Gonzo Marketing: Winning Through Worst Practices [Paperback]

If, on the other hand, you still don't believe that life on the web is fundamentally different for real people then now is an extremely good time to have the sanity check that the Gonzo line of thinking provides. For those of you who have read this already, or any of Locke's previous writings, it may seem odd to see the words 'sanity', 'locke' and 'gonzo' in the same sentence, but that is exactly how I feel about it. This book touched a deeply frustrated nerve in me and has helped me hugely in ordering my thoughts.

If you read one business book in the next twelve months, this must be it. Hell, you may even enjoy it.

Steve.

Gonzo Marketing is an eclectic monologue with as little structure as you can imagine. Think of it as an eloquent rant in favor of authentic communication about what individuals truly care about in overcoming the blandness of corporate communications and broadcast advertising.

The essence of the book's key observations about communications are contained on pp. 125-126.

These are essentially that (1) market research is irrelevant to creating improved ideas (2) best practices in communications and marketing usually aren't very good (3) each person should turn their frustration with mass communications into actions to create change (4) engage in improved communications because you see the potential to do so (5) give yourself permission to speak candidly from the heart (6) use good story telling devices to communication (7) communicate on behalf of what people need, not what someone wants to sell them (8) let individuals speak for a company, rather than the company speak for itself and (9) let it all out to make your points vivid (emulating the methods of people like Hunter S. Thompson in their fiction).

The book's core proposal is almost totally contained in chapter 7 (which a few cross-references to small sections of earlier chapters). Companies should shift their attention to individual conversations among people who care about common issues and interests. Employees should be encouraged to speak on behalf of the company, as individuals. Companies should underwrite sites that are unconnected to the company's products and services, but do advance the public good. This should be done in a way that leaves independence of thought and expression intact. In many cases, not much more will be involved than getting an exclusive relationship and directing traffic to the "best in breed" independent web site.

I thought that the chapter that critiqued modern marketing thinking was superb. A friend of mine who is a professor of marketing once told me in private that he believed that marketing had added no new ideas since around 1940. Mr. Locke certainly rams that point home. Even new terms (like "permission marketing") seem to be reflecting old concepts (e-mail spam, in this case).

Mr. Locke has such an "outside-in" look at these issues that I think he misses a lot of basics. I don't really care what Ford employees think about nonautomotive issues. I would be very interested to see what these employees have to say on automotive and truck issues. Mr. Locke doesn't address a primary reason why most companies put a lock on employee communications, the fear of creating large lawsuits from the plaintiff's bar. Also, many companies do have their senior executives visibly sharing their views in public forums where questions can be asked by anyone. Watch CNBC any day, and you will see CEOs and CFOs trooping across the screen in large numbers and being asked questions that viewers have sent in by e-mail. Some companies do have a deep and thorough climate of commitment to purposes larger than themselves. Most people would agree that such is the case with ServiceMaster, Timberland, many educational publishers, and investment managers of socially-conscious mutual funds.

Some ideas are so large and important that they can be shared more broadly. Shouldn't companies focus their communications where they can reach the most people with narrow messages that engage those involved in meaningful conversations? For example, many companies permit extensive e-mail interactions with various parts of their companies.

At bottom, the views here are probably more reflective of a person who likes to be different from the group, than from a vision of the future that will become the dominant one. Will the power of well-presented drama as created by the best talents be overwhelmed by the opportunity to share thoughts on discussion boards with like-minded people? I doubt it. I suspect we will continue to enjoy high quality mass communications as well as highly individualized ones where there is a vacuum on subjects of interest. Frankly, I already do too much typing.

What would you like to know more about and from whom? Let them know. You may be surprised by the welcome you receive.

I've given it 4 stars, which is really 6 out of 5 for message, minus 2 for style...