Posted on 

 by 

neilperkin

 in 

Fragmentation – It’s baaad. Nooo, it’s gooood

Fragmentation_1

A lot is talked about media fragmentation. Easy to understand why – the rules of mass-marketing have clearly changed forever, and the efficiency in reaching mass audiences once enjoyed by planners is long gone. The total reach of the 500 top rating TV programmes in each year has declined by 27% since 2000. If you look at the 15 top rating TV shows of the last 25 years, not one has been broadcast since 2000 (Source: BARB). This is not a new story, but is it really such a bad thing? As a magazine owner, I’d like to think we know something about the benefits of fragmentation. The ability to target highly defined audiences can result in high degrees of message relevance, which in my book means higher levels of audience involvement. Nothing new there, but if media can increasingly deliver more tightly defined communities of like-minded people, then the ability for planners to make different media more complimentary is greater. Sparking conversation, cross-media brand advocacy, and simple word of mouth is expedited by a heightened ability to more easily target clusters of behavourially or attitudinally similar people. To quote Paul Edwards of Publicis: ‘Bring it on.’

8 responses to “Fragmentation – It’s baaad. Nooo, it’s gooood”

  1. Manish Sinha Avatar
    Manish Sinha

    great point…i feel we get scared with all this fragmentation talk…
    but if we are reaching out to ‘tribes of mind’, then fragmentation actually helps!
    how else wud you explain Neil and Manish conversing out of some 70mn blogs:-)

    Reply
  2. Manish Sinha Avatar
    Manish Sinha

    great point…i feel we get scared with all this fragmentation talk…
    but if we are reaching out to ‘tribes of mind’, then fragmentation actually helps!
    how else wud you explain Neil and Manish conversing out of some 70mn blogs:-)

    Reply
  3. neilperkin Avatar
    neilperkin

    Nice point Manish. Like the ‘tribes of mind’ phrase…

    Reply
  4. neilperkin Avatar
    neilperkin

    Nice point Manish. Like the ‘tribes of mind’ phrase…

    Reply
  5. TomLR Avatar
    TomLR

    Neil. I write the Raymond blog, which is ridiculous BUT I do have a sensible side (not called Raymond I suppose).
    I like the way you talk about media CREATING sub-sets of consumers (that’s what you seem to be saying to me) – which takes the active-ness away from those consumers and suggests that they are channelled by media. I don’t dispute that but think it paints a negative picture. I think also that it suggests that the end game of this is advertsing – and the targetting of sub-sets (or ‘fragments’) for advertsising purposes is what it’s all about. I don’t dispute that either, but it’s also a bit depressing to think that that’s the model that provides all the profits (for Google, for magazines, for YouTube etc etc).
    How to monetise communities ?
    I prefer to think of consumers as empowered selectors and creators of their stimuli. I don’t think that’s how it works – but the alternative to me is just depressing.
    How does that philosophy sit with you, and your work ?

    Reply
  6. TomLR Avatar
    TomLR

    Neil. I write the Raymond blog, which is ridiculous BUT I do have a sensible side (not called Raymond I suppose).
    I like the way you talk about media CREATING sub-sets of consumers (that’s what you seem to be saying to me) – which takes the active-ness away from those consumers and suggests that they are channelled by media. I don’t dispute that but think it paints a negative picture. I think also that it suggests that the end game of this is advertsing – and the targetting of sub-sets (or ‘fragments’) for advertsising purposes is what it’s all about. I don’t dispute that either, but it’s also a bit depressing to think that that’s the model that provides all the profits (for Google, for magazines, for YouTube etc etc).
    How to monetise communities ?
    I prefer to think of consumers as empowered selectors and creators of their stimuli. I don’t think that’s how it works – but the alternative to me is just depressing.
    How does that philosophy sit with you, and your work ?

    Reply
  7. neilperkin Avatar
    neilperkin

    Hi. I too am a little hesitant about the idea of media ‘creating’ sub-sets of consumers, if that is all that is used to define them and particularly if we are saying that that then means they are not active participants in that community. In fact, my experience tells me different. We talk about Marie-Claire or Pick-Me-Up ‘readers’ as short-hand to an understanding of a particular type of person who we can define within the frame of reference of that brand. But many of those readers are very active participants in the brand community…not only interacting directly with the brand but also sharing, conversing amongst each other.

    Reply
  8. neilperkin Avatar
    neilperkin

    Hi. I too am a little hesitant about the idea of media ‘creating’ sub-sets of consumers, if that is all that is used to define them and particularly if we are saying that that then means they are not active participants in that community. In fact, my experience tells me different. We talk about Marie-Claire or Pick-Me-Up ‘readers’ as short-hand to an understanding of a particular type of person who we can define within the frame of reference of that brand. But many of those readers are very active participants in the brand community…not only interacting directly with the brand but also sharing, conversing amongst each other.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives