September 4, 2005
it takes two years
Back home after a fun Saturday night in Glasgow. It’s turning out to be one of my favorite cities. There’s a real buzz to it.
Travelling too much these days. Glasgow yesterday, Edinburgh the week before, London this Tuesday and Wednesday, Cambridge on Friday, maybe Glasgow again at the weekend etc etc.
Thomas gets back from his 10-day vacation in the South of France today. So it’s back to work on English Cut for the both of us etc.
The Stormhoek project is getting more and more interesting, at least to me. In the Stormhoek brochure I posed the question,
Will the idea-virus spread far enough that suddenly, instead of one or two people knowing about the wine, suddenly tens of thousands of smart, connected people in the UK know about it, and are talking about it?
Is that enough to launch a national brand?
Although it’s still too early to answer that question definitively, my gut tells me, the blogvertising model works. But I think it takes two years.
Two years isn’t bad. A standard ad campaign takes nine months to gestate (strategy meetings, research meetings, media meetings, creative meetings, production meetings, meetings, meetings, meetings…) is EXTREMELY expensive, and rarely connects with people on anything other than the most superficial and banal levels.
Whereas blogvertising costs pennies on the dollar in comparison, gets people really involved, but takes two-three times as long.
I guess it all depends what’s more important to you– time or money.
"Hugh's Daily Cartoon" Newsletter.
A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.].
A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.
To criticise ad campaigns in the way you do seems unreasonable when you confess that you have nothing more than your gut to support what you’re saying about the effectiveness of blogvertising.
I don’t work in advertising but over the years I have dealt with a number of companies who spend a lot of money on it (TV and print media). They also spend a lot of money researching the effect it has on its target audiences and on understanding how that effect then impacts the behaviour.
Don’t misunderstand me. I actually believe you have a valid point about the changing nature of influence in the world.
However, I don’t believe you make your argument more compelling through broadbrush criticism of one means of promotion and unbridled enthusiasm for another — especially without using any facts to back these claims up.
“I don’t work in advertising but over the years I have dealt with a number of companies who spend a lot of money on it (TV and print media). They also spend a lot of money researching the effect it has on its target audiences and on understanding how that effect then impacts the behaviour.“
Heh. If you want to spend your money that way, feel free.
Hey, look on the bright side. If this doesn’t work, you’ll know that soon enough. And I’m sure these former colleagues of yours will be utterly delighted.
Because then they won’t have to worry about their jobs so much.
Stormhoek v Jamie Oliver
173 Drury Lane has a fascinating post that contrasts the econometrics model of accounting for ad value (Jamie Oliver + Sainsbury) and Hugh McLeod’s (Stormhoek) approach. The essence goes something like this: WPP Group (not mentioning Oliver&rsquo…
Blogvertising — it takes two years — says Hugh
Hugh provides more insight into his approach to marketing Stormhoek. Now he believes: Although it’s still too early to answer that question definitively, my gut tells me, the blogvertising model works. But I think it takes two years. Two years…
Hugh thinks I’ve missed the point. If the retailer is spending money then that’s their choice but as has been said of Sainsbury, they’re not exactly demonstrating value for money. If the brand holder spends the ad money then can he afford to wait two years to hit critical mass? Very unlikely.
In the alternative, the ad guy will say — look at our ROI — and again, taking Sainsbury’s case, that could mean all sorts of things — like without the ads they’d be suffering on top line revenue — it’s certainly an argument. It’s almost a Catch-22 in one sense. The brands really do believe that constant TV spots keep them alive…
The problem with advertising is not what it does. What it does is fine.
The problem with advertising is that it is very, very expensive. And getting more expensive in real terms every year.
Meanwhile, the traditional agencies have incredibly huge overheads. Which makes them reluctant to try developing cheaper alternatives, if any can be found.
Between a rock and a hard place, if you ask me.
All very well but the alternative, according to your own wods doesn’t reap the same results for two years. And because top line numbers are so important for retailers it is a Catch-22. Do I take the risk now and watch the results for say 6 months (might not be a right timeframe) or do I do what I ‘know’ works because I believe in a 65 year old theory? In the case of the wine thing, if, as you say, blogvertising outstrips traditional forms of advertising, then I believe there is the risk of running into problems inside the value chain. It is after all, a finite product. Unless of course, you’re effectively blending imported wines from larger producers and can scale supply at will.
What’s more important to me: time or money? Well both actually!
Going on the blogvertising model, if it actually works, the time scale won’t really be THAT much different than a traditional brand building campaign. I don’t care how much money you spend on advertising, building a brand takes time.
Now if this works with Stormhoek, and in 2 years in wildly successsful … your have got a good time result, and a far better money one … since this method is so much cheaper.
Time AND Money … and hopefully a more long-term benefits as well!
Dennis, since when did traditional advertising agencies acquire a reputation for building great wine brands quickly, inexpensively, or both?
News to me.
Can you classify the Stormhoek thing as blogvertising? There’s the Stormhoek blog that Hugh runs, but (I’m guessing) the bulk of the goodwill and good feeling towards the wine will come from the bloggers who recieved the free vino and reviewed it ‘cos they already liked Hugh’s blog and cartoons. like doing a favour for a mate.
Is that blogvertising? I guess it is, but not all that dissimilar to the way an Amazon reviewer reviews a book and sticks his/her thoughts on the Amazon site.
Is Hugh exploiting bloggers goodwill for a bit of free publicity? Hmm.. I don’t know Hugh, never met him, but I like to think he isn’t. But, I don;t really car eif he is. I’ve read his blog for long enough to think he’s a no nonsense kinda bloke. And if a blog review helps his income, while at the same time encourages a revolution in the advertising world, then all power…
Hugh, you sent me a bottle of wine, which I picked up in Edinburgh two weeks ago (BTW — very much wish I’d known you were in Auld Reekie at the same time.. but I was on a blog diet… Would’ve been good to hook up) I brought the bottle back to Saigon with me yesterday. I fully intend to review it when I’ve bought some suitable seafood to do it justice.
The thing is I WANT to review the wine. Firstly because I like quaffing vino. Secondly, because I’ve enjoyed gapingvoid since before I ever started blogging. As I said, kinda like doing a favour for a mate. But a favour you want to do.
The Marketing Plan is to Blog
I don’t blog much about blogging — mostly because I’m still learning. But I did want to post about this — using blogs as the prime marketing tool. I’ve come across two very different examples: Stormhoek Wine and Ojos (a
Can you say that Stormhoek isn’t already working?
.
I think before your users comment, we all need to know, what defines “working”
I also think most of the people here ARE missing the boat – even those that agree with you – the current generation of good wine purchasers, while it includes many bloggers, is not composed I would guess even 10% of bloggers. Wine is NOT something that makes a brand overnight – not good wine. I am sure someone will point out 10 or 20 8 dollar bottles of crap wine I’ve never heard of, but hey, that’s their business.
So, it’s a great idea – and Stormhoek ends up an innovator & market leader. It may take Stormhoek 2 years to be an “idea-virus”, or an established brand, but it takes a traditional french producer 20, 30, 40, or more years to become a brand. Of course, nepotism helps too, sometimes…
What if you did this with men’s razors? The latest Mach3, from some unknown company. Bloggers seem to be overwhelming male, young, & somewhat concerned with such things. I think you’d see the model pay off in a lot quicker than 2 years…
to clarify…
I think the blogvertising is the next big thing – the great idea – etc etc, all of this. The Cluetrain is here.
I also think it’s already helping Stormhoek – my entire office here in the States knows about it, even though we can’t buy it around here. When it comes here, we’ll definetly buy some bottles to try.
Now, if a small producer of Beaujolais started a winery last year, we wouldn’t know about it without millions spent.
So, yes, it’s working, & yes, it’s working quickly. However, young wines from south africa will never market as well as other things to any audience, in my personal opinion.
I don’t think people here should be criticizing your two year estimate – that’s fast for a wine, and until we see this used for a cheap sports car or super razors or a novel, how can we say how quickly this method will result in success?
Besides – it’s not about the pay-off, but the journey there.
I’ve been thinking about this blogvertising thing in the context of Malcolm Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”; a worthwhile blog amplifies the ability of one to be either a “Maven”, a “Connector”, or both, a la Paul Revere.
Hugh is acting as a Maven for Stormhoek, and his Blogging is Connecting us all with the brand. I guess the “Tipping” will come when Stormhoek production (or English cut, or whomever) can’t keep up with the demand. That’s an easy metric, no?
In a sense though, it’s just like traditional advertising — people seek out (or don’t filter) the good, interesting content. The Internet makes it a lot easier to find, and blogs make it easier to publish.
So is this the same old thing in a more efficient model? Or is the model itself fundamentally changed? I don’t know, but it’s fun to think about.
Good points Stace…
I think it’s a very similar thing, semantically, in that product knowledge is being shared.
I think certain applications are what traditional advertising STRIVES to appear as.
Penny-arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/) appears to be a successful implementation of this – a trusted source, honest & sincere, which drives hundreds of thousands of people to support causes, businesses, software, etc etc…
It won’t be apparent when you arrive at their site – but this is an idea-virus, this is something which is spreading throughout the internet. They only promote products they like, the products are purchased, and the websites they link to tend to be over-run with traffic in the first hour.
Just a quickl comment on this comic here. I really am enjoying all your comics, but this one in particular, I disagree with. The only person that can say they have outgrown anything, is yourself. So when your good at something, your good. I take that in a posotive light. I’m 27 and I still have handstand competitions with my friends and i will continue to have handstand competitions until I can no longer perform this feat…and not one person in this world can change that.
Just a quick comment on this comic here. I really am enjoying all your comics, but this one in particular, I disagree with. The only person that can say they have outgrown anything, is yourself. So when your good at something, your good. I take that in a posotive light. I’m 27 and I still have handstand competitions with my friends and i will continue to have handstand competitions until I can no longer perform this feat…and not one person in this world can change that.