Over the last year, WIRED editor-in-chief Chris Anderson's Long Tail theory (and book) have been widely discussed, debated and acclaimed. In fact, the Long Tail is now considered as one of the most influential economic and business ideas in recent times.
For the past few months I have been busy at work extending the first principles of the Long Tail thinking into brand-building and brand communication. After much thinking, writing and chiselling, I finally managed to ship out a paper on the subject a few days ago.
In its short time since it was formulated, the Long Tail theory has found application in every possible field, but this (as far as I know) is the first application of the idea to brand-building. And this is what Chris Anderson himself had to say about the paper.
I would love to hear your views and comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Interesting paper. Insignificant question: Is body copy the 'long tail' of print advertisements?
Significant question: Are we saying brand communication must talk to everyone?
Nice term: Negative Database. Question: Why waste time building negative databases for brands. I suspect it must have some very useful point for existence in other information systems but in brand building? Hmm...worth discussing.
'Trade control for influence'. Spithy thought. The question is the inverse relationship possible? (Spithy: 'Spiffy+Pithy')
Quite a handful of questions.
1. No, body copy isn't the long tail of print advertisments. Not as far as I know :)
2. Not really. But brand communication will end up talking to anyone who wants to listen to it or finds it relevant and engaging.
3. I can't take credit for coining the term. We need to build negative databases for the very reason why we define a brand - to give a boundary to our world. In a world of possibilities, merely defining who you are can be limiting. So, instead you define who you cannot be and let yourself grow in interesting directions.
4. Again I cannot take credit for the line - it's been heard quite a bit across the Internet. I am quite sure there must be some sort of inverse relationship between the two - though control tends to be an expensive proposition. So a great deal of influence and energy needs to be traded for a little control. The reverse equation is more profitable.
Thanks. I appreciate the patient answers. Quite a thought-provoking paper that one. While I may not agree with all of its conclusions, I most certainly find it most useful for academics and practictioners.
Post a Comment