Comments on: kill all beta males

By: cynthia

cynthia — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:10:27 +0000

funny, i just watched the excellent documentary about enron (“enron: the smartest guys in the room”) and my exact thought when it was over was “kill all alpha males.”

By: john

john — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:25:54 +0000

I agree with you — when I talked about authenticity I was thinking not so much of the Stormhoek situation.
I guess I was thinking out loud as to whether other people seeking the cookie-cutter blogging solution you refer to might think — we don’t need our own blog (after all stormhoek are doing fine but no conversation occurs on their blog) why don’t we just drop our own propoganda into the blogosphere and start conversations there? That to my mind would be unquestionably inauthentic but neverthless it runs the risk of enhancing the “chatroom nonsense” point of view.
P.S. Kudos for saying ‘good luck” to those wanting an off the shelf solution, but aren’t you just a little bit tempted?

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:53:55 +0000

John, I think you’re missing the point. This isn’t about the just about Stormhoek.com, or even the internet.
And as Johnnie Moore likes to say, it’s more about changing oneself, not the customer.
Blogging as a marketing tool is easier when you think of it as a chemical catalyst, not as a hammer and nail.
It seems to me what a lot of people are hoping for from the whole blogging-as-marketing thing is a tested method that is (A) easy to implement, (B) easy to replicate and © easy to sell to their boss.
Sadly, the Stormhoek story is not that.
Secondly, to say a conversation about Stormhoek marketing is less “authentic” than a conversation about Stormhoek product is a false distinction. They both are part of the same process.

By: john

john — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 04:41:52 +0000

I made the comment on the Stormhoek blog having listened to the podcast in which Jason I think wisely said that sales had doubled since they started blogging rather than assign direct causality. I was interested to investigate where the conversations that ripple out were occurring because they clearly weren’t happening on the official authentic blog. Initially I thought that didn’t matter — after all, to bastardise a phrase, there’s no such thing as a bad conversation!
But then I wondered, if the conversation seemingly doesn’t occur on the original blog at all — does that blog need to exist? In other words, is it solely a case of generating word of mouth in the blogosphere and beyond? Are the conversations about Stormhoek wine or are they about the role of blogging in Stormhoek marketing? Does that matter and, if it does, are there ways to effect a change without impinging on the authenticity of the conversations?

By: One By One Media

One By One Media — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:57:43 +0000

Blogging Transmogrified

Following a statement, Hugh MacLeod today asks the question:
The point of what we’re doing is not getting people to leave comments on a certain URL. The point of what we’re doing is selling wine.

Which makes me ask the question: When doe…

By: gia

gia — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:34:42 +0000

You shall be seeing me at LIFT, Hugh… Doncha worry.

By: Hemaworstje

Hemaworstje — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:16:44 +0000

nice nice , cute , don’t stop , if even one see’s it , y’r job is done.