PhotoDude.com

Sun. May 12, 2002

Gonzo Marketing: Evolution, Not Revolution

Gonzo Marketing: Evolution, Not Revolution – There’s been a lot of commentary since I reacted to the article in The Guardian on ”Gonzo Marketing,” and to some, my admittedly sloppily presented position seems one of opposition. As usual, things are not quite so binary.

Dan read some resistance in my tone, and Doc said: "Reid Stott has trouble believing advertisers will go for anything so gonzo as underwriting and sponsorship [...] Done right, underwriting and sponsorship are acts of corporate heart. Advertising tends to involve other organs."

For some reason, bathroom breaks during commercials come to mind. Anyway, to me, this is about the language of the conversation. The semantics. That means I have a lot to say.

And I should point out, lots has been said on this subject before I pecked out the first word, by people who have put a lot more thought into it for a lot longer than I have. Some of this recent web-wide discussion was prompted by the article in The Guardian. True to the nature of media, we get, at best, an encapsulation of a larger story. In this case, it’s a whole book, Gonzo Marketing, by Christopher Locke. According to proper punditry procedure … I haven’t read it.

Geez, suddenly I feel like Bill O’Reilly.

But since my first post, I have read the excerpts and chapters available online, and some things become clearer. From the info online (and later confirmed via e-mail), it appears the book goes into some detail on an actual business model for this approach, and acknowledges its trial and error nature. But I don’t think the book’s overall intent is so much the nuts and bolts of such arrangements, it’s the necessary spreading of The Big Idea. Well, I tend to be a nuts and bolts guy. And I’m a guy who tends to want to cut through the rhetorical foundation of the well established Big Idea to, ”OK, just how do you expect Tab A to insert in Slot B? And stop saying gonzo, it makes the suits nervous. We’re trying to make this work.”

I could be wrong, but I think Jeff Jarvis is somewhat the same, judging by his response to my entry. It seems he’s been having concrete conversations in a similar vein, as I know others have. So, keep in mind, while others are discussing real action, and writing books on the topic, I’m just shootin’ the breeze. But I think I can offer a good nuts and bolts level perspective. I’ve listened to (and satisfied) the questions and needs of advertising clients for 25 years. I have a strong grasp of advertising at the retail level. And I’ve also long been involved in the concepting and execution of advertising, and how that must be ”sold.” Plus, I sit on both sides of the table, as the author of this weblog, and a community photolog that would be ripe for the right sponsor relationship.

And I can tell you from both sides of the table, I want to be able to arrange the nuts and bolts without being bound to a standard of purity. I want room to negotiate mostly unbound by ideology, because you’re dealing with a wide range of potential responses.

We all know, there are some companies who will never get it, at least, not before we’re too old to do anything about it. As Jeff says, when confronted with this concept, their reps "will stare at us like confused German Shepherds," and then tell us our site looks weird over their WebTV at home. Then there are companies that have some clueful individuals who will finesse this type of program through the proper channels. They will use no GeekSpeak or buzz code. Maybe without even knowing it, they will be the ”inside resistance.”

But then there’s the third and perhaps largest group of potential sponsors: those who want it safe, but better than before. They’re comforted by what has gone before, because it won’t ge them fired. Some will be convinced to slide part way out on this new limb with you, if you ply them will some of the familiar. Purity of ideology may be compromised, some settling may occur during shipping, but the ball starts rolling down the hill, even if it is slightly misshapen.

For example, while many have been pleased to see Mickey Kaus tie the knot with Slate, there’s also been a few who bemoaned the fact it looks different, and doesn’t have all the sidebar links like it used to. Hopefully those are design issues that will be resolved with time, as this seems like a somewhat sudden arrangment.

But if not … is that compromise a worthy one for the progress gained? Is it better to have 95% than 0%? If the next Weblog/Community Deal involves co-branding, or fairly prominent ads, etc., will that be viewed as a sellout, progress, or just more of an already failed old world approach?

In the course of making some other points, Eric Olsen says: I myself would have no problem with ’tasteful’ ads of some sort on my site: more in the NPR model of ’support’ rather than screaming ’buy me’s,’ but as long as the cheese factor was kept in check – and no God-forsaken pop-up ads – then no problem, buddy.

But lately, there have been times I’ve flipped to PBS, and become convinced it’s been swapped with a commercial channel. If you hit during the transitions between shows, there’s a shocking amount of plain old style advertising. It’s ”shocking” because of the long held expectation that PBS is ”commercial free.” Now, they’re doing what they have to do to survive, but the point is, what happens when web logs suddenly show forms of commerce beyond the expected Pal Pal buttons and Amazon affiliations? If a community becomes openly sponsored, will it alter the community?

Nigel Campbell speaks to those issues in the commments to my previous entry: "I wonder how your impartiality will be judged once you pick up corporate funding? And what will be the reaction of the client if you write about something that could be detrimental to their business? For me the model is Macintosh, who have always believed (and also relied on for free advertising) in end users promoting their products because they loved them (or MacEvangelists as they are called). I actually doubt that my pro mac arguments would be as convincing if I was on the payroll. "

Sponsorship could give the perception of a changed environment, but ads do indeed pay for content. I’m reminded of it everytime I’m trying to read an article at [insert news/mag site here] and some Flash ad scrolls down to cover most of my screen. My momentary irritation is immediately answered by the thought, yep, that’s how I’m paying for this free content.

Of course, I couldn’t tell you what the ad was for.

The ad was totally disconnected from the reason I was there: interest in specific information. I don’t know about you, but unfortunately, most of my interests involve spending money. Companies have to figure out how to hook into that search for information, and the money flow that often comes with it. Even within the company itself, that will have to happen from the bottom up. Some clueful individuals will have to spread the word among their coworkers, ”hey, there’s this site that’s all about our business/widgets/market.” They will have to educate their co-workers and bosses, ”this is a good thing for us. And compared to those full page ads in Widgets Quarterly, it’s cheap.” They will have to do it in their boss’ language, using specific examples.

Perversely, as I see it, in some ways the ClueTrain, this book, and similar tomes represent … the mass marketing of an idea. The top down approach. The approach that is needed to widely distribute the broad idea, despite the inherent irony in this case. The specifics, the actual nitty gritty of making it work, is a bottom up approach. It likely won’t be ad reps or tome authors making it work. It will work because of direct conversations between individuals, representing company and community. My argument is mostly one about the language and semantics of those conversations.

Often times good ideas are presented with such fervency they strike the very people they most need to influence as primarily anti-authoritarian thought. And that perception colors the underlying idea. But if it comes from bottom-up within their own organization, or is couched in familiar and non-threatening terminology, it will have greatly increased mileage.

Instead of presenting a Revolution, we must present an Evolution, and appeal to the native competitive spirit of capitalism: ”We’ve all seen how the old ways of advertising didn’t translate well. Be a part of shaping a new way.” Promote cost benefit, and present this as a new form of niche marketing that enables conversations/communities from which the company benefits. Couch it in somewhat familiar terms, as new ideas can scare the status quo into complete inaction. Be flexible, and open to doing what makes the deal work, even if the client drags a portion of the Old World along, like a forlorn but comforting favorite blanket from childhood. Remember there are two sides, and the benefit must be clear … in plain language … for both sides.