Comments on: ooze: short for “objects of sociability”

By: Johnnie Moore

Johnnie Moore — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 04:19:19 +0000

Osmosis seems like another good metaphor; I think the idea of permeability eludes some brands that want to be in charge, telling us what they are and not really letting us influenced them.
I’m with Hugh on the Ooze word. Yeah it may suggest sliminess… but think of how kids respond to slimy stuff… the word (for me) suggests playfulness which seems quite handy.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:24:18 +0000

I’ve never been groovy before! Cool.
os·mo·sis (ŏz-mō‘sĭs, ŏs-)
1) Diffusion of fluid through a semipermeable membrane from a solution with a low solute concentration to a solution with a higher solute concentration until there is an equal concentration of fluid on both sides of the membrane.
2) A gradual, often unconscious process of assimilation or absorption
Sounds right up your street to me!

By: Alex Krupp

Alex Krupp — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:01:22 +0000

I am huge into social foods and social objects. I have a teapot in my room just for that purpose. Tea is a social food that brings people together. Another one is freshly baked bread. Chinese hotpot is too, but that is more obscure.
There are social objects too. Crayons and a coloring book. Bicycles built for two.
And of course wine. So if you are trying to market Stormhoek as a social object, try to position yourself more against crayons and coloring books and less against other alcohols.
In fact, I would recommend this strategy highly

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 21:38:19 +0000

D'accord, John... Names are important, but it's not up to me which name sticks. In the same way, "blog" ended up being the name that stuck, even if some people preferred "weblog" or "online journal" or whatever. "Marketing by Osmosis" is groovy... not sure if it means exactly the same thing, but hey, it's all good.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:28:10 +0000

We’re not really in disagreement — but names, like design, are important because of the instant impact they have. I’m just saying that because the idea is good, it’s best to avoid a name that implies sliminess and thus old style marketing. I like the web 2.0 variants much better.
The only alternative I came up with was the rather contrived
Osmosis — operating socially makes our stuff interesting stuff
which was partly tongue in cheek but does capture the essence of the memetic marketing idea.

By: bp

bp — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 03:28:35 +0000

where’s the cartoon on ooze?

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 21 Jul 2006 02:39:59 +0000

And ads?
Ads can still be ooze if they offer people something cultural currency and the advertiser lets them go.
Honda choir is ooze — enjoyed, downloaded, remixed, subverted and remade.
And in many ways the work we did for Ronseal in the early nineties — giving people the phrase “it does exactly what it says on the tin” is ooze.
Ads can still be part of the conversation if they add something to the conversation.
R

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:11:45 +0000

John, it’s OK to not like the “Ooze” name. I just invented it because I couldn’t be bothered calling it is full name every time.
we could add a letter, perhaps.… very web 2.0 etc.
“dooze” dynamic objects
“fooze” fluid objects
“mooze” meataphysical objects…
or. whatever. hey, we could call it ‘fred”. my uncle has a very nice dog called “fred”.
the name doesn’t matter. the idea matters.

By: Philip Stanley

Philip Stanley — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:02:56 +0000

Hugh,
Neat concept, but I think you got the the terms the wrong way round:
Waves are Ooze, they go through and go further (and come back…).
Particles stick. But as they are two aspects of the same thing, it is not that important. The recognition of the dynamic of the process ist the most important factor. Thanks for the edification!

By: robert

robert — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:09:25 +0000

“In my opinion ooze is too slimy ” John Dodds
How about ‘BRIBE’ or ‘BUNG’ or “Cross my palm with Oooze errr.….I mean a non-corruptive gift/pressie/acknowledgement of services to secure market share by placing my product on prime shelf space on the supermarket gondola”?!
Ooze is the word. It is a good word. Very apt too.

By: Balaji Sowmyanarayanan

Balaji Sowmyanarayanan — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:32:50 +0000

The metaphor is bit confusing.
Wave: Governed by probability( Chance)
Particle: Deterministic ( There is predictability, control)
IMO, Ooze = Wave might be a better metaphor.

By: Roger Wilks

Roger Wilks — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 10:34:41 +0000

I think that Ooze works fine but social currency is not handing out anything it is simply, but difficult, granting another the right to accept or reject your offer of communication without getting involved in did she say yes or no. Just hey your there and I there or we are both here.
Loved Loic’s blog

By: Slava

Slava — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:31:35 +0000

Oh yeah? Well I think that Booze is the future of marketing.

By: John Dodds

John Dodds — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:27:31 +0000

In my opinion ooze is too slimy — you need a better name that cannot be derided. Anmd no I don’t have one — yet.

By: MarkN

MarkN — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 04:23:09 +0000

Now if you had said “Cooze is the future of marketing” you would’ve had me.