Hits Not Dead Say WSJ. Denise Richards at Petrol Station.
Yeah so WSJ have confirmed today that The Long Tail may shake out differently to how its proponents may want. Really it's a bit like politics, and the difference between Theory and Reality. I for one dont see hits going away at all. And I believe in the Long Tail. Isn't this why syndication makes people like Jerry Seinfeld billions ?
Sure there are going to be changes, but it may just change the Hit Experience as opposed to replace it; People will watch films even if they decide to pay a premium to watch it at home the day it comes out; And as for sports, they arent going away, except people may choose to watch as I did last Sunday the view of my own team at quarter time breaks. The Long Tail didnt stop me watching my AFL team play a crap game. (to be arrested since Sunday at the G!)
If people have the choice of buying from 10m books vs a few thousand at the local store, well they are going to buy a larger range from the website with 10m by sheer definition because you cant get them at your local store. This will change things alot, but not necessarily mean the death of hits or the fact that low culture dictates that the books people buy become that more esoteric. Maybe a bit, but not much. Whatever is on Oprah will sell alot etc.
The best example of how Hits are not dying, is The Long Tail Book itself; It's a book to start with. Not an ebook. It has a kewl title, quotes, a good looking cover, and had the bejeesus promoted out of it. And it has sold alot. Sure the author (who is a print editor :) microchunked the story on his blog pre launch (cheap marketing), but at the end of the day, he did exactly what other hit authors have done.
And now WSJ are digging a bit deeper - by updating and spreadsheeting the latest stats he quoted, or inverting the trend. I dont think either prove or disprove each other, but it may well sell more papers and books.
WSJ : "By Mr. Anderson's calculation, 25% of Amazon's sales are from its tail, as they involve books you can't find at a traditional retailer. But using another analysis of those numbers -- an analysis that Mr. Anderson argues isn't meaningful -- you can show that 2.7% of Amazon's titles produce a whopping 75% of its revenues. Not quite as impressive."
Chris Anderson replies : "What it does say is that the current data at Rhapsody, Netflix and Amazon show that the tail amounts to between 21% and 40% of the market, with the head accounting for the rest. Although I don't discuss this in detail in the book, in the case of Rhapsody, the trend data suggests that the tail (as defined above) actually will equal the head within five years. Which is why the language Gomes cites from the book jacket is actually all phrased in the future conditional tense ("What happens when the combined value of all the millions of items that may sell only a few copies equals or exceeds the value of a few items that sell millions each?"). I asked him to quote the jacket copy in full context, but it apparently wasn't convenient to his thesis to do so, so he didn't."
Sure there are going to be changes, but it may just change the Hit Experience as opposed to replace it; People will watch films even if they decide to pay a premium to watch it at home the day it comes out; And as for sports, they arent going away, except people may choose to watch as I did last Sunday the view of my own team at quarter time breaks. The Long Tail didnt stop me watching my AFL team play a crap game. (to be arrested since Sunday at the G!)
If people have the choice of buying from 10m books vs a few thousand at the local store, well they are going to buy a larger range from the website with 10m by sheer definition because you cant get them at your local store. This will change things alot, but not necessarily mean the death of hits or the fact that low culture dictates that the books people buy become that more esoteric. Maybe a bit, but not much. Whatever is on Oprah will sell alot etc.
The best example of how Hits are not dying, is The Long Tail Book itself; It's a book to start with. Not an ebook. It has a kewl title, quotes, a good looking cover, and had the bejeesus promoted out of it. And it has sold alot. Sure the author (who is a print editor :) microchunked the story on his blog pre launch (cheap marketing), but at the end of the day, he did exactly what other hit authors have done.
And now WSJ are digging a bit deeper - by updating and spreadsheeting the latest stats he quoted, or inverting the trend. I dont think either prove or disprove each other, but it may well sell more papers and books.
WSJ : "By Mr. Anderson's calculation, 25% of Amazon's sales are from its tail, as they involve books you can't find at a traditional retailer. But using another analysis of those numbers -- an analysis that Mr. Anderson argues isn't meaningful -- you can show that 2.7% of Amazon's titles produce a whopping 75% of its revenues. Not quite as impressive."
Chris Anderson replies : "What it does say is that the current data at Rhapsody, Netflix and Amazon show that the tail amounts to between 21% and 40% of the market, with the head accounting for the rest. Although I don't discuss this in detail in the book, in the case of Rhapsody, the trend data suggests that the tail (as defined above) actually will equal the head within five years. Which is why the language Gomes cites from the book jacket is actually all phrased in the future conditional tense ("What happens when the combined value of all the millions of items that may sell only a few copies equals or exceeds the value of a few items that sell millions each?"). I asked him to quote the jacket copy in full context, but it apparently wasn't convenient to his thesis to do so, so he didn't."
posted by redbarren at 11:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home