August 26, 2005
we want to be part of something
Excellent points by Technogoogles about the Stormhoek Blogger’s Wine Freebie:
I’ve been following Hugh’s sideline, ie new client, with interest. He’s levereging his muscle in the blogo-world to generate some PR for a wine called Stormhoek by giving away free samples and asking people to comment upon the wine in their blogs — and in doing so creating some ‘marketing disruption’ [his term, not mine]. It’s the marketing as conversation thing. However, what Hugh and Stormhoek are doing is circumventing that period where ‘use’ grows into ‘advocacy’ and by doing so it risks being just another ad campaign albeit one using a different ‘channel’ and a slightly different method. Advocacy is different from buzz and High risks not so much ‘disrupting’ marketing as being very much part of the ‘push’ marketing machine.
Fair enough. So I left the following in the comments:
Sure, wouldn’t we all love the blogosphere to be magically turned into product pimps. But that would be too easy, too predictable.
Not to mention, ineffective.
What’s more interesting to me, and more part of the long term plan, is not using bloggers as an external advertising mechanism.
What’s far more interesting to me is how this interaction with the blogosphere will affect the internal conversation… how it will affect the internal culture of Stormhoek itself.
In the Hughtrain, I wrote “the future of advertising is internal”. This is what I’m talking about.
The story isn’t, “Buy this product so you can be more like us”, which is what typical ‘cool’ brands try to do. We want to be more like them, not the other way around. We dig what’s happening in the ‘Sphere, and we want to be part of it.
So it’s more about “outreach” than “selling”.
i.e. We want the conversation to move from the external to the internal, not the usual “firehose” mass media internal-to-external.
That’s the plan, anyway. And yeah, I agree, there is some risk. But you got to try these things.
Some time ago Jeff Jarvis wrote, to paraphrase, the future of marketing is not, “Here’s why you should buy our stuff, but more “We’re interested in the same things you’re interested in.”
Like I said, it’s all about “outreach”. It’s about wanting to be part of something interesting, something larger than the actual product.
That being said, it’s early days in this brave new world of ours. And I’m interested in finding out what the edges are. The only way to do that is by trying out different ideas. Some work better than others.
But it’s something I (and a lot of my readers) find endlessly fascinating.
[BONUS LINK:] I would cite this as a “textbook example of what blogging is good for”. Absolutely brilliant.
Your Stormhoek blog marketing is fascinating (and when is it coming to Canada, by the way?
I read an article last week in the Canadian newsmagazine Macleans, in which the author claims that blogs don’t deserve the hype, especially when it comes to marketing. I had to laugh when he mentioned wine:
“Will blogs fundamentally change the media business, or any business for that matter? Well, did do-it-yourself wine kits change the wine industry? Think about all the homemade plonk you’ve had to drink over the years. Sure, everybody thinks the merlot they stirred up in a plastic bucket in their basement tastes fantastic. But try selling it.”
The article is here:
http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20050822_110872_110872
Interestingly, the author has a blog:
http://weblogs.macleans.ca/allbusiness/
I guess he figures nobody reads it…
Marc
Call me old-fashioned, but it sounds to me as if you are co-opting the integrity of the bloggers — and no marketing doublespeak can put a good face on that. Sure, it may work — for now. But once the novelty wears off and people realize you’ve turned blogs into just another advertising vehicle, you’ll have to find another way to manipulate and decieve your audience.
So what do you suggest, Grigor? A 30-second Superbowl ad?
Seriously, I wouldn’t call you old-fashioned (I’m quite old-fashioned myself, truth be told). I think it’s more to do with “missing the point completely”. Which is OK, not everybody gets it etc.
A trifle defensive are we, Mr. Macleod?
Clearly I’m not suggesting blowing millions of dollars on a Super Bowl ad. That’s not the answer. But neither is employing underhanded tactics like product placement on blogs. Is tricking customers the best way to insure their loyalty? It may work in the short term, but it’s one gimmick that will get old fast — especially once readers get wise.
Like I said, maybe I’m old fashioned, but I read blogs to gain a unique perspective on the day’s events — not to have someone try to sell me wine or widgets or whatever. (To be fair, a lot of blogs these days have already sold out to their corporate masters.)
But let’s say I’m wrong — which I freely admit is a distinct possibilities. Maybe using blogs to shill Stormhoek will prove to be an epoch-shattering success. It still doesn’t mean it will work for other clients. To depend on blogs to build brands and push products is just as foolish and shortsighted as depending on that Super Bowl commercial. Yeah, it may do the trick for a small wine company. But for Nike or McDonalds or Coke, maybe not so much.
In today’s ever-shifting media landscape, the only rule is that there are no rules. Everything is subject to change. Blogs are hot now; six months from now, they may be obsolete.
Here’s the thing. Despite your tendency to offer vague generalities and stale platitudes as pearls of wisdom, you are obviously a very bright guy and you are worth listening to. But your arrogance and smugness get in the way.
You seem to feel you have it all figured out, that you bask in the glow of enlightenment while the rest of us poor fools stumble about in the dark. You dismiss my concerns by saying that I’m “missing the point completely.” I’m not offended: I’m amused. Because it’s funny how you sidestep any meaningful debate or constructive dialog.
Ah, but then you would run the risk of acknowledging that you don’t have a monopoly on the truth, that maybe your way is not always the right way. You may actually find yourself reconsidering some of your ideas and opinions. Heaven forfend! Far easier to hide behind a veil of sarcasm, sneering and scoffing at anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.
As unworthy as I may be, at least I’m open to new ways of thinking. Maybe if you’d taken the time to explain your point of view instead of blowing me off in a manner befitting a petulant third-grader, I might’ve come ’round to your way of thinking.
I’m willing to admit that I don’t have all the answers. Are you?
Hey, this was fun. Thanks, dude.
Well Grigor, again, I’d say you’re missing the point.
1. “Yeah, it may do the trick for a small wine company. But for Nike or McDonalds or Coke, maybe not so much.” Anyone who would write that phrase has not been reading my stuff very carefully or at least, not for very long.
2. I asked you what do you suggest, and I got no suggestions. Just an multi-paragraph rant.
So I’m not that convinced by your phrase, “I’m open to new ways of thinking.”
The fact that you don’t seem to have a blog yourself, nor are you forthcoming with any ideas/suggestions of your own, leaves me to conclude that you’re just letting steam off, for reasons that probably have a lot to do with your own job/career, and have nothing to do with what I’m up to. But I’m glad it’s been fun for you.
Sorry Grigor, but I’m with Hugh… I think you’ve completely missed the point of the Stormhoek wine freebie.
You said: “But neither is employing underhanded tactics like product placement on blogs. Is tricking customers the best way to insure their loyalty?”
How on earth did you arrive at the conclusion that there’s anything underhanded or tricky going on? Hugh gives away free wine, says feel free to blog about it but YOU’RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION to do so.
You have to assume that there will be/have been people that received Stormhoek, thought it tasted like ass, and have blogged negatively about it. That seems to be a calculated risk by the Stormhoek folks. If you had to sign an agreement that you’d only say positive things about Stormhoek even if you hated it, THAT would be underhanded (and then you’d be IGN.com reviewing Halo 2, but that’s a whole different rant in and of itself).
Mr. Macleod, I fail to see what my not having a blog has anything to do with the price of tea in China — or wine, for that matter. I have neither the time nor the inclination — nor, for that matter, the talent — to write one. Besides, I’m not the one acting as if he is the font of all enlightenment. I freely admit I don’t have all the answers. That’s why I said I was open to new ways of thinking. As for me just blowing off steam because I have a lousy life and/or job, again, you are taking the easy way out by hiding behind insults and assumptions.
Scottie, on the other hand, has offered some very compelling arguments in your favor. So much so that I have reconsidered my original stance and admit that I did miss the point of the Stormhoek wine freebie. For that, I apologize.
But I still stand by my other statements.
I won’t waste your time or mine by continuing this discussion any further. I will simply end with this: My criticisms, while harsh, were meant to be constructive. If you had made your case as persuasively as Scottie did, you would’ve sold me. I think you will do well, Mr. Macleod — but you would do even better if you didn’t dismiss opinions that don’t jibe with your own. If you stop looking down on others, you just may gain a better perspective.
Adieu.
Actually Scottie, the risk wasn’t that calculated, simply because it’s actually a very good wine for the money.
I’m not saying “it’s the best wine ever in the history of the world, forever”. At $10 a bottle, that would be silly.
But for a $10 bottle, the concensus seems to be that it punches well above its weight.
And yeah, sales have been really good, so far. Way better than expected. Hope it lasts.
From what I’ve read other people say about Stormhoek it sounds like there wasn’t much risk of people not liking it. Being Seattle-based as I am, I haven’t had the chance to try it out for myself yet… something I hope to remedy soon.
Any word on when that may happen?
No worries, Grigor. See you next time.
P.S. Here’s a tip: If you want people to give your thoughts proper consideration, try not accusing them of deception, underhandedness and doublespeak right off the bat. Works wonders
Scottie, we’re hoping to have Stormhoek in the US stores by year’s end, touch wood.
Also, we’re going to spend less effort in sponsoring “big” blog events– BlogOn, Reboot etc… and concentrate more on sponsoring the geek dinners.
It’s “smaller”. Smaller is more cool, y’know?
My comments seem insignificant now, but I wanted to say how the cartoon summarizes the New Zealand national attitude toward entrepreneurs quite well.
Yeah Jack, same in Scotland as well
Hugh,
Interesting to read your view on an aspect of Scottish culture next to Jack’s view on New Zealand entrepreneurship.
I returned to my Scottish homeland last year after living in Auckland for 10 years.
I left Scotland in 1995 because I knew I would benefit in lots of ways from living in a different culture. One of the unexpected gifts that New Zealand gave me was the awareness and courage to be more entrepreneurial.
I launched three small businesses whilst living in NZ that did OK. Not great, but OK (someone once told me that you have your training wheels on for your first 3 business ventures, which has certainly been my experience).
Many New Zealanders often refer to the national problem of the ‘Tall Poppy Syndrome’ ie. achievers who need cut down to size, and how such a mindset is hindering economic growth. I used to chuckle at their comments, responding along the lines of ‘New Zealand is a winner’s paradise compared to Scotland’.
Having been back in Scotland for just over a year and running my own business development business, which is doing better than OK (training wheels off at last!), I’ve made a number of scary discoveries that I was never aware of whilst I lived here:
1. Scotland’s demographic projections make frightening reading — an aging population, low fertility rates and the talented young heading off to greener pastures.
2. Embarrassingly low levels of entrepreneurship, as highlighted in annual GEM reports (the authority on global entrepreneurship benchmarking).
3. A large and expanding proportion of the working population living on government/council salaries (someone told me the other week that over 50% of the working population in Fife works for the council — must check the validity of that statement).
Toss in the spectre of everyone demanding cheaper prices for goods and services that are fuelling the growth of Chinese and India (and subsequent loss of jobs here), and the question that’s been keeping me awake at night is:
Who’s going to be paying taxes here in 15 years?
In my view, our only hope is smarter businesses selling high added-value products and services (less widget stamping and more ‘up the value chain’ stuff by means of constant innovation (which also keeps bright folk emotionally engaged and professionally satisfied).
But there’s the rub.
Innovation requires enthusiastic, positive, can-do, risk-taking cultures — nationally, organisationally and personally.
‘Edinburgh, we have a problem’.