conversation with my customers is a real live human being, which is looking like a $15/hr expense all in, and even if the number of people I am forced to hire is kept to a log scale relative to audience size ( an iffy proposition), GM looks to me like a way of making my customers happy and loyal, while shredding my quarterly numbers. If I run a business, what am I supposed to like about this?
-clay
I can buy ad space for "Women 18-35" on TV shows my media buyers tell me chicks dig, the transaction cost of that is low and the CRM costs are low -- one group, one way message, one buy, done.
If, on the other hand, I have to have genuine conversations with my customers, the number of groups goes up, message tailoring costs go way up, and my CRM costs shoot through the roof. Gonzo Marketing, in this view, automatically reduces per-transaction margins, as well as making those margins variable because of my customers' new (and expensive) desire to communicate with me. So if unit margins go down and lifetime value of a customer also goes down because of increased CRM costs, I can only make it up in volume.
This proposition may work for occaisional high-margin purchases (think Gulfstream), but it stinks for the mass market (think Coke).
Group communication costs rise with group size because the only thing that can have a genuine conversation with my customers is a real live human being, which is looking like a $15/hr expense all in, and even if the number of people I am forced to hire is kept to a log scale relative to audience size ( an iffy proposition), GM looks to me like a way of making my customers happy and loyal, while shredding my quarterly numbers. If I run a business, what am I supposed to like about this?
-clay
I'm actually trying to finish my review of The Bombast Transcripts in the next few days. Too many distractions at the moment. Damn you deadlines...Damn you straight to Hell...But not yet.
Jeneane is quoted in the "Advance Praise for The Bombast Transcripts" section with the following: "Chris Locke takes the nonsense that is business, wraps it in the sensibilities of art and philosophy, and transforms it into something much more palatable for the regular guy." Wow...you should write for a living or something.
Jeneane is quoted in the "Advance Praise for The Bombast Transcripts" section with the following: "Chris Locke takes the nonsense that is business, wraps it in the sensibilities of art and philosophy, and transforms it into something much more palatable for the regular guy." Wow...you should write for a living or something.
Okay folks. If you haven't bought The Bombast Transcripts yet, you'd better get going. Pick your favorite amazon associate and grab your copy today. It's shipping in just four days! Yours truly is apparently quoted in a place of honor talking about how our RB has transformed me with his racy writing and "top-50 business guy" thinking. I'm sure it will further inspire the team. Can't wait to read and post.
In lighter news, we've had some new team members join us--hopefully they'll post soon. As you see, Marek's stopped by. David W. is becoming somewhat of a regular. Even Locke shows up now and again. Other gonzophytes should be posting soon. Now if we could get Doc to add his thirty-two cents. That'd be a treat.
later.....
[sans cool little icon]
In lighter news, we've had some new team members join us--hopefully they'll post soon. As you see, Marek's stopped by. David W. is becoming somewhat of a regular. Even Locke shows up now and again. Other gonzophytes should be posting soon. Now if we could get Doc to add his thirty-two cents. That'd be a treat.
later.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)