April 1, 2005

"beyond lame" goes upscale


Couldn't wait a whole week before posting this latest "Beyond Lame" Award:

It's fake, and it's upscale. Just like the people you hope to one day be like.

Nice one.

[Thanks to BLOGthenticity for the pointer.]

Posted by hugh macleod at April 1, 2005 10:02 AM | TrackBack

Contrast this to Neal Foley at http://podchef.motime.com/ - he blogs, he cooks, he podcasts himself cooking - he truly loves food and giving to other people. It's not very polished - but it's true.

Posted by: lloyd davis at April 1, 2005 11:57 AM

Hugh, perhaps you could post these without saying "beyond lame"? Right now I'm wondering if I'm finding the blog to be fake because that how it comes across, or because that's the way you primed my brain to think about it.

Posted by: Mark Wubben at April 1, 2005 2:53 PM

I'm entitled to my own opinion, Mark ;-)

Posted by: hugh macleod at April 1, 2005 3:00 PM

We appreciate your comments about the GourmetStation blog and our fictitious character and site host, T. Alexander. We are a small pioneering food company and we see the blog and its content as a way of adding value to our patron's experience. What T. Alexander has to say about food is not as important as what our patrons have to share about their culinary adventures. We believe that our blog strategy is appropriate so long as there is full disclosure that T.A. is fictitious. We believe that blogging is not yet a fully defined term, process, or model....so it is difficult to say what is fake and what is real. Time will tell. In the meantime, we appreciate your feedback.

Posted by: Donna Lynes-Miller at April 1, 2005 7:07 PM

I don't really think it's *that* bad, but I do think it would be more effective if it wasn't a fictional character. Don't get me wrong, I think blog fiction is a genre that really needs to be explored (I'm working on a fictional blog right now, actually), but I would much rather see a real chef blogging for this site. When I found out that it's a fictional character, my first thought was, "Why couldn't they get a real chef to do this? Is their product so bad that they couldn't get a spokesperson?"

As for the high-falutin' airs to the site, I don't really have a problem with that. Living in the restaurant business my entire life, I guarantee you there are plenty of people to make an audience for this kind of site.

Posted by: andy at April 1, 2005 9:27 PM

"We believe that blogging is not yet a fully defined term, process, or model....so it is difficult to say what is fake and what is real."

Wow. Um, no.

I think we can all agree that blogs written by advertising agencies in the "voice" of fictional characters are pretty much the definition of "fake".

See? That wasn't so hard.

Posted by: Jason Lefkowitz at April 1, 2005 9:31 PM

"[I]t is difficult to say what is fake and what is real."

Is it?

Or is that the story we tell ourselves to justify what we do?

Posted by: Evelyn Rodriguez at April 1, 2005 11:48 PM

It reads like something "Mr J Peterman" would have as a blog!

Posted by: Tony Goodson at April 2, 2005 1:23 AM

"it is difficult to say what is fake and what is real"


Donna, since you are the president of the company, why isn't the blog in your name? Why bother with the creation of a falsehood? Why go through the effort?

Posted by: david parmet at April 2, 2005 1:06 PM

Hugh, definately. Now I'm just not sure whether I read it right :) But seeing our other post, I probably did.

Posted by: Mark Wubben at April 2, 2005 5:04 PM

Which is worse: a "fake blog" or choking restrictions on relatively spanking new technology? When television came out, people thought it would only work with "real" things like variety shows. Lucy and Dezi proved that "fake" works, too. And aren't we glad they did?!

I haven't read this "chef blog," so I don't know if it's good or bad, but I'm not going to condemn it based solely on what blogging has been so far or what some early adopters say it MUST be.

Hugh, I thought you were all about breaking out of boxes. So why are you trying to enforce the blog box? Why can't people do what they want to without you condemning it for not fitting your own notions? Is THAT "how to be creative"???

I'm rather new to your blog, but I've read your main pieces and I agree with much of what you say. I also like many of your comics. So I'm surprised at these "lame" labels you slap on, as it doesn't fit within the rest of your message (except that it's so cynical ;) ).

I say let people be creative. They have a right to find their own audience in whatever way they wish to try, so long as it isn't illegal or immoral, and since they haven't hidden the fact that the chef isn't real, then neither is the case here. Would you not agree?

Posted by: Dawn at April 5, 2005 2:55 AM