November 26, 2004

the lovemarks-cluetrain deathmatch (cont.)

3 Comments

zzzlokjib02.jpg
I’m having a good time this week, watching the Lovemarks-Cluetrain Death­match con­ti­nue on una­ba­ted.
This is inte­res­ting: when you goo­gle “Love­marks”, the top four entries are Lovemark-Saatchi-Kevin-Roberts rela­ted. Fair enough. That’s to be expec­ted.
Entries five, six and seven are me and John­nie Moore offe­ring coun­te­rar­gu­ments.
Wel­come to the Blo­gosphere, Kevin.
The best thing I’ve read all week (Lovemark-related or other­wise) comes from Tony Good­son:

Clue­train feels like ours. Love­Marks feels like theirs.
Why are the battle lines being drawn for Clue­train v Love­Marks?
Isn’t Love­Marks trying to say the same thing?
What is it about Love­Marks that’s win­ding some of us up so much?
Is it Kevin’s voice in the book and on the web­site?
Is it that there’s an incon­sis­tency and con­tra­dic­tion in parts of the book?
Why does our gut feel tell us that there’s something mis­sing or wrong?

Part of the pro­blem is, of course, when an adman starts tal­king about “Love”, one’s first ins­tinc­tive reac­tion is a com­bi­na­tion of humor, pity, sus­pi­cion and con­tempt. The peo­ple I know who’ve done quite well on Madi­son Ave­nue wouldn’t know what “Love” was if it jum­ped on their lap and peed on them.
“Clue­train vs. Love­marks” is really about “Ours vs Theirs”.
Exactly.

3 Responses to “the lovemarks-cluetrain deathmatch (cont.)”

  1. Rich...! says:
    November 27, 2004 at 4:10 pm

    Hehe, nice idea, wish I’d con­si­de­red doing that…!

  2. Piers Fawkes says:
    November 27, 2004 at 7:05 pm

    Here’s a dif­fe­rent argu­ment tho, Hugh ;)
    The Pro­blem Of Viral Bran­ding
    http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4499&t=marketing&iss=y

  3. Piers Fawkes says:
    November 27, 2004 at 7:08 pm

    Here’s a dif­fe­rent argu­ment tho, Hugh ;)
    The Pro­blem Of Viral Bran­ding
    http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=4499&t=marketing&iss=y