October 21, 2004
this is really bizarre...
[UPDATE: Don't even ask...]
Can somebody explain this to me? I've been quoted saying:
Errrrmmmm.... I wrote no such thing. Nor is it in the post on gapingvoid it links to...."Blogs build market momentum and get adoption. Ask Buzz Bruggeman, CEO of ActiveWords, about this one. He's gotten world-class reviews in the newspapers you all love and know (just a week or so ago ActiveWords was in the New York Times). But he gets more downloads of his product when I linked to him than when a famous "USA" newspaper wrote a glowing review. They have millions of readers. What am I missing here? Yet I've had product managers for products that make billions every year tell me that they'll just advertise in national newspapers and get the same "kick" that blogs will get them. (They look at my puny 4,000 readers per day and laugh. Keep laughing, but do your homework and ask Buzz about his experiences -- he's not the only one who's noticed this. Ask Nokia (or, even the marketers at Microsoft) about how important a good link on Engadget is)."This excerpt only shows up in the RSS feed of the article - presumably it has been edited out of the webpage version of the post...too bad - Hugh hacked out the most compelling part - read it again: gapingvoid is better marketing vehicle than USA Today because of the trust relationship that Hugh has with his readers.
Somebody is trying to generate faux publicty via gapingvoid. Truly bizarre.
Well, I just blogged it, so I guess they're getting their wish. Yes, I see the irony. Heh.
[UPDATE:] Heh. False Alarm. It was me quoting Robert Scoble, and Carlos thought he was quoting me. That is all. Indeed, the part he quoted was on my website for a time, but then I deleted part of it to make folk go read it it on Scoble's blog, rather than just read the whole thing on mine.
And because I was reading it out of context I didn't recognise it as part of that larger Scoble piece. My mistake. Mea Culpa.
Eh. Been working hard this last week. My brain's kinda fried so I guess it's not surprising these things happen.
Anyway if you haven't yet read the Scoble piece "Are you afraind to blog?" please go do so. It's a good one.
Posted by hugh macleod at October 21, 2004 5:36 PM | TrackBackThis is from a Scoble article. I can't recall if it's the same article you linked to (Are you afraid to blog?) or if it was one of the other pieces on his blog page that day. I guess some people assume that everything you link to is your work...
Posted by: Brian Field at October 21, 2004 6:10 PMHugh,
It looks as if a quote of Scoble was mistakenly attributed to you:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2004/10/19.html#a8431
Scroll down to Scoble's observation #6 and you'll see it.
This did appear in the RSS feed for your "are you afraid to blog" article. I distinctly remember it because I'd already skimmed through it on Scoble's blog, but when you wrote "If you don't get it"... I made a point of reading it again on your blog.
Hmmm.... whatever. Doesn't sound like that big a deal. I thought at first it could be something more weird than that.
This is what happens when you read everything through an RSS reader. You miss things. Arrrgh.
Posted by: hugh macleod at October 21, 2004 11:00 PMWorse than being mis-quoted/mis-blogged is the quality of Hugh's recent cards. Bad stand-up comedy (crude, no laughs, no incite) I can go for elsewhere.
Perhaps the real Hugh has been kidnapped and an imposter has taken control of his Blog.
Is this the new crime of the post-brand marketing age?
Sorry Ben. I must try harder ;-)
Posted by: hugh macleod at October 21, 2004 11:49 PMNah, I think in the spirit of the original author, I think we should let the market decide. {}:_)*(
Posted by: Ben Wharton at October 22, 2004 12:46 AMYay! Markets making decisions!
Posted by: hugh macleod at October 22, 2004 1:14 AMif you've been reading hugh's blog long enough you know that the latest cartoons are a return to form, not a new direction. hugh's audience is not only divided, but polarized. some of us love the dark comedy and get bored and drift away with the branding/marketing stuff. but we pop up again when he brings it back. a psychology thesis could be written about how we all reveal ourselves based on which posts we choose to comment on.
Posted by: cynthia at October 22, 2004 1:14 AMWhy anyone comments about anything is not worth a thesis - we either approve/disaprove/want to score points/want to add to a discussion/are bored/want to jack off/fancy the person we're conversing with/hate the person we're conversing with/need to support them because they're supporting us/need to destroy them because they're stopping us supporting ourseleves or our loved ones or employeed ones/we're trying to sell something/we're trying to buy something/we like talking to strangers/we like the look of our words in print or on the web/we're lonely/we want to make a friend/we want to improve our (chosen language)/the person has touched something that's been bothering us and now we need to bother other people about it to help us to think more clearly about our emotional state.
There's a few more, but nothing worth 50,000 words - or three letters.
I guess I haven't been part of Hugh's audience for long enough. A return to form? I love Dark comedy - that was two weeks ago or thereabouts.
This is, well, bitter. That seems about right.
Posted by: Ben Wharton at October 22, 2004 1:39 AMare you taking my hyperbolic statement literally or is that intended to be humor?
Posted by: cynthia at October 22, 2004 2:06 AMTotally straight. I obviously have deep issues with hyperbole. [I am smiling at this point - but of course, in all seriousness]
Reminds me of an old episode of Star Trek.
Posted by: Ben Wharton at October 22, 2004 2:14 AMHey...I thought it was a great piece! Thanks for running it. And, I would be remiss in not suggesting that I would be happy to give you a copy of ActiveWords. Blogs rock! Many days half of our downloads come because of people blogging about us.
Posted by: Buzz Bruggeman at October 22, 2004 3:56 PM