Comments on: unique currency

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:34:43 +0000

Stormhoek is not anonymous at home, Daniel. At least, not in SA wine circles.
Secondly, Stormhoek is mainly export market, not domestic. We don’t really market it in SA.
Techtonic’s lack of mojo is not my problem

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:28:09 +0000

Hey Jeremy, “a lot” starts kicking in once it starts turning into action, as opposed to just yappin’ on about it.
There’s a famous fictional line from a stereotypical French bureaucrat:
“Well, your idea may work in practice, however sadly it doesn’t work in theory.“
Welcome to the blogosphere

By: David Zinger

David Zinger — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:05:45 +0000

I appreciate the unique currency concept.
In Canada we minted a $3 coin. Most Canadians don’t even know about it and it is a good way to win a cheap bar bet. I carry the coin in my pocket…it was probably more valuable in its plastic minted numbered case but I believe it needs to be in circulation.
We also have a 3-headed quarter in Canada. If you flip a coin it always comes up heads.
Your currency work, 500 word manifesto collection, and business card art are rich resources.
Thanks.

By: Jeremy Heigh

Jeremy Heigh — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:40:01 +0000

Hugh, of course that’s what uniqueness depends on … that’s how it’s defined. But how is it attained?
The guy you’re making fun of above has a point — you sort of suggested a gradient of uniqueness. You described something as “more unique”. I’m not caring about any definitional failure — but is more unique just fewer others for better reasons?
Or is it better hybrids? Slicker mixes?
You’re pointing at something worth understanding. You might be highlighting something most people don’t consider so explicitly. You might have a point here that’s worth far more than the few paragraphs you’ve given it until now.
You said you’ve been thinking a lot — how deep does “a lot” actually go?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:34:04 +0000

Some thoughts from here, too, Hugh : wandering
between the links of this page ( http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?id=1306&s=news ), I bumped into the, presumably, “Best Food and Wine Store” category in South Africa’s e-commerce.
To my shock, Stormhoek was not even mentioned on the list of local wineries at wine-selling sites…
Do you think this is the ultimate level of global microbrand, anonymous at home even when well known
outside ?
I’d like to here what you think.
Daniel

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:53:30 +0000

Simon, if not sounding like an anal pendant was your intention, you failed

By: simon

simon — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:47:55 +0000

Hugh,
Something is either unique (one of a kind) or it is not — ‘rather unique’ does not exist. Similarly, ‘quite unique’ and ‘very unique’ don’t work, but are widely used descriptions nowadays, particularly in the media. I like your stuff a lot and don’t mean to sound like an anal pedant, but plenty of good creative work is let down by sloppy use of language.
Cheers,
Simon

By: Joaquín

Joaquín — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 06:00:43 +0000

Yes, a function of personal experience,… AND love. The way you love is the way you portray yourself, and that is unique for every individual. Love for yourself and then for everyone else you interact with. Just like you integrate a function in Math to add up all the area it covers, you integrate your love to find out the value you bring to the table…
That´s how ¨The Love Mark Backlash¨ will begin Hugh…

By: Valeria Maltoni

Valeria Maltoni — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:23:14 +0000

This makes perfect sense. And it’s about finding a way to cross pollinate and cross learn all the things we experience throughout a career/life and make it *the* thing.
You know, the secret to life? The *one* thing that expresses the sum of all that you’ve become in a way that is just you and nobody else.
For Hugh, it’s the card *and* the writing style, *and* the Stormoek, *and* the commentary on a tech conference — they all radiate Hugh, loud and clear.
What is it for you?

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:17:50 +0000

Jeremy, the “uniqueness” depends on how many other people are doing/not doing it, and for what reasons.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:12:39 +0000

Dennis, love you to bits. Stop being an arse. You know exactly what I’m talking about
Hey BL

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 05:08:20 +0000

Hugh — love you to bits. Stop being an arse, Talk straight.

By: B.L. Ochman

B.L. Ochman — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:59:31 +0000

Ultimately Hugh, I think your artwork will hang on the walls of great museums because it is still your most unique currency.
I think a lot about what my unique currency is for the long term. And more and more I think it ultimately will be a product that I think of that is based on all of the experience to date.
Because in the end effect, it would be nice to be able to retire one day and know that whatever it is I created is still providing value to people while i am off dancing on a beach somewhere.

By: Jeremy Heigh

Jeremy Heigh — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:49:43 +0000

How much does the “uniqueness” of currency depend on the distance between the areas from which other parts of the hybrid are made?
Does Stormhoek benefit most because you’re working through your marketing experience and spanning the fairly large gap to wine-making?
Will advertising benefit as much when Eric is spanning the fairly narrow gap from his experience in TV?
Would Eric’s currency be intrinsically more unique if he chose a target further off, like selling briar pipes or designing menus for chic restaurants?
Or is uniqueness grown on something else entirely?

By: Eolaí gan Fhéile

Eolaí gan Fhéile — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:18:34 +0000

Would unique currency be another term for branding of the personality? Which I suppose makes a brand a Microbrand? And throw in the Web, and then you’re global.
Crudely put, to sell yourself?