An interesting discussion took place across Millward Brown’s e-mail recently. Prompted by an e-mail alert from AdAge.com, a volley of messages flew back and forth across the Atlantic, culminating with this question from my colleague Sue Elms: “Is the Media Tail wagging the Media Dog?”
The communication which instigated the discussion was actually an online poll, titled Assessing the Practicality of Digital Media Ads. After a brief review of the reach numbers for emerging technologies such as podcasts, blogs and RSS feeds, the poll asked if marketers and ad agencies are spending too much time and money to reach what is really just a thin slice of the overall American audience. Opinions from readers seemed split between the practical and the developmental. Some argued that it was a waste of resources to try to reach the few people who are currently techno-savvy, while others countered that it was worth the effort to get to grips with these technologies now, to prepare for the time when they are more widely used.
The subsequent internal discussion took place between Sue Elms and Gordon Pincott. Sue is the executive vice president who heads up our global media practice. A highly regarded authority on advertising, media, consumer insight and communication strategy, Sue joined us from Carat Insight, where she served as managing director and board director of Aegis Media UK. Gordon, a recent winner of a WPP Atticus Award for his paper Accidents Waiting to Happen, is our global development director, responsible for the support of our existing research solutions.
These two thought leaders took our discussion in some interesting directions, frequently referring to the recent book by Chris Anderson, The Long Tail.
Sub-titled Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, Anderson’s book suggests that the demand for niche products is, overall, larger than the demand for mass market products. According to Anderson, when consumers are offered infinite choice, the demand curve flattens, because everyone has unique needs and tastes.
Gordon pointed out that the long tail can be exploited only by suppliers who have the ability to deliver their product to a widely-dispersed user-base. This effectively describes those who provide products that can be distributed in digital form, or that can be ordered digitally and delivered cost-effectively. By way of illustration: Wal-Mart can only stock a small selection of all the films ever made, but Netflix can offer 100 times more choices, each of which will appeal to someone, somewhere. Gordon also noted that in the chapter called Paradise of Choice, Anderson takes a swipe at the book Paradox of Choice, written by Barry Schwartz, asserting that choice is not really a problem when technology allows people to filter choices effectively.
Sue responded with the idea of the “Media Long Tail.” She commented that media in general are fragmenting, not just online, but in television (cable vs network), magazines (special interest vs weekly) and newspapers (local vs national). She then asked:
1. Is it economically attractive and more effective to communicate via lots of small contexts?
2. Do these small contexts offer the possibility of achieving broader reach while delivering messages which resonate more deeply with consumers? Or do they simply dilute communication?
3. Must we pay close attention to all these contexts in order to understand what is happening to our brand’s image, especially now, when consumer-generated media can do all sorts of damage?
Boiling it all down to one question, Sue asked, “Is the Media Tail wagging the Media Dog?”
Here’s my answer. Whether or not the tail is wagging the dog depends on the brand and its communication objectives.
It seems likely that an individual “message” (for want of a better word) will be most effective when it is crafted to appeal to a specific audience and it is delivered in a way that is acceptable to that audience.
However, this does not mean it will be economically attractive. I remember being told about a great outdoor campaign which featured local landmarks. Each ad was to be placed in a particular neighborhood near the featured landmark. The campaign never ran because the cost of production was too high. In this world of digital media, cost may be less of an issue, but at some point it will cease to be economical to reach a limited number of people with a carefully tailored message.
Sue’s next question suggests the need to think long and hard about message architecting. Can a campaign be based on a broad platform and still be recognizable in highly targeted ads? If so, then the campaign should have reach and connect with people better. If not, then it is probably going to lack coherence and dilute communication.
Finally, do you need to pay attention to all these contexts? If they matter enough to communicate with the audience, then I would say yes. If a message goes wrong for a particular group, you need to be prepared to respond before it gets out of hand.
So what do you think? Is the Media Tail wagging the Media Dog? Which brands should be thinking about a Long Tail communication strategy? Please let us know.
(18 votes, average: 3.22 out of 5)
Loading ...
November 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
I suggest a way past this is to create an “umbrella” campaign that outlines the brand’s position and articulates its broader values. Not unlike MasterCard. Once the campaign has been seeded, the advertiser can chase minute segements down metaphorical “rabbit holes” with highly specific messages.
November 20th, 2006 at 5:02 am
Web 2.0 is all about dialogue and conversation.
Presently the only time we ‘ listen ‘ is through limited focus groups and watching sales figures – the investment in money and time is not around the technologies, it is about gaining and using these tools to listen.
Opening a dialogue is key - this can be through traditional ‘ broadcast ‘ or through the new slue of technologies.
The message while needing to be contextually relevant, also needs to be delivered optimally in terms of timing – for this we need a dialogue before hand to obtain this.
Media is not fragmenting , it is maturing into a complete toolset gaining relevance and context in each delivery channel.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Thanks for the comments both of you.
Trevor, I am particularly interested in your statement, “Media is not fragmenting, it is maturing into a complete toolset gaining relevance and context in each delivery channel.”
This seems to fly in the face of the stats and industry opinion that suggest fragmentation is real. Would it not be more accurate to say that media are both fragmenting in terms of audience but gaining more relevance and context as they do so?
November 23rd, 2006 at 6:51 am
Note : Excuse if this comes across as being totally ignorant – I need to formulate my thoughts and I truly believe there is something in this -really appreciate any feedback if I should continue , forget it ( as it may completely wrong ).
Media has always been fragmented – I think though not all scenarios are not all thought out or made ‘ relevant ‘. We have in theory only added on more medium to all of this in the past 10 years – the net. TV, Radio, WOM, Outdoor, Cinema have all existed. Just like the Internet bubble is now growing , convergence is coming back.
If we take the continuation of household types becoming single person and the choice now being channel based rather than time based only from the broadcast days - I believe contributes more realistically as to why we no longer get 20 million people viewing Coronation Street - rather than the fact 50 more channels exist ( also take into consideration Ethnic population grows 54% compared with 4% for the UK – again is Yorkshire life in a public house really what people from differing backgrounds interested in. )
Certain events such as the World Cup produce that the correct content gives you the numbers – the event requires it be worthwhile. (Elections are on the wane in terms of turnout – however I think voting online would see this , rocket the other way.)
People today are watching more television, without the use of technology you are of course going to spend more money trying to reach this ‘ dislocated ‘ group of people – in the past 3 basic channels (with shorter viewing windows – I recall broadcast finishing at 11 pm – I’m not exactly old either !) and 15 TV companies in the UK alone. This condensation of viewable time funnelled people in – the funnel is now wider, however technology will act as the lasso brining it all together.
If we took their individual programming schedules of those 15 regions , that combined ‘ viewable time ‘ and programming if mapped would indeed be regarded as ‘ fragmented ‘ in the true of the word. The adage from David Ogilvy about which part advertising does not work is born from this.
Today they ( the broadcasters – a term which is due for the scrap heap really soon ) have in effect flipped the TV schedule onto one side , and built depth into each of the previous vertical sectors – spawning specialist channel – the depth we both agree on.
Convergence a word pulled from the scrap heap however describes technologies job into consolidating all of these outlets of content back into 1 channel.
November 27th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Hi Trevor, no need to apologize, I think you are onto something. Let me paraphrase briefly to see whether I have understood correctly.
You are proposing that people have always had specific interests but were previously were forced to watch broadcast content from media companies. Looking beyond this, however, these companies were hardly homogeneous, with different companies managing the commercial channels across regions in the UK. Combining these two factors, the analysis you propose might reveal a vast patchwork of viewing habits even in a relatively small country like the UK. Your fundamental point is that as technology develops we can expect to see a “channel of one” with all types of content delivered to an individual as they specify (and presumably with accompanying, relevant advertising).
If I have stated your point of view correctly then I would agree 100% with the final conclusion. The question for marketers then becomes, how do you get a new message through to people who think your brand is irrelevant and have the means to govern their media choice at a very granular level?
December 1st, 2006 at 6:22 am
I had the opportunity to listen to and question James Murdoch (the son of Rupert) who runs Sky. He commented that if people think 400 TV channels is a lot then they have another thing coming. His vision was that there would be millions of channels. I think this fits with what Trevor is saying. Eventually technology will allow you to virtually have your own channel. Whether this will come as a channel on cable or as something you piece together over the web, we will end up with completely tailored viewing. There is not much logic to the fact that if I want to watch the first episode of series one of Lost tonight at 9.14 I need to go to a shop and purchase/rent a DVD, when it exists in the ether in a digital form that I should be able to access whenever I want. What Podcasts are doing for/to radio - video is not far behind.
December 4th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Thanks Gordon, it’s a scary thought that you could see and hear anything you want, when you want. We know that people can only deal with so much choice. I am sure that there will be “intelligent” software agents to help with the selection process (think Netflicks “If you like this movie…” recommendations on steroids). The concern for marketers (and us as humans) is that systems like these will build in inertia - you see the movies you want to see, you hear the music you want to hear, you listen to the politicians you agree with - and the world becomes ever more fragmented and divided. If marketers think engagement is a challenge today they have not seen anything yet.
December 6th, 2006 at 2:33 am
You say fragmented and divided , I say organised and concentrated. Marketers’ can no longer thin slice, they need to enter into a meaningful dialogue in order to capture both peoples attention and imagination.
Take a look at http://www.pandora.com for the future of how our personal media consumption can deliver both specific relevant content, while interjecting ‘ something new and surprising ‘ through a little thought and technology.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Two developments which could have a massive impact on the traditional media delivery channels such as Five ( whose business is predominantly based on bought in programming ) and the portal space for mobile phone operators.
First up is MyWaves, a web based service that allows you to create and manage your own content channel for delivery to your mobile phone.
MyWaves combines content channels from familiar established brands such as CNN along with youth brands such as DC Shoes with their skateboarding channel.
The service allows you to create your own mobile entertainment lineup through their website which can then be pushed to your mobile phone for viewing on the move.
The service does not stop there though, with the ability to search from libraries of video and audio slotting these into your channels it gives flexibility and control beyond the traditional TV schedules we are all familiar with. RSS subscription compatibility also ensures that content is updated regularly for services such as news entertainment and with of course the mandatory ability of sharing your inspired choices with others the service is set to become a firm favourite with the mobile phone set.
In the TV space BT ( British Telecom ) have announced their intention for users of their TV on demand service BT Vision to create and share their own content through the service – extending the success of Web 2.0 Myspace into the broadcast area – in effect making TV 2.0.
Both of these moves extend control to consumers – in the example of MyWaves non content producers are under threat as their value decreases in terms of providing a schedule of programming , the challenge BT’s offer now raises is how existing content producers can best they can harness this extended level of user generation and interaction. If done correctly, your media message is completly personal through the consumers choice of content.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Hi Trevor, thanks for this addition, interesting stuff.
MyWaves really does sound like a better mousetrap when it comes to mobile entertainment. Lots of companies have tried to make a buck out of mobile entertainment but they usually focus on the advertiser and the provider and forget the most important person - the consumer. By offering this degree of flexibility in choice I suspect this one might take off.
BT Vision sounds interesting but I suspect that the death may be in the logistics. Will it be as easy to use as YouTube?