Misunderstanding Gonzo Marketing in 2 points

A new post instead of an answer to Gaspar's comment on Rise and Fall of Blogging since I think it shines a new light but from a different angle. I titled this "Misunderstanding Gonzo Marketing" since it distinguishes "Broadcasting" and "Audience". As I bonus I dare to say that mostly no one gives a shit about Para-Olympic Games.

Here we go.

Two points drawn from Gaspar's comment: 1) Not only popular large readership blogs risk becoming online publishing and 2) I don't think broadcasting is a bad methodology for dealing with physical limit of conversations one can engages in.

Point 2 first: One's blogging can have large readership. One does not have to "Broadcast" necessary even if one doesn't have enough time to engage in all those small converstions with a large readership body, an 'audience'.

The distinction of "Broadcasting" and "Audience" is that of Ontology and not of Methodology. One can use broadcasting as a methodology and not be a "Broadcasting" entity. One can build an audience one engages with without it being an 'Audience' to 'Broadcast' to.

A 'Conversational' business uses broadcast as a methodology in a conversation with the market, with its readership, with its audience, with its customers. This in fact I think was one of misunderstandings of Cluetrain and especially Gonzo Marketing. On a Cluetrain mailing list someone once wrote 'How could it ever by physically possible for a corporation to engage in all those conversations with all those customers" and one of my thoughts at that moment was "They don't have to. We don't mean 'Conversations' as a physical activity - as in a person opening their mouth and talking to another person, that's just a sound exchange between two nodes, a physical activity. At some point, because of scalability, a corporation as a node engaged in a conversation with customers as equal nodes can't accept equal time back from all the millions of nodes wanting to talk back so a corporation turns to broadcasting.

The question is then. - Does a conversation disappear? Well, it depends, broadcasting as a method, a physical solution, can definitely be a conversation as an ontological distinction. You can have a conversation by broadcasting to millions. It's not a question of physical ability and scalability capacity, it's a question of a commitment to a market which the corporation is building with its customers.

As to point 1). I think that most people coming to blogging today are seeing it as publishing and not as conversations... I don't think they see the distinction between being engaged as a "Conversational" node in the network of conversations and being busy producing content for publishing, a node broadcasting to as many places as possible to gain audience share. Without that distinction I think the new bloggers may find themselves in a world fighting for link (a survival of the fittest or the quickest) without ever finding another world to be engaged in as an equal participant in a conversation.... well on the other hand; fuck them, let them fucking broadcast their shitty content.

And finally as to your comment about "small conversations": Yes, Billions of Websites, let the noise begin! Small conversations everywhere. A perfect example: A Neighbornode. The extensible neighborhood network. What a great project. Blogging could be about acting locally rather than being on a quest to gain a worldwide audience (Hi Will Wheaton). On the other hand the many people's local neighborhood life sucks and they would rather live in a dreamworld of worldwide audience.

It's sort of why no one really gives a shit about Para-Olympics. (I say that because I saw this article snippet of news from NPR."Despite being the biggest athletic event in the disability community, the Para-Olympics gets no live coverage in the United States". Well, what would be so interesting in seeing a cripple beat up another cripple in a 100 meter race? Here is the solution. Take a famous american athlete and cut off one of his legs. Then have an american corporation create a fantastic prosthetic leg for him, then have him compete as a pseudo-cripple - Now that would win many endorsments and Para-Olymipc Games will get live coverage.)

It also brings to mind people who would rather give one hour of their life to Oprah's TV show every day rather than to their teenage child. Oprah is brilliant, teenager's an idiot. So I guess those with propensity for publishing would try to be like Oprah and build audiences, those with propensity towards having teenager idiots would in this case probably try to find other parents who deal with their teenage idiots and perhaps discover their children are in fact brilliant - well, more like the retards in Para-Olympic Games who against all odds in life are working things out for themselves. Good for them. I think I will officially now declare myself a Para-Blogger in hopes of one day to compete with other retards, bloggers who are just not smart enough to monetize their skills. Good for us.

Comments

[Jon Husband]

Conversations don't hang around .. there's no "Save" button

[K!]

How true.
They do disappear!

[Jon Husband]

Your audioblog manifesto says it so very well ... delicious. Thanks !

[memer]

Broadcasting can be one side of a kind of low-level conversation. The other side of that conversation, the response, can be measured in sales/eyeballs/buzz. It's the preacher-flock, call-response kind of conversation.

I think the distinction broadcasting and (true?) "weblogging" may be in the level of interactivity.

[Kombinat!]

memer,
I think you point to the method. There are disctinctions in methods too. The level of interactivity is a distinction of a method for me. I was trying to point to the 'conversation' as a openness of enagement even if it's 'broadcasted' as a method.