Taking an Inventory of Computers

So Lauren and I were talking last night about the junk I currently possess. One thing is clear - there will not likely be room for all the computers I own. Currently inventory is:

  1. P4 desktop running XP Pro (my main home PC)
  2. Mac Mini with all my home recording gear hooked up to it.
  3. Old G3 Mac running OS9 (awaiting CDs for OSX installation)
  4. P3 desktop running SUSE Linux 9.1
  5. Another P3 desktop running SUSE Linux 9.1 (my environment for learning PHP/testing PHP code)
  6. Homebuilt file server running XP Pro
  7. Toshiba widescreen laptop (rebuilt after a hard drive crash)

Then there are the parts. I've got an old rackmount case that was my next server project. I can probably sell it, but I have tons of other video cards, sound cards, modems, NIC cards and other crapola lying around in various states of build. If I had any sense, I'd throw most of this stuff out, but here's my problem with that: Immediately after I throw out a computer part, I alway have a need for it a couple days later, and end up going to CompUSA to pay good money for what I just threw out. I hate it when that happens.

Maybe I could build a few PCs and donate them to relatives who need to get e-mail and surf. Hmmm...

Denying The Facts

You would be surprised at the number of meetings I've taken lately where the marketing folks are in obvious denial of the facts of the situation. I show them how folks are talking online on blogs, message boards, social networking sites and other communities about their brands, their products, their categories and their experiences doing business with their companies. Why don't they talk back? Answers most commonly given...

  • Legal won't let us.
  • We can't control the message.
  • We're conservative.

I show them the message board posts where people are asking for product recommendations, the blog posts where someone lauds the new product they just launched and has a few suggestions for improving it further. I show them the blog post from the guy looking to address a problem for which their product is the solution. I show them how to find these posts easily and quickly, so they can answer within an appropriate period of time.

Still, many of them can't answer.

Folks, if you have an entire department (marketing) that is ostensibly charged with communicating with customers, and another department (legal) prevents them from doing so, what good is either of these departments? The fact is that legal is preventing you from doing your job.

You can't control the message? You're right. I don't know what gave you the idea that you have been in control of the message until now. The folks on Fark made fun of your ads last week. Thousands of people have posted about your products in an unfavorable light. What makes you think you've ever had control? Maybe you did before the Internet. In any case, you're telling me you have control, I'm showing you how you're not, and still you look me in the face and tell me you're in control.

You're conservative? So's Michelle Malkin. And as much as I abhor her views, at least she engages in dialogue with her audience. Conservatism is no excuse for building walls and refusing to talk to the people who (might) buy your product.

I hate to be confrontational, so when folks tell me they're not prepared to entertain the notion of Conversational Marketing, then I'll move on to do business with companies that will.

An Open Letter to Joseph Jaffe

Dear Joseph: You asked me for some audio commentary for Across The Sound. I'm happy to oblige. Please copy this link into your browser, download the file and play it through iTunes: http://www.hespos.com/Noise_for_Jaffe.mp3 (Note: I changed this link to link to an MP3 file rather than a .m4a file.)

As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail, it's sort of a Limp-Bizkit-meets-Beastie-Boys kinda thing. As a song, it's a joke. (I can't picture Fred Durst or Mike D getting as worked up over broadcast-model advertising as I am.)

Putting any commentary on my actual musicianship aside, consider the following:

1) What you just downloaded took roughly 3.5 hours to record and mix, - from concept to finished song. And that's only because I'm not as familiar with GarageBand as I could be.

2) Recording quality-wise, you don't hear much of a difference between something like this and something that's churned out by an engineer in a professional recording studio, do you?

3) Whether it's recorded music, photography, animation, film, or what have you, the tools that churn out professional quality content in all these areas have all taken a giant leap forward, as compared to where they were 20, 10 or even five years ago.

4) These tools are now accessible to the average Joe. Figure the average musician might pay $1,200 for a decent guitar and amplifier, or for a decent MIDI keyboard. Another $500-$1,000 buys you a computer that gives you the means to record your stuff, tweak it to your heart's content, and distribute it digitally.

5) The barriers to entry shrink every day. Who knows what the entry price will be for a guy who wants to be a [musician, photographer, animation artist, filmmaker] in 3-5 years? Maybe the equivalent of $250 will get you an entry-level Macintosh with the means to produce and hawk your wares built in.

The point is, we owe the modern media landscape not just to the rise of the Internet, not just to the conversational nature of new media, but also to the production tools that are becoming easier to understand and cheaper to own every day. In 1995, I would have paid $3,000 (and did) to get a PC for digital recording. It was a 10th as powerful and 5 times more expensive than the Mac Mini I own for the same purpose today.

Remember when Bob Garfield did the rounds talking about the Chaos Scenario? About what would happen if the existing media model collapsed before something else could replace it? It was right around then that I started taking Garfield seriously. Garfield postulated at OMMA West last year that online media "wouldn't be ready" for the influx of dollars marketers were prepared to spend to find something to replace their traditional media buys, on which they spend more and more every year to achieve less and less.

We may not be ready, but I see what everyone else calls "Consumer Generated Content" (I call it Citizen Publishing) filling a big void. I see that marketers are going to have to take the risks associated with turning their brands over to potential ridicule by the masses. They're not going to have a choice - if they want to be relevant to our lives, they need to live where we live, which means they'll be as much a part of Web 2.0 as we are. The good companies will distinguish themselves by actually being meaningful participants in the conversations their customers start. The bad ones will continue to try to control the message. In short, Citizen Publishing may fill the void Garfield identified, and if that's the case, marketers will be navigating a landscape that's much more scary than the web was in 1994 (and filled with more landmines and pitfalls).

Enjoy the song.

Love, Hespos

Goodies In The Mail

This morning, a box full of copies of The ClueTrain Manifesto arrived here at Underscore Central Command, a few days earlier than expected. Good. I had the idea to send copies to clients a while ago. But I stalled, convincing myself that marketing directors, VPs of marketing and brand managers would intuitively gravitate toward the website (the entire text of the book is available online). Fat chance.

As I've been talking to folks about the underlying principles of Conversational Marketing, I find that not many of them have read TCM. I figure sending them their own copy to read will get them as juiced about Conversational Marketing as I am. So I bought a bunch of copies for clients, potential clients and friends of the agency.

I have a feeling that we'll be firing on all cylinders soon, when clients read the book and combine what they get out of TCM with the principles of the citizen publishing movement I've been coaching them on. I can't wait.

I think reading the book and drawing one's own conclusions on it will help undo some of the damage done by overenthusiastic ClueTrainers continually chanting "Evolve or Die!" in harsh tones over the course of the past few years. That's the one negative about TCM - in my opinion, quite a few folks got waaaaaay too standoffish about how they relayed the underlying principles of TCM back to corporations and marketing people. I vividly remember kilobyte upon kilobyte of e-mail flames volleying back and forth between me and folks like Eric Norlin, mainly because we were getting on one another's nerves with how we made our respective cases. The relationship between the converted and the old school marketing folk never should have been one characterized by condescension or an air of superiority. Let's just say I think all of us could have benefitted from speaking credibly in respectful tones rather than in the harsh rallying cries of violent revolution.

In any case, I think a few of the more nimble marketers with open minds are beginning to come around. Good. Let's encourage it.