Meet T. A. at Gourmet Station Blog
With the recent discussion about the Captain Morgan blog, what do you think of the following blog tactic: Gourmet Station Blog
Deb Freakbast uses a similar tactic in a group blog discussing the Bed & Breakfast industry. “Okay, lets get real. Deb is a fictitious character we created.” The Oxygen Network tried this to promote a television show. It has since gone dormant (as did the show), but the blog is still up there.
Lemme’ hear what you think of this one: “Welcome to the T. Alexander blog, the heart and soul of GourmetStation!”
T. Alexander is a fictitious character created by GourmetStation, it’s creative partner, Blue Marble Media, and Bloomberg Marketing.
GourmetStation provides upscale prepared cuisine in many configurations including its star product, three & four-course dinners. Most purchases are made when a patron wishes to give an upscale gourmet gift. From a more meaningful perspective, GourmetStation provides patrons and gift recipients, no matter where they live in the US, the opportunity to enjoy an international gourmet experience at the most comfortable place on Earth…home.
Is this ‘authentic business blogging’? What value do you find in this tactic?
Related articles on small business and blogs/technology:
CANOE — CNEWS - Tech News: Internet Business urged to blog on
What small business can teach big business - ZDNet UK Reviews
Filed under: Business Blogging, How to Blog, Robert
Horrible. Stupid. Insane. Worthless. Ineffective. Fictitious blogs by people who don’t exist, speaking of events and experiences that never happened, and imparting wisdom based on unreal episodes…
how Unblog can you get?
Not to be a fanatic “purist”, but the whole point of The Blog Revolution is candid conversation between blogger and target audience, however that is defined.
Fictitious blogger? What the hell is so damn hard about finding a Real Person with an Authentic Voice who speaks of That Which They Know to be True?
Didn’t Rathergate and etc. teach these schmucks anything?
Why on earth do you need to put a marketing message into the mouth of a person who does not exist?
Sure makes it easy to make the fictional character say, and claim, anything you want him to.
The ultimate in False Advertising and Anti-blogging.
Bah!
They are so stupid, it’s pathetic.
Who cares about a fictional character acting as a spokesperson for your firm?
Beyond Clueless!
Along the lines of Deb Freakbast, I can see some value in Gourmet Station Blog - but, with one caveat.
I love the idea of a food site, B&B site, whatever - that helps you understand the products. However, I do agree. They should have ‘real’ people with ‘real’ names doing the writing. That’s just a no-brainer, to me.
Don’t call it a blog.
Why?
For the very reason that your response indicates, Steven.
If the business is going into a community (bloggers) where the early adopters are likely to react just as you have, it sets the business up for avoidable flack. Come on, we see this type of criticism every day with these new ‘awkward’ attempts at folding blogging into old school marketing tactics. Now, for the general public that will surf up on the blogs - and don’t know the ‘community standards’ (so to speak) - the sites work in some ways.
Call it a site, call it a waffle, call it anything - except a blog.
Use the technology - blogging / CMS platforms - to achieve your dynamic site. Fine. Just don’t call it a blog. You set yourself up for these critiques - and it can be avoided.
Deb Freakbast, as well as Captain Morgan, may well work to drive surfers into their site and reinforce the brand/build the brand. OK, that’s fine. Just don’t go into a new medium without realizing these pitfalls are inevitable. Short answer: know your environment. Know your audiences.
I’m afraid that the folks who have set up this “waffle” as a blog have set their client up for just such criticism.
I still like the ‘waffle’, though.
Pseudo blogs, fake blogs, fictitious blogs, phony blogs…do you see the keywords here? See how they negate the heart and soul of “blog”?
Forget the type of web site, the marketing purpose, the product: the deceptive, amateurish, unimaginative, desperate attempt to “have a simulated blog, a blog-like site, but without a real blogger in it, just a writer who invents a fictional character, who is easy to control and use as a puppet for old fashioned broadcast marketing”: hogwash.
It’s the ignorant company pretending to have a blog, using a simulated blog to push their message at consumers.
Consumers want to know how a real person uses the products, or invented, or discovered the products that the company offers.
Would Martha Stewart consider creating a non-existent character to talk about making things to beautify the home, sharing “pretend experiences” with the public, and discussing “make believe children, husband, in-laws”?
Would Bill Gates create a fictional character to promote and defend Microsoft?
Would Bob Lutz say, “the heck with it”, and stop blogging in his own voice, to create an imaginary person to promote and defend General Motors, particularly in regards to Buick and Pontiac controversy?
This is pathetic, and I stress, *not* from a “purist” point of view, but from these considerations (by these advocates):
* Reality in Advertising (Rosser Reeves)
* Transparency (Robert Scoble)
* Honesty, Remarkable Product, and Non-lying (Seth Godin)
* Pursuit of Excellance (Tom Peters)
* Continual Improvement (W. Edwards Deming)
* Strong, Credible Voice (Nick Usborne, Amy Gahran)
* Authenticity (Rebecca Blood, Doc Searls, Cory Doctorow, Jorn Barger)
* Online Community Built on Trust (John Hagel III, Arthur G. Armstrong)
BTW: “Vaspers the Grate” is not really a fictional character, it is an alias, a nickname, everything VTG says is what Steven Streight actually thinks, has actually experienced, is actually doing or has done. Nothing fictional about it. Just a fanciful aka used as a brand name.
P.S. the comments function doesn’t like ampersands, calls the use of them “bad XHTML”.
I feel bad right now. A very dear friend, ally, and mentor was involved in that GourmetStation T.A. Blog project.
Talk about open mouth, insert entire leg.
I may have over-reacted, and not understood the entire idea of this particular fictional character “T.A.”
I’m looking more deeply into this blog, its marketing strategy and audience.
While I stand by my basic opinions overall, there may actually be some value and validity to fictional characters blogging, for example, as my friend pointed out, a cartoon character that children love and learn from, or some other entity that is not technically “real”.
Hmmm….
Still pondering.
Read my post. It says it all and leaves no stone unturned so far as I’m concerned. It also takes the time to do what obviously some of the other commenters didn’t, and that’s get the backstory on the GS blog.
Here’s the URL: http://radiantmarketing.typepad.com/radiant_marketing/2005/04/in_defense_of_a.html
BTW, if trackbacks were allowed here, I’d have used mechanism instead.
Well, I have commented all over the place on this one.
I am glad that it generated such discussion. Discussion is good. That was my goal in starting the blog with Paul.
Steven, I don’t think that you meant any harm in your coments above. I am sorry that some people’s feelings have been ruffled.
Thanks to Tris and the others that have joined in the discussion, too.
Paul, I commented in your blog twice. The back and forth has been fruitful and valuable to me. I have learned and I have shared. I hope the same is true for you.
I truly hope there is no animosity on the part of any of the contributors and commentors to this discussion. I certainly do not feel and hold any. I do like the discussion.
The trackbacks are off due to ‘trackback spam’ … sorry, but that is still being worked on. My apologies.
All the best to all that have participated.
Robert
I don’t blame anyone for having feathers ruffled. I went ballistic when I saw what I thought was a poor blogging strategy.
I am still pondering this whole thing. One thing I do have to say is that a blog should be self-explanatory, in spite of what my honorable and wise friend Paul Chaney says about getting the backstory on the GS TA blog.
Paul is correct, I should have spent more time at the blog, and if I had serious misgivings, should have contacted those responsible, let them explain.
I hope to stifle myself more prior to engaging in scathing denunciations.
On the other hand, many users will also react in a moment, will respond to their first instant impression, and will not patiently attempt to understand all the factors involved.
Of course other users will like a fictional character right off the bat, not question the marketing strategy, and not feel deceived at all.
My friend who worked on this is not angry at me, quite the opposite. She is very patient and forgiving and sympathetic. Mature is the word that fits.
I, on the other hand, regret a hasty reaction and, in the future, don’t want to post in the heat of a reaction.
Those worthy of flaming aggressively? The trackback spammers who are jealous of Robert and Paul’s idea and work. They’re digital vandals. Parasites. They do not have enough talent or brains to do anything constructive and beneficial.
I’m going to wade in here and defend my BLOGthenticity buddies.
This little storm in a teacup wouldn’t have anything to do with consultants and marketers wanting to cover their blog tracks by any chance?
If you’re setting up blogs for clients and ghost writing posts for them, it’d surely make quite a bit of sense to to make up a character so as not to be outed as being a bit of a jack of all trades? Imagine certain professional bloggers writing for a number of blogs covering quite a wide gamut of industries that they may not be entirely expert.
I can’t see why the actual writer of the posts can’t use their real name unless what I’ve just stated is the case.
The fact that they’ve been upfront about TA being a fictitious character is neither here nor there. If we appreciate authenticity within blogging then we require real names and identities related to the specific industry. Otherwise it’s just PR/marketing waffle like has been stated before.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what blogging is supposed to be the antidote to?
This isn’t to say that the Gourmet thing won’t work. Does Joe Public care about who writes the damn thing so long as it’s informative and entertaining? It’s not really that much different to throwing Ronald McDonald out there I suppose.
However, after the Lincoln Fry debacle, I doubt if Mickey D’s will be trawling that one out anytime soon.
I got flamed pretty hard about my pessimistic stance toward RSS, so I reconsidered my position, and decided to install a Feedburner spaceship on all my blogs, except A.T.E., which has very little text. Next, I’m going to download FeedDemon and give it a try.
I let my detractors, who, most of them, seemed to be frenziedly searching for something about my blog that could be mocked and attacked, score a “victory” when I changed my mind about RSS. But it wasn’t the flamers that made me change my mind, it was Robert Scoble, Amy Gahran, and ultimately, Seth Godin, who convinced me to re-examine RSS feeds.
My point is: the blogging community should try to stick together. If a blogger is criticized, the blogger should try to discover if the criticism is valid or just emotional vandalism and hate-mongering.
We must try not to make enemies.
We ought to help each other, and yes, if harsh, blunt critique is appropriate, let it fly, speaking for myself anyway. I love flamers, even stupid ones. I learn a lot from them, even if it is “what could be the most idiotic perception of my post, idea, statement, artwork, etc.?”
The idiotic flames are among the best. They prepare me for the worst in its most ignorant guise. I think, “What would a really dumb person, loaded with venom and envy, say to me regarding this?”
If I can defend myself against the entire range of flamers, from well-meaning intellects, to retarded savages, then I’m doing pretty good.
I sense a post on “flamers and inner spiritual fire extinguishers” crystalizing within me. God help us, I might just write it someday.
Steven:
It’s the only way I learn anything. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having an opinion on something if you’re willing to accept you might be wrong.
I firmly accept this to be my mission statement in life and especially in terms of blogging.
Personally I find your candid approach to this and other debates you’ve been involved in refreshing. I despise niceties for the sake of it and much prefer people who are prepared to call a spade a spade.
The blogging community needs this far more than it needs to mind its p’s and q’s.
For me, there are a few things about all this that bother me.
Those I’ll discuss here are:
(1) Nobody was trying to do anything but discuss a current hot topic and relate it to a new blog.
(2) The criticism of you, Steven, and any flames you’ve been getting on all of these topics is just sad. Keep up the posting. It is your kind of open thought that brings about learning.
(3) The most undesirable aspect of this - and I’ll say it - is the fact that ‘consultants’ are upset because their fellow consultants work is being discussed and questions about the tactic(s) being tested are being raised. Hey, if we’ve come to the point where that is not possible - I’ll give up all these sites. If that is the way it is - this ‘community’ no longer has value. No one meant any harm here. These are legitimate questions with legitimate consequences for clients. Business people and students have ‘every right’ to discuss publicly that which is being placed out there for mass consumption.
(4) Finally, if anyone is suggesting (off line and out of comments) that to bring up these questions in an open forum is not in the ‘community spirit’ - well, that ‘really’ makes me even sadder.
I have written to, or posted in the blogs of, all the parties in a polite and friendly manner. Tris has been professional and polite. Few other responses as of yet - in any way. Maybe they are busy. If replies don’t come back, so be it. But, that makes me sad, too. I’ve done my part.
My friend who was a consultant in this GS TA blog emailed me right after I posted my harsh and heated critique here at BLOGeccentricity, I mean BLOGthenticity.
She was totally nice, saying how she noticed that she and I don’t agree on everything, but that’s okay, it’s how we grow. I’m still stunned at how peaceful she was. I immediately emailed her an apology for being so harsh, and for not noticing that she was part of what I was trashing.
She wrote back to me saying no apology was necessary, and that she still is fond of me. I don’t see how anyone could have been more calm, mature, non-hostile, non-ruffled.
If someone said some project of mine was “insane, worthless, amateurish, beyond clueless, etc.” as I said, I think I’d be a bit perturbed, maybe even angry for a moment or two.
But, like I say, I love flamers who try to trash me. Bring it on and keep it coming. With all due respect, Robert, and I appreciate your concern, in my opinion, flames directed at me are not “sad”. Flaming is a type of austerity, a deprivation of comfort, a hardening against softheadedness.
We at BLOGthenticity better be prepared to endure some heavy flaming someday, because it comes to everyone who speaks their mind about anything.
The worst flame wars I ever experienced was in theological debate bulletin boards, where the sanctimonius hypocrites gleefully and sadistically assaulted those who merely questioned things, like the biblical accuracy of Mel Gibson’s The Passion film.
Talk about being hated and attacked for simply expressing a contrarian point of view. It was brutal, and all in the name of a belief system that was supposed to be “spiritual”, with contemplative overtones.
You dared not even question the Ecclesiastical Powers That Be, the Proud and Predatory Pharisees, much less challenge, debate, or contradict them. So I got kicked off, banned from, three different sites, and voluntarily left another, after getting a “Gentle Reminder” to not stir up debate on a certain topic related to the Crusades. No independent thinking allowed.
This has also happened on some web developer and web designer discussion lists. On one of the lists, if you mentioned Jakob Nielsen, the web usability specialist, you got flamed big time, ruthlessly, told you’re an idiot to believe in usability guidelines.
But if you questioned why some designers attack Jakob Nielsen, and if you tease them about how they set him up so they could have something to hate, you are scolded by the administrator, and told to stop posting about that.
This is what I dread: the regulation and regimentation of the blogosphere and bloggers.
In the near future, you may have to register with a centralized Blog Control Board, digitally sign a lengthy legal document, promise not to blog about any controversial or contrarian topic, to not hurt anyone’s feelings, even unintentionally, etc.
I’m developing a post about this. It is coming. I guarantee it. I hope I’m wrong, but it will start with the journalist and political bloggers.
Someone will say it’s not fair for certain ideology bloggers to speak so radically to the public, blog allegations will be reviewed, demands for revealing sources (which should be hyperlinked anyway), and other complaints will arise, disguised as Truth in Blogging Acts and legislation to enforce political correct ideologies, and to level the playing field, and then….
I will stop here. That’s enough. Wait and see. [Watch me get flamed for saying these things…]
I remember you saying before that she was nice and that is great.
I’m just concerned if any others are pinging you with a ‘don’t go there’ kinda thing - or saying that to anyone, for that matter. It is not the proper way of the world. Or, it shouldn’t be.
Hey, I’m open to critiques and appreciate them. Even the flames.
I also understand people coming to the aid of friends and colleagues. That’s commendable and respected.
Certainly, I have made mistakes - and will make mistakes down the road. Most often, the critiques are valid and I learn. That’s why I’m doing all this blogging, anyway. I’m very sure I have more to learn than I have to share.
I’m glad this lil’ discussion took place here and elsewhere. It is healthy.
Crybaby flamers are cool.
I just went on my daily trip to visit my flaming enemies, and lo and behold, one of them, who is rather well known, or thinks he is, and posts pretty vacant posts on his blog, has suddenly stopped allowing instant comment posting.
A clear victory for me.
This little fussbudget now moderates and delays the comments posted to his blog.
All I did was post “Yawn. Sorry. Sleepy. This post is so interesting, I’m bristling with zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz”
That seems to be the event that caused him to start moderating his posts, due to “comment spam and abusive comments.”
He deleted my sleepy comment. What a laughable sissy.
[…] I think one gets a good idea of how people feel about these things when looking at blogs like this one and reactions such as these (read the first few comments). Blogs like Gourmet Station’s have been widely criticized for “violating the rules” and “being fake”. Where do these sentiments come from? They are the result of a holistic interpretation of blogs as a specific combination of a publishing technology, a style of writing and a kind of social interaction (a + b + c; see above). In other words: if you run a blogging software, write from a first-person viewpoint and directly address your readers, it is assumed that you are a real person, because only real human beings can engage in such an interaction (meaning a + b implicates c). […]