Is the Long Tail relevant?
Tuesday 11th April, 2006Back from a long break, just in time (actually, a couple
days late) to read
Ann Sweeney (head of Disney's ABC network) extol
the virtues of the brands as the compass of the digital consumer:
Not a new concept, indeed, and all the more obvious when coming from someone like Disney, whose market cap is largely dependent on the value of that intangible asset.
So it's back to business as usual, brands drive perception and opinion and purchases? Is the Web2.0 relevant at all?
Many are ready (have been ready for a long time) to pronounce it nothing but an overexposed meme, and are quick to point to stats such as the low number of people using podcasts or the (relative) low readership of most blogs (including this one). Fewer eyeballs - their equation says - fewer heads, fewer wallets. End of story.
Following this line of thought, however, misses two important points I have underlined elsewhere:
1. the Long Tail is dynamic, not static
The right question is therefore not "How many people read GeekTalk", as the answer is and will always be very, very few. The right question is "Given the right conditions and the right story, how many people might pick it up in places like GeekTalk". Whining about the low readership of GeekTalk is like going to the movies and complaining about the poor photographic quality of each frame. If you don't get the movement, you get nothing.
2. the Web2.0 currency is credibility, not traffic
Marketeers have had to settle with impressions because they were never able to measure effectiveness, but the Web2.0 model is different inasmuch the real value of an exposure lies not in its frequency ("The more they see, the more they'll believe it") but in its credibility - will you believe the car manufacturer singing the praises of their new model a million times or your best friend who's bought it and says it's crap?
In the future, consumers will rely more and more on strong brands to help them navigate in the digital world...
Not a new concept, indeed, and all the more obvious when coming from someone like Disney, whose market cap is largely dependent on the value of that intangible asset.
So it's back to business as usual, brands drive perception and opinion and purchases? Is the Web2.0 relevant at all?
Many are ready (have been ready for a long time) to pronounce it nothing but an overexposed meme, and are quick to point to stats such as the low number of people using podcasts or the (relative) low readership of most blogs (including this one). Fewer eyeballs - their equation says - fewer heads, fewer wallets. End of story.
Following this line of thought, however, misses two important points I have underlined elsewhere:
1. the Long Tail is dynamic, not static
The right question is therefore not "How many people read GeekTalk", as the answer is and will always be very, very few. The right question is "Given the right conditions and the right story, how many people might pick it up in places like GeekTalk". Whining about the low readership of GeekTalk is like going to the movies and complaining about the poor photographic quality of each frame. If you don't get the movement, you get nothing.
2. the Web2.0 currency is credibility, not traffic
Marketeers have had to settle with impressions because they were never able to measure effectiveness, but the Web2.0 model is different inasmuch the real value of an exposure lies not in its frequency ("The more they see, the more they'll believe it") but in its credibility - will you believe the car manufacturer singing the praises of their new model a million times or your best friend who's bought it and says it's crap?
Comments [1]