Debunking the Long Tail Tale
July 2008: I was sitting in a meeting just a few days ago, and someone I like and respect said something about "the long tail.
" A couple people sort of nodded, and I thought, "Oh my, are people still talking about that?" You see, I am and always have been...
a long tail doubter.
It's true.
I've never said it out loud because the book was so very popular and the concept was picked up everywhere and it spread like wildfire, so I just kept my doubts to myself.
For two years.
Until now.
But first, a bit of history to catch us up to the present day.
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, made a huge splash with The Long Tail, which was first published by the magazine in 2004 and then as a book in 2006.
In a nutshell, the long tail theory says that the abundance and ease of choice on the Internet has shifted sales potential from a small number of mainstream "hits" (at the front of the demand curve) toward a near-endless number of lesser-known choices at the tail.
Furthermore, because retail economics restrict stores to carrying only the best-selling products, items that have already been created and have either lost their mojo or were never popular in the mainstream in the first place are pushed out - along with their sunk costs.
But lo the Internet, with its infinite "shelf space" makes every product discoverable and ready to be purchased.
The book has become something of a holy document in the Internet community where companies ("from Amazon to iTunes," says Anderson on his website) want to find a way to sell old songs, movies, videos, ringtones, on-demand books and television shows from their infinite Web warehouses.
Case studies flew up everywhere.
Personally, I thought it was bunk.
Or rather, I thought the concept vastly overdramatized the effect of a small minority of "committed seekers" dedicated enough to something (comic books, that lost Marvin Gaye song, Civil War spoons...
) to search for and purchase a category's flotsam and jetsam.
When I looked around, in fact, it seemed that the rest of us were doing quite the opposite.
The New York Times' Most Blogged, Most Emailed and Most Searched lists.
Top TV Shows, Top Music, Top Movies on iTunes.
Amazon.
com's influential Sales Rank, and its Bestsellers list (updated hourly).
The Netflix Top 10.
To me, the Internet appeared to be herding users more aggressively toward blockbusters, not away from them.
Like I said: I kept this then un-hip and un-scientific opinion to myself.
Now there's a professor at Harvard Business School who has researched the long tail.
Based on sales data for online video rentals and songs, Professor Anita Elberse verifies my gut: not only do hits continue to be just as important online as they are online, but the Web is actually magnifying attention on the winners.
Elberse also discusses what she and others view as an incorrect subjective assumption that Anderson made when building the long tail, which is the idea that people want to go their own way.
They don't want to listen/watch/read what everyone else does, and would rather wander down an untrodden hallway of the Web and find an otherwise discarded gem.
Who is he kidding? Elberse cites additional research showing how intensely social people really are: how we like sharing experiences with others and that the mere fact that others like something makes us like it even more.
And confirmation has come from another interesting source, as well.
Neil Howe, widely considered to be the expert on Millenials, draws a broad distinction between Gen X and this new influential group - the generation driving the most development and change on the Web.
Among other things, while Boomers and Gen X "individuated," born-in-the-80s Millenials gravitate toward the social: chat rooms, instant messaging, Facebook.
They enjoy being with each other, forming friendships and shared preferences.
Rather than acting independently, Millenials who spend time customizing content on the Web do so for the purpose of sharing it with others (hello, YouTube).
Howe says it is and will be "the most connected generation in world history," and that their preferences will only solidify the popularity of mainstream, popular brands and products.
Finally, Elberse and The Wall Street Journal's Lee Gomes also believe that the Internet/tech community unconsciously may have wanted to back the theory because it flattered its citizenry.
Long tail strength would fortify the value of new digital assets created outside the walls of institutional, cultural power (let's build a pet robot in my garage, shoot a video for YouTube and get rich!).
And bloggers drank the Kool-Aid, they say, because the long tail promises an audience for just about any goofy comment out there.
This is all probably true, but it's a little sketchy so I'm not going to dwell here.
But I am very, very happy that some respectable people with significant research refute the long tail theory.
Because - while I may not be a Millenial - I do like company.
" A couple people sort of nodded, and I thought, "Oh my, are people still talking about that?" You see, I am and always have been...
a long tail doubter.
It's true.
I've never said it out loud because the book was so very popular and the concept was picked up everywhere and it spread like wildfire, so I just kept my doubts to myself.
For two years.
Until now.
But first, a bit of history to catch us up to the present day.
Chris Anderson, editor of Wired magazine, made a huge splash with The Long Tail, which was first published by the magazine in 2004 and then as a book in 2006.
In a nutshell, the long tail theory says that the abundance and ease of choice on the Internet has shifted sales potential from a small number of mainstream "hits" (at the front of the demand curve) toward a near-endless number of lesser-known choices at the tail.
Furthermore, because retail economics restrict stores to carrying only the best-selling products, items that have already been created and have either lost their mojo or were never popular in the mainstream in the first place are pushed out - along with their sunk costs.
But lo the Internet, with its infinite "shelf space" makes every product discoverable and ready to be purchased.
The book has become something of a holy document in the Internet community where companies ("from Amazon to iTunes," says Anderson on his website) want to find a way to sell old songs, movies, videos, ringtones, on-demand books and television shows from their infinite Web warehouses.
Case studies flew up everywhere.
Personally, I thought it was bunk.
Or rather, I thought the concept vastly overdramatized the effect of a small minority of "committed seekers" dedicated enough to something (comic books, that lost Marvin Gaye song, Civil War spoons...
) to search for and purchase a category's flotsam and jetsam.
When I looked around, in fact, it seemed that the rest of us were doing quite the opposite.
The New York Times' Most Blogged, Most Emailed and Most Searched lists.
Top TV Shows, Top Music, Top Movies on iTunes.
Amazon.
com's influential Sales Rank, and its Bestsellers list (updated hourly).
The Netflix Top 10.
To me, the Internet appeared to be herding users more aggressively toward blockbusters, not away from them.
Like I said: I kept this then un-hip and un-scientific opinion to myself.
Now there's a professor at Harvard Business School who has researched the long tail.
Based on sales data for online video rentals and songs, Professor Anita Elberse verifies my gut: not only do hits continue to be just as important online as they are online, but the Web is actually magnifying attention on the winners.
Elberse also discusses what she and others view as an incorrect subjective assumption that Anderson made when building the long tail, which is the idea that people want to go their own way.
They don't want to listen/watch/read what everyone else does, and would rather wander down an untrodden hallway of the Web and find an otherwise discarded gem.
Who is he kidding? Elberse cites additional research showing how intensely social people really are: how we like sharing experiences with others and that the mere fact that others like something makes us like it even more.
And confirmation has come from another interesting source, as well.
Neil Howe, widely considered to be the expert on Millenials, draws a broad distinction between Gen X and this new influential group - the generation driving the most development and change on the Web.
Among other things, while Boomers and Gen X "individuated," born-in-the-80s Millenials gravitate toward the social: chat rooms, instant messaging, Facebook.
They enjoy being with each other, forming friendships and shared preferences.
Rather than acting independently, Millenials who spend time customizing content on the Web do so for the purpose of sharing it with others (hello, YouTube).
Howe says it is and will be "the most connected generation in world history," and that their preferences will only solidify the popularity of mainstream, popular brands and products.
Finally, Elberse and The Wall Street Journal's Lee Gomes also believe that the Internet/tech community unconsciously may have wanted to back the theory because it flattered its citizenry.
Long tail strength would fortify the value of new digital assets created outside the walls of institutional, cultural power (let's build a pet robot in my garage, shoot a video for YouTube and get rich!).
And bloggers drank the Kool-Aid, they say, because the long tail promises an audience for just about any goofy comment out there.
This is all probably true, but it's a little sketchy so I'm not going to dwell here.
But I am very, very happy that some respectable people with significant research refute the long tail theory.
Because - while I may not be a Millenial - I do like company.
Source...