RE: UKNM: The Disposable Brand

[Steve Bowbrick]

There's common ground here with something someone told me recently - movie

makers are 'object-oriented', assembling teams around the titanic (no

relation) effort to produce a rounded, finished artefact and then moving

on. Other media owners are 'process-oriented', happy to focus on wringing

log-term returns from a brand/product. Do web site builders need to combine

the two?


s


At 10:57 04/09/98 +0100, you wrote:

>This is really interesting Bill.  Two thoughts:

>

>- are we sure that Hollywood really likes the "disposable brand model"?

>Would the plethora of sequel movies not suggest that studios are trying

>to turn their successes from one-hit wonders into reliable repeaters?  

>

>- the movie industry is largely based on people paying for the content,

>which is not yet the way of the Web.  It seems likely that advertising

>will play some part in most Internet business models.  A one-shot

>disposable brand is difficult to sell to advertisers as it is hard to be

>confident in advance about the scale or nature of the audience, whereas

>the repeat brand model of, say, a magazine enables everyone to know the

>likely environment and audience for advertising prior to publication of

>each issue.

>

>However a repeat brand is not necessarily the same as a brand extension,

>which is presumably what the iVillage / Hearst rumours are about.

--

Steve Bowbrick                                      Webmedia Group

0171 494 3177                                         0468 257 570




http://www.webmedia.com/steve

stevewebmedia [dot] com (mailto:stevewebmedia [dot] com)

http://www.bowbrick.com - he's very advanced for his age...