Just before leaving London I had a great dinner with the Macleod of Macleod and Jason Korman from Stormhoek.
I was going to blog our conversation about "objects of sociability" but got too busy rushing to the airport. No matter: Hugh's written it up lucidly.
The highlight of the dinner for me was a discussion about what Johnnie called "Objects of Sociability", a term he attributed to Juri Engstrom's talk at Reboot7.I hadn't thought of spelling it like a glutinous substance but now Hugh has I like it: it brings in a sense of the flowing and unpredictable. On the other hand, some of Hugh's commenters point to ooze as in slimy. Well, there's truth in that for a lot of marketing I guess.What is an Object of Sociability [OoS, or "Ooze" for short]? "Ooze" is simply something that allows you to engage with another person. It could be anything. It could a party. It could be a bottle of wine. It could be a hyperlink. It could be a social gesture. It could be social currency. It could be doodling a cartoon on the back of a business card at a bar and giving it to the cute barmaid. You tell me.
But hey, I just like the word I don't claim to decide what it means to you. And there's a moral in all this for conventional brand thinking which may do slimy but doesn't really get sociability and the flexibility and mutation it involves.
This seems to see brands as solid objects, created by "brand architecture" articulating "brand propositions".As regular readers (you know who you both are) will know, I think it's more complex than that. And more simple.
Technorati tags: hugh+macleod, jason+korman, jyri+engestrom, ooze, social+currency
Bookmark: del.icio.us Digg it ma.gnolia Yahoo MyWeb Google StumbleUpon
Permalink











Facebook/Johnnie Moore
Linkedin/Johnnie Moore
Twitter/johnniemoore
Last.fm/johnniemoore
Del.icio.us/johnniemoore
Technorati/johnniemoore
MyBlogLog/JohnnieM
Blog/Johnnie Moore
Comments (2)
"Ooze" is a terrific, simple word that captures a key concept in social relationships. Great one, Johnnie and Hugh!
July 22, 2006 16:28 Permalink for comment
My point is only that old bad marketing is slimy and if we can lose marketign 2.0 can avoid that association, then it would be preferable.
July 25, 2006 23:04 Permalink for comment