Hugh Macleod Slapped by BBC's Metcalfe

5 comments
Source Title:
A little spat with Hugh MacLeod
Story Text:

Hugh Macleod, darling of the blogosphere, has thrown a little girly tantrum over BBC's Ben Metcalfe pulling him up on his "wine pimping" exploits. The upshot is, Hugh is trying to push Wine on his blog, along with Suits, and using every buzzy bloggy word in the book to make it sound like the coolest thing in the world to do, but good for Ben in calling it out for the bollocks it truly is.

Hugh threw a fit, complete with cying, foot stomping and generally acting like a spoilt brat here.

What frustrates Ben about the Stormhoek meme, I suspect, is that it's actually working. Without the top-down-big-media-we-know-best-validation-committee giving us permission first.

Ben thinks it's OK for the massive, State-funded BBC to use blogs to connect with people (Ben works on the blog thing for the Beeb), and think it's OK for a huge company like Microsoft to use blogs to do the same (he happily attended the last Scoble dinner, and according to this, he's coming to the next one), but it's not OK for a small, independant winery to use the blogosphere to connect with people? And here he is kvetching about "disproportionate advantage"?

See the rest of the post for the full lexicon of buzzwords. The main reason i just unsubscribed...

Comments

Just saw Hugh's post about

Just saw Hugh's post about that, I was thinking it was a bit of an over the top response, to start slating the BBC because of what one guy is saying, considering a load of the cool stuff the BBC is trying out at the moment, is a bit off. And he does harp on about the 'death of big media' quite a lot.

Still, I think there's something in the English Cut and Stormhoek things. English Cut's business is apparently booming, and because of it's success in the blog world, it's started spreading beyond that. Not bad for something started in January.
And Stormhoek could be going the same way with the way it's gradually spreading around. Supplying some free samples to all these 'geek dinners' (seemingly the latest blogger fashion "if you've not been to one you're no-one" kind of thing) isn't a bad way for them to help get the name out there.

Yeah he's pimping himself, it's only because of previous exploits that have made him fairly well known in certain circles that he's able to do it, but if he genuinely likes the product..... I don't have a problem with that.

And he's right in saying that other bloggers could have easily ripped it apart instead of taking up the free wine offer and talking about it. Others could have responded like Ben, but most seem to think it's alright. Unless you actually read his blog, he's not forcing to down your throat, he does tend to talk about them quite a lot, but basically then leaves you to take it or leave it. Obviously after he's done his best marketing spiel about why you should take it, but then, what would you expect?

I don't think it could work for everyone, but it's an interesting idea, not quite the death knell for big media that he'd like it to be, but a useful tool for some companies. I'd love to try and setup a blog on our company web site, get that whole conversation thing going, but there isn't anybody in the company with the time/inclination to do it justice. I think the marketing manager would like to get his hands on it, but that would just be a joke with his standard boring marketing spiel writing style.

Still, I agree that post in response to Ben was a little girly tantrum ;)

Tom Coates, also from the

Tom Coates, also from the BBC has written quite a good response to Hugh's rantings as well.

I quite like what he has to say about it, still think Hugh's general ideas on marketing with blogs and what he's done with EnglishCut and Stormhoek are interesting/useful etc... But Tom does get across some good points there.

Tom Coates response

TC sets for the major premise of his commentary thusly:

But the problem is that people will always find being given free stuff attractive. And that means that - as long as there's the possibility a negative opinion will result in no more freebies - there will always be a pressure towards playing to the sponsor.

Is this a stab at pop psychology, in support of an compulsion to blog in defense of a cohort, or a revelatory statement? I suspect it's the latter. To me it sounds like the lurking voice of the aristocrat beneath the skin.

My parents taught me that smiling and saying "no thank you" was a sufficient response.

Mr. Coates view?

"Please sir, may I have some more?"

Mr. Coates, just say it: "People cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs. That is why there is an aristocracy."

Beg pardon my lord? That

Beg pardon my lord?

That seems more than a little over the top to me, i think his point was very simple - and in case you hadn't noticed, people ARE generally a bit thick (when looked at collectively)

Sheeple

Welcome to TW WW

Ya, but what's a first post for if not for being a bit OTT?

More from Tom Coates, referencing the blogosphere's "heros and:

its trusted and noble citizens

You know, most of what I've learned of any value - most of life's most important lessons - I learned from those who must be, by comparison to the . . "heros and . . trusted noble citizens", what?

Ordinary folk?

God save us all from ourselves when we deign to hold forth that our role - or who we are - is anything other than ordinary folk.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.