So, my previous post which made reference to Hugh MacLeod’s wine pimping has (somewhat unintentionally) hit a nerve.
So much, in fact, that Hugh has decided to lay in some pretty hefty punches – not limited just to words, he’s produced one of this trademark back-of-a-biz-card cartoons too:
According to his post, apparently I am an “apparachik” (sic), have a “suck ass” job at an employer whose “currency is control” and have a chip on my shoulder.
Hmmm. Thanks Hugh. I’m beginning to wonder whether the gaping void is between his ears?? 🙂
Hugh’s a nice guy, but his recent business venture to push wine (I’m not even going to mention the name as that’s PR in itself) along with suits and other stuff simply strikes me as a cheap, blatant cashing in on the blogosphere and his position in the blogosphere. Even his term “blogvertising” strikes me of selling out (read the description of “how to do it”)…
And no Hugh, I’m not against commercialism despite the preconceived, unsubstantiated views you write about me on your blog. You can find out more about my views on this in my comment on his blog (scroll down, it’s comment #13 I think).
So, in a similar vain as Mr MacLeod I’ve produced this (admittedly not as well drawn) back-of-biz-card cartoon to illustrate my view:
Hugh MacLeod: Will blog for food.
I’m looking forward to meeting up with Hugh at the December London Geek Dinner (or sooner) to chat this over with him over a beer/lemonade (not wine!).
I was looking forward to the evening with Robert and others but now we get a side show “The digerati boxing” as well. Can we promote this like celebrity boxing … 😉
Ah, another defender of the “purity” of the blogosphere.
Pray tell, who died and left you in charge?
It really doesn’t matter if you “invented” the blogosphere, once it existed. the people who had work to do recognized its usefulness as a communications channel and started using it as they saw fit.
As a survivor of many paradigm shifts, it amuses me no end when “those who consider themselves authorities” see someone using their precious technology in ways they never expected.
“But, but, you’re not supposed to use it that way!” is the distress call of yesterday’s expert.
The blogosphere is the domain of citizen publishers of all stripes. You are certainly welcome to your viewpoints and conclusions, but you will have to contend with those of us who have been looking for this kind of tool for many years and intend to use it as we see fit.
Blogging is a conversation. You don’t have to join it, but once you do, expect some responses. On the plus side, your traffic builds with every comment, even if they are less than favorable.
I don’t consider myself to be an authority, and I’ve never claimed it’s “my precious technology”.
David, your comment really doesn’t move the debate forward. I’ve posted it because I post all comments up unless they are spam/offensive.
You see, I’m as much a defender of the blogs = conversation concept as the next person, despuite what you seem to suggest. However, to use such lines as “pray tell, who died left you in charge” in response to my comment on the issue kind of suggests that you aren’t.
Heh.
I’m quite looking forward to this dinner. Between you and Hugh, and Ian and Scoble, it should be full of nice middle class boys fighting.
Bliss. It’ll be like that bit at the end of Briget Jones, but with jokes about PERL instead of cake and chardonnay.
I don’t *quite* get what’s wrong with cashing in on your reputation, wherever you’ve gained it. If there’s a disconnect between where you gained your reputation and what you’re selling, you don’t have a lot to lose – but, conversely, you don’t have a lot to gain either. Just because Hugh’s a good blogger doesn’t mean he’s a good judge of wine, after all!
At the end of the day, the product stands or falls on its own merits. Drink some of his wine, and if it’s shitty you won’t buy any. If it’s nice, you might. And it’s not like he’s not upfront about his business relationship to it.
Shrug. I guess I’m just old fashioned, but I don’t see the problem.
Those cartoons. Don’t give up your “suckass” day job fella.
I’m with Ian (one above). Direct your fire elsewhere if you have issues with marketeers abusing media to sell their products. Have a read of Andrew Marr (no less) “My trade”, the recent comments by Dylan Jones, and dozens of other media commentators. UK newspapers, consumer magazines and the local press are stuffed full of dubious product placement, advertorial and “honest” reviews without anything like the full disclosure offered by Hugh and his obscure (lets not kid ourselves) wine.
Ian, there is no problem with cashing in on your reputation or power of your blog. I assume everybody does it and if not, they should.
It is about not doing it smart enough.
hahaha, nice one.
I think your cartoon is better 😛
Hi Ben:
Interesting argument with you and Hugh. Wow, did he go over the top – you clearly hit a nerve.
But I do have a simple question for you to consider: What are the rules, as you see them, with blogs and advertising? What’s “allowed”?
What’s off-limit?
And why?
The main problem I have with Hugh isn’t his commercial acumen. I applaud it – if he makes money from blogpimping – fine.
However, whenever asked hard questions to justify his position, he chooses instead to attack the questioner. I’d say it has got to the point where it’s pointless asking a sensible question – like an analysis of ROI that could be put in front of a mainstream marketer. In fact I now rarely watch what’s happening because a good proportion of the time, I find him offensive and arrogant.
It’s sad really because he is a change agent, he courts controversy but in the end, much more of this and I can see it will come back to bite him in the backside. And hard.
Heh. Blogging for food. Yes, that’s the whole point. And if we can fast cars and big houses to the list, even better 😉
Not sure if I agree with the “hefty punches” idea, Ben.
One, I never (except very, very rarely) publish a cartoon related to the article written below. I like the juxtapositon of different thoughts. Sure, you may have inferred I was implying your job was “suckass”. I wasn’t (I know your work too well to think that, let’s not kid ourselves), but apologies if you took it to mean it that way.
Two, eh, ribbing someone who works at a big, state-owned monolith about being an “apparachik” is no big deal. No worse than calling someone like me a pimp. Or my PR friend, Dave Parmet a flak. Next time I’ll put the word in quotation marks.
Three, I don’t think I’m either cashing in or selling out. What I’m doing with English Cut and Stormhoek is what I’ve always done. Write about marketing, try out ideas, see what works or doesn’t, share what I’m learning with my readers.
Four, I don’t think you satisfactorily answered the main point I made in this discussion. Why is it OK for your employer and Microsoft to use social media to push their agenda, but not a little wine company in London? I don’t think it’s evil hypocrisy on your part, I just saw a double standard there that you obviously didn’t.
Five, I’ll gladly buy you a drink the next time I see you (non-alcoholic, of course) and hopefully we can have a good laugh about it. I think you’re a good, wickedly smart, decent person, we just happen to disagree on a point. I’m guessing the reason we’re having a “spat” is because we both believe in blogs and the ‘sphere so passionately. Especially our own end of it.
Rock on.
[…] Well, this ties two recent posts nicely together: My spat with Hugh MacLeud about his wine pimping and Google admiting their search engine is manipulatable to googlebombing. […]
PS. I disagree with Dennis. He doesn’t ask the hard questions, he asks the easy questions.
“A sensible question – like an analysis of ROI that could be put in front of a mainstream marketer.”
Yeah, like, as if that’s going to solve a major marketing problem. Too funny.
[…] In a recent post, they’ve decided to bring up the whole crappy wine thing again: If you go back into the last 90 days of blogging, you’ll see that the blogosphere’s conversations about Stormhoek have ranged from our marketing model to the econometrics of Stormhoek vs. the 28 million spent by Sainsbury’s on their Jamie Oliver campaign to BBC blogger Metcalfe accusing Stormhoek of having an unfair advantage over our competitors by blogging (We were especially pleased with that conversation). […]
[…] In a recent post, they’ve decided to bring up the whole crappy wine thing again: If you go back into the last 90 days of blogging, you’ll see that the blogosphere’s conversations about Stormhoek have ranged from our marketing model to the econometrics of Stormhoek vs. the 28 million spent by Sainsbury’s on their Jamie Oliver campaign to BBC blogger Metcalfe accusing Stormhoek of having an unfair advantage over our competitors by blogging (We were especially pleased with that conversation). […]
[…] I’ve already talked at length about Stormhoek and the way they have used the blogosphere to promote their wine (in a way I feel somewhat unpalatable). Recently bathroom cleaner Cillit Bang even went as far to create a fake blogging personality to engage with people blogs (often at a far too personal level) in order to promote their product. […]