May 9, 2007The short head
Filed Under: New Marketing
|
|
This doesn’t need to be a long post at all to make a very simple point and express it in contemporary marketing terms.
Advertising follows the long tail to a fault And that’s exactly the problem.
Advertising does not work against the long tail methodology. New Marketing might, but advertising does not i.e. big bang short-lived launch with limited follow-through.
So there you have it.
Forget the long tail of advertising and instead, explore and embrace the “short head.”
What do you think about that, Chris Anderson?
SPONSORSHIPJaffe Juice – brings a fresh new marketing perspective and commentary from industry thought leader and author Joseph Jaffe. Click here to find out more about sponsorship opportunities. Jaffe Juice continues below... |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/307546/18353982
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The short head:
Comments
I don't really get the point. Long tail is not only about time, it's mainly about niches and choice or am I wrong?
I discussed this topic (advertsing versus long tail) with a few bloggers lately. Here are few interesting lines:
"The most challenging part is going to be segmenting these niches so it will take some time but research and well-defined groups by preferences (so, psychographics vs. demographics) is the first step." (CK)
"The Long Tail doesn’t change how you communicate with your target, it changes who you’re actually targeting. Because the Long Tail is about focusing on niche offers and not mass appeal, it stands to reason that each niche comprises a unique group of people with specific triggers." (Mark Goren)
"you are dealing with a much smaller group, and have the chance/responsibility to deliver much more personlized messages. Which are, in theory, far more relevant. And effective" (Marc Collier)
But I don’t think the media world today is equiped to attack the niche markets. It’s not (yet) in the advertisers and the media planners minds and they don't have the required tools.
Posted by: Philippe
I need some examples of advertising in the 'short head' in order to figure out what your point is.
Posted by: Mack Collier
Mack, I just coined the phrase (assuming I'm the first) today (grin)
I think the example could be the Nikon campaign (that began with the Flickr photographers)
It could also be Virtual Thirst.
At the end of the day, this is the story of conversational marketing - plant a seed, nurture, invest, maintain, stay the course, see what comes up...etc.
Posted by: jJ
Phillipe - to be clear, I'm saying that traditional advertising spending (on campaigns...even on Microsoft) follows a pattern which *resembles* the long tail curve (not IS the long tail)
i.e. BIG LAUNCH AND THEN BIG FIZZLE
Short head = build momentum and conversation over time and stay the course
Posted by: jJ
Joseph,
You are right on the money. We have seen this time and time again with campaigns on long tail sites. There will be a big bang, but then the audience becomes oversaturated with our message and the response rate goes in the toilet.
We've found that the best solution here is to have a stable of long tail, target rich sites at your disposal. Then you simply "cycle" the sites so that at any given time you may have 15-25% of the sites running your ads. Group the sites based on optimal campaign length before performance plummets. This will help determine your cycle groups as well as cycle lengths.
Posted by: Sean Cheyney
"Short head = build momentum and conversation over time and stay the course"
I think the point you are trying to make, and the point the graph is trying to make, are two different things.
Posted by: Mack Collier
I think the point is that it doesn't make sense to craft an advertisement for a small group with specific interests. You can do lots of other things to engage those small audiences -- blogging, podcasting, newsletters, free beer -- but an advertisement in that small space is a waste of time. It's like trying to communicate with students in a classroom by covering one wall with a giant billboard, instead of just walking around and telling each student what he or she needs to do.
Advertising in the "short head" is just traditional advertising. Advertising in the "long tail" is wasted on people who don't want our advertisements, and resent them when they see them. Helping those people out with our expertise is another matter. (Seth Godin would say that's simply "serving" them.)
Posted by: David Brazeal
Mack, sorry for the spelling on my previous comment.
Joseph, I can follow the theory on advertising spents following a pattern similar to the long tail (large campaigns followed by direct response or keyword buying with low budget caps). At one point in time, additional advertising spendings produce no results at all.
I like the short head concept. If I look at the graph, I still don't understand why the optimal spent is at the crossroad between the 2 lines.
But I feel we have something very, very interesting here and I want to read more.
Posted by: Philippe
I have to say that I've never in my life written something that has been returned with such diverse and different interpretation.
it's all good.
still trying to sort it out myself
Posted by: jJ
Joe
Great concept but ...
In your graph the expenditure on the 'Short Head' increases exponentially over time. Is this true?
Or would it be flat or near flat as you do not need 'big bang' expenditures in conversational marketing.
cheers
Posted by: Ron
Isn't the short head curve just another way of showing an adoption curve of an idea? I think the interesting thing about the long tail is that it infers the end of mass - product and advertising. If the Nikon campaign results in a mass phenomenon then that would be fantastic - although unlikely.
How about 'little lad'? Example of the 'expanding waistline'?! TV/mass message but keeping momentum through word of mouth...
Posted by: Terra T
I agree with JJ's concept, I think the dissenting point of view springs from the market vs. the advertising.
The Long Tail as a market will find possible niche ROI all the way to it's teeny-tiny tapering end, but advertising on the coat-tails of a Long Tail trend peters out at the point of no return(-on-investment), and that is what I interpret as Jaffe's "Short Head" theory.
Posted by: Don The Idea Guy
This is a good conversation starter but I agree the thinking is confused.
Posted by: Mark Stevens
I like the idea a lot. Interestingly, the Compete.com blog just released a total of sites on the Internet "Torso" (sites with over 1 million UVs) - nearly 2000. It's cool to see what's in between the tail and the head - check it out: http://blog.compete.com/2007/05/29/over-1-million-visitors-internet-torso/
Posted by: Andy
