Comments on: crappy wine

By: muntaqim

muntaqim — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:50:35 +0000

good better best

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:02:12 +0000

I know what you mean, Tom. The Beeb is a real paradox.

By: Tom Coates

Tom Coates — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:44:29 +0000

Well I don’t think that you can really describe the BBC as an organ of State social control, although I guess you might have a case for social cohesion. The BBC is editorially independent from government, mostly more trusted than government and is regularly accused by every single political party as being biased against them in one way or another. It has a committment to be independent, and the support of the public to do so. It’s as much of a consensual hallucination as government, but that doesn’t make it an agent of government.

By: Licence to Roam

Licence to Roam — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:15:17 +0000

Snippets

Following up on my Rude Britain post, YesButNoButYes actually finds pictures of some of the place as well as pointing to the full list. The British Library project Turning the Pages™. Is just wonderful. Works are filmed, turned into 3D…

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 18:02:26 +0000

Sam, I said they were “Socialised” Media”, not “Socialist”.
“Socialised” as in an organ of State social control/social cohesion.
It’s not always a bad thing– societies that can’t cohere tend to fall apart. So it behoves the State to set up cohesion mechanisms. The BBC is one example.
To be fair on them, they have a tough job… they have to compete with both government agencies and private media companies in order to justify their existence. It would drive me nuts.

By: Sam Sugar

Sam Sugar — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:15:57 +0000

Hugh,
Labeling the BBC as a socialist organization — as you did by implication, seems counter to your point. In effect you’re saying ‘blogging’s online capitalism’ — I think that’s an enormous leap.
Everything else you said I agree with.
I’d guess from your posts that you’re not a Grauniad reader but am surprised to see your politics in your posts so clearly.
(N.B — Dennis Howlett — please stop using pornography as an example of the most base comercialism or philosophy. I suspect you know little about it.)

By: Frankie Roberto

Frankie Roberto — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:50:00 +0000

“Frankie, the kind of reviewer you’re describing is anything but.”
I agree with you. Unfortunately, it’s all too common in the mainstream media, and is one of the reasons that bloggers have more credibility. And, as you seem to agree, if bloggers undermine this trust then readers will become more sceptical.
In light of this, where do you disagree with Ben exactly?

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:43:21 +0000

Sadly I have to agree with the ‘Hugh critique’ brigade. While I applaud his approach to marketing his increasingly vicious and personal attacks do him no credit. Which is a shame.
If he’s not careful, I suspect he’ll fall into the Benetton trap of creating ever more outrageous photoshoots that eventually get panned and canned.
There has to be a point where creativity in using this medium is balanced by commercial reality. It is only fair that, for instance, when Hugh makes commercial claims, that he supports his thinking. But no — instead, we’re treated to an explanation why the world is wrong. He may be right but empires don’t fall in a day. Neither do they collapse overnight. It takes time. They have to see that things can be different. But it gets worse.
Getting talked about in an environment that is increasingly looking like a mutual masturbation society doesn’t spread any word. It becomes blog pornography. Blogocircles perhaps.
Attacking the very people who espouse this medium isn’t a conversation it is an annihilation. Introducing their employer into the frame isn’t on.
Be creative by all means. Be controversial. But please stop treating like imbeciles those that seek to critique or who have a different take.

By: nick

nick — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:34:36 +0000

I think Hugh might have hit on something by noting his own experience on opposite sides of the pond. There’s a too-often-run advert on American television for some pill or other, featuring a woman saying ‘They’re giving it away for free? It must be good!’ As a Brit, I find that statement totally bizarre and counter-intuitive.
But. Anyway. I don’t think freebies are a good conversation-starter. They can have a part to play in existing conversations — for instance, if TiVo were to provide Matt Haughey and the community at PVRblog with access to beta features or even new kit — but even then, freebies need to demonstrate their worth in the blogging environment without relying solely on the word of the blogger.
Compare the non-bloggy approach by my personal favourite winemaker, Sean Thackrey (www.wine-maker.net). He doesn’t update often, but he has put online a fine collection of classical and medieval texts on wine-making that you won’t find anywhere else. If he were to blog a little about the process, it’d be perfect. And Thackrey doesn’t need to market his wine: in fact, his site is valuable because it lists the limited number of people who stock it. It’s a classic word-of-mouth success.

By: Damien Mulley's Blog

Damien Mulley's Blog — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:13:01 +0000

Wine Freebie Promotion leaves Sour Taste

Oh come on, it was too hard not to use such a tabloidesque post title. Anyway, so someone called the wine that Hugh Macleod pimps “crappy” and Hugh went off and shredded the guy and even drew a nastycard about…

By: Damien Mulley

Damien Mulley — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 06:54:26 +0000

The cluetrain states markets are conversations, the hughtrain appears to be use the cluetrain but viciously attack someone that disagrees with you. Going for the jfor Ben’s jugular and trying to explain away his opinions because of who employs him is quite amateur.
Tom Coates’ analysis is spot on.

By: Tom F

Tom F — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:44:09 +0000

What a galactic waste of time.

By: Tom Coates

Tom Coates — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 05:09:30 +0000

Can I just check what Hugh means by socialised media too? Is it just a pun on Socialism or something more interesting? If it’s the former, then really it’s a bit disappointing — every major western power how some form of publically owned or supported television. Most have some healthcare and state education systems as well. We’re passed a point — surely — where the mere existence of government-supported agencies constitutes socialism?

By: plasticbag.org

plasticbag.org — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 04:42:29 +0000

A response to the rhetoric of weblog marketing…

The story so far… Ben Metcalfe takes a vague swipe at the Stormhoek wine that Hugh MacLeod is marketing through the blogosphere. The approach Hugh is taking is to offer free bottles of the wine to webloggers on the understanding…

By: James Boardwell

James Boardwell — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:27:59 +0000

I worked with Ben and he’s certainly no apparatchik. He’s no one’s stooge, he’s a firestarter!
For what it’s worth I think Tom Coates gets to the nub of the issue. If Stormheok were to run a blog about this [well they do!] then fine — tell us about the provenance of the product, it’s story and allow people to buy into it or not. But to use your visibility as a *trusted* blogger, albeit a marketing one , is to undermine your position of trust in a medium that values transparency and preferably non-commercial transparency. A liberal, personal, non-commercial discourse with it’s own set of values is becoming very powerful in the blogosphere. It’s a nice counterpoint to increasing State power and government neo-con discourse don’t you think?
As far as the BBC not being able to accept that social media doesn’t need it [socialised media] — I think that’s wrong. The BBC isn’t insecure about bloggers/social media — from my own experience there they were trying hard to find ways to plug into social media more as a way to represent interest in and a range of opinions around a subject/issue/event. Social and socialised media can and do exist together quite well.