Slashdot Mirror
Doubts Multiply About the "Long Tail"
fruey sends in a New Scientist analysis of the many second thoughts about the Long Tail theory. It summarizes four studies that show, in different markets, that the tail is both flatter and thinner than originally supposed, and that blockbusters are not going away in those markets — they are getting bigger. It's theorized that widely used collaborative filtering software is magnifying the winners' share of the various pies, and peer influence is a large contributor to consumer behavior.
What the hell was that? Mattel's "My First Summary"?
Bark less. Wag more.
What is the long tail? The summary, and TFA (I skimmed it so maybe I missed this) seem to indicate that the long tail theory means the more obscure stuff will be more popular.
The long tail theory is:
1) More obscure stuff will be more profitable (because distribution costs are down - you can distribute electronic goods for practically nothing, and even real goods are more profitable because you can keep them in a warehouse in Wisconsin instead of taking up premium shelf space at a retail store downtown NYC)
2) Because its profitable, people will actually carry it.
3) Because people will carry it, people that actually want it will be able to find it and buy it.
4) Because people can find and buy the obscure stuff they want they'll spend less on the popular stuff they don't want as much. So the blockbusters will lose some of their sales to the obscure stuff.
In reality, this doesn't seem to be happening.
The markets studied in this work are notorious for being driven by short term fads. Online downloads are by predominantly ephemeral pop music, and a study of 14,000 teenagers? These are the people most influenced by peers and the 'so last week' attitude, They haven't had the time to explore and broaden their outlook.
Try getting a more diverse sample and I think that the long tail will look a lot fatter. People in their 30's and up have had time to develop far more diversified tastes and will have much more eclectic buying habits.
Pick a cohort of 14,000 boomers and you will see something very different.
Picture a graph: the y-axis is popularity (i.e. numbers sold) and the x-axis is products (e.g. each point is a book). If all the most popular products (e.g. Harry Potter) are closer to the y-axis, and as you move away from the y-axis popularity decreases, you get a long tail on the graph.
The idea here is that stocking, e.g., a few copies of a LOT of relatively unpopular books, allows you to cater to niche markets and can significantly increase profits compared to only carrying products that are in high demand.
Companies like Amazon are masters at exploiting the long tail. Oh, and here is the original article describing this idea.
Trust me, kids; don't drink and post.
The guy who made the summary is the perfect politician. Able to fill a summary with words... but without saying anything!
Not exactly.
It is the hypothesis that ALL of the non-Harry Potter books COLLECTIVELY will sell as much or more than the Harry Potter books themselves.
Even that is wrong. It isn't a single book or a single series. It's the percentages. It is the hypothesis that the 80% of lesser selling titles will equal or exceed the sales of the top 20%. Or 90% / 10%. Or wherever you want to make the cut.
In theory, it is easy to demonstrate. Suppose there are 2 blockbusters released in a category ... and the average person buy 10 items in that category. So, 20% of the sales would go to the blockbusters ... but 80% would go to the "long tail".
The problem is that the average person does NOT operate that way. They might by the latest Harry Potter book ... and no other book that year. The same with music. The same with movies.
I mean, have the major labels actually put out that much good music in the last 10 years to even download? It seems like the bar has gotten awfully low.
Possibly. Or maybe you've just aged and your tastes have changed as they've become more refined (a nice way of saying you've become pickier). That sort of makes sense since you, being older now, are not the RIAA's primary target market (which tends to be in the teens, younger 20s, etc). Additionally, being older, you're also not as impressionable. A song that would have affected you at age 15 (when emotions were high, and many experiences were imprinting themselves on your mind) would barely make a dent now or may not even be noticeable.
There has been good stuff produced in the past 10 years. I know names like Britney Spears pops to mind when you think about the crap out there, but there are a lot of artists who are part of the big labels who don't get the same face or radio time for whatever reason.