April 2, 2005
company feedback
Now this does pleasantly surprise me. Donna Lynes-Miller, who works for the company that won yesterday’s “Beyond Lame” Award, left a message in the comments:
We appreciate your comments about the GourmetStation blog and our fictitious character and site host, T. Alexander. We are a small pioneering food company and we see the blog and its content as a way of adding value to our patron’s experience. What T. Alexander has to say about food is not as important as what our patrons have to share about their culinary adventures. We believe that our blog strategy is appropriate so long as there is full disclosure that T.A. is fictitious. We believe that blogging is not yet a fully defined term, process, or model… so it is difficult to say what is fake and what is real. Time will tell. In the meantime, we appreciate your feedback.
Perhaps more difficult for some people than others, Donna.
One of the most unpleasant jobs I ever had was writing a 10,000 word brochure for a luxury 60-foot yacht.
The agency thought because the product was “upscale”, the writing style had to be pretentious and fake. “Imagine yourself surrounded in the sumptuous, princely luxury that only the discerning few will have the rare priveledge to experience yak yak yak…”
It was 6 weeks of hell, writing that. Utterly dreadful.
Sounds like your ad agency sold you that same schtick. Yak. Yak. Yak.
A great food brand or a great food blogger is no different than a great chef. She needs passion and authority. Methinks your T. Alexander persona has little of either.
As an upscale food company, can you really afford that?
Still, kudos and thanks for stopping by and giving your side of the story.
Hugh, keep the pressure up — Donna has the time to comment you, hopefully she will take the time to dump T. Alexander and write herself. That would be nice for all, except the PR/Ad people of course.
Hehe, you’re spot on re luxury yachts… eh, what other adjective could you use? I have some interests in that industry and it annoys me no end, the yak, yak, yak. As much as the yok, yok, yok of big software firms and the plop, plop, plop of… you know.
Add the magazines, the ones who writes about any industry that sells ads to the same people. Ever seen a critical review of anything there? Nah, never. Those glossies are doing exactly the same as Gourmet Station, except there are no disclaimers there.
One of the largest yacht magazines reviewed a newbuilt motor yacht, big one, last year. Designed by one of the most well-known interior designers around, his first yacht. The review was of course another yak, yak, yak thing, not a critical point.
A few days ago I had a beer with the captain — the yacht has not a single piece of furniture fixed, not a proper place for a glass — it takes most of the 17 crew 24 hours to prepare the yacht to leave harbour! I would call that a mishap design-wise worthy of mention in a review… but ads have to be sold etc.
Hugh,
I have respect for your opinion on this, but knowing some of the people involved in this project there are a few points that have been missed in the discussion.
First T.A. isn’t new. He’s been a fixture of this small company’s newsletters for a while. So he’s jumping off the page and onto the screen.
Next it is Donna, and two others, writing. T.A. is their alter-ego, a persona. Your example of having to write a brochure in a voice you couldn’t put yourself in is a great one. These folks have formed, fashioned, and created a person that is probably some parts themselves and some parts the “store”. I think this blog is something to watch because it opens the blogosphere to a whole world of fun, cool blogs that are people’s alter ego, or characters from books.
That being said, I also strongly believe that if you’re writing as a alter-ego that needs to be disclosed up front and often. So no one confuses these muses. Think about how many great writers have created great characters for weekly columns, alter-egos that let them write in another voice because maybe their name is already associated with another topic. Maybe the hard-core sports writer is also a real wine expert. So maybe to write a wine column he writes as a character or pen name.
Just my two cents.
Tris,
you’re a person (I guess), thus I might want to respond to your comment. T.A. is not a person, not even one using a pen name, he’s a construct like Mickey Mouse (whose words also are devised by real persons).
I’m not inclined to discuss with Mickey Mouse, nor with Michael Doonesbury — but I might like their personae as cartoons.
In a brochure, in the standard push-thinking, a cartoon, a concept-character is fine. As a representative of the firm it’s not.
Open up and interact with people and you need to have a real person, pen name or not, push, cram and bluff you’re fine with a constructed character.
In conclusion one wants to stick to good old ‘marketing’ as in push, and do not want transparancy as in interaction. Too bad as I think the latter will win, after all any business have only two tasks — interact with customers and make the friggin product.
Donnna, where are you?
I responded in the original thread before I found this one and the hypocritical judgmentalism still irritates me and calls me to make a second post.
The fact is many people would call Hugh “fake” and “lame” as a cartoonist (not me, btw), since his drawing ability isn’t up to industry standards. Standards defined by whom? Syndicates and “early adopter” cartoonists and readers, basically.
But Hugh said, screw you, I’m going to do what I want to do, and he’s found an audience who appreciates his work. (Way to go, Hugh!)
So if people say “I’ll using blogging tools the way I want to and screw your pompous self-importance” then I say, more power to ‘em!
For those of you who get stuck in a blogging box, just remember people will someday shake their heads at you and say, “those old lame asses just don’t get it.”