The beginner's guide to critiquing the Long Tail
One of the problems with having coined a phrase that has become something of a cliche is that it invites criticism and backlash. There have been dozens of articles or blog posts that questions some part of the thesis or the data that underlies it (along with the many that support it, of course). Sometimes the writers make good points, but more often their arguments are based on misreadings of the book, statistical errors or simple listing of anecdotes or specific examples that don't fit the theory, rather than any systematic analysis.
This is not to say that there aren't many things I don't cover in the book but should have, and a few things I did cover but shouldn't have *cough* Google Video *cough*. I've touched on some of the more interesting errors and omissions here on the blog, including in the FAQ here.
As for plain old takedown attempts, I think I've heard them all several times now, and it's getting tiresome to respond to each one. So I thought that I'd just list some of the most common mistakes here, so people might at least make more interesting ones in the future.
The Top Five Mistakes of Long Tail Criticism
- "X was a hit! See? Hits aren't dead. Hah!" I never said they were. Hits are as much a part of a powerlaw distribution as are niches. It's the monopoly of the hit that's dead. I do, in fairness, declare the "death of the blockbuster" from time to time, and weasel out of the conflict by defining blockbusters as "megahits" of the sort we won't be seeing much of anymore. This is Literary License.
- "I've done an analysis of this dataset and, in percentage terms, it shows that sales are become more concentrated in the head, not less. Hah!" This is the Percentage Mistake. Many people make it, and it's an easy trap to fall into since we're not used to inventories that grow by a factor of ten or more in five years. Netflix, for instance, has grown from 4,000 titles to more than 70,000 titles since 2000. Over the same period the rentals of the top 100 films has dropped from 27% of the total to 17% (Ilya is directionally right on this part, at least), so in real terms demand is spread over more titles. But since those 100 titles now represent a smaller percentage of a much larger inventory (from 2.5% to 0.1%), it looks like the market is indeed more concentrated on the hits, even though such percentage analysis is meaningless in the real world where absolute numbers are everything. This is simply a statistical error. Please don't make it.
- "I'm in the Long Tail and I'm not rich yet--the theory clearly doesn't work. Hah!" The big money in the Long Tail is in aggregation, as shown by the likes of eBay or iTunes. For the individual producer who's way down there in the weeds, the forces that created the Long Tail market in the first place--democratized access to market and powerful filters that can drive demand to niches--certainly help, but even doubling a small number still leaves a pretty small number. Good thing there are all those non-monetary rewards, such as attention and reputation, huh? How to convert them to real money is up to you. Have you considered playing a concert?
- "You said that 57% of Amazon sales are Long Tail. No way. Hah!" I know. That part of the analysis in the 2004 article, which was based on some MIT work, appears to have undercounted the top-sellers. Forensic economics isn't perfect. We've subsequently done a lot more work and revised that to 25%, which is the figure used in the book and all other writings for the past two-plus years. Please use the more recent figures. [Update: Hi Valleywag readers! This was very publicly corrected more than two years ago, and the data in the book is accurate. Old news, nothing to see here unless you haven't been paying attention for a loooong time.]
- "You call Blockbuster and Barnes & Noble the Short Head. But what about Blockbuster.com and BN.com? They've got every bit as big an inventory as Netflix and Amazon. Hah!" Sigh. Please understand the definitions. Short Head = inventory in the typical store of the largest bricks and mortar retailer in a market. Long Tail = everything else. Is that so hard?



I think you miss out the other criticism, which can be summed up as "it was ever thus". The hits/niche dichotomy is nothing new, and the proportion of hits-to-niche hasn't changed much. What has changed is our ability to track sales data, much of which was hidden before.
Posted by: Ian Betteridge | January 31, 2007 at 05:21 AM
I think the problem stems from the perception that the Long Tail is "good" and the Short Head is "bad." People have allegiance to certain brands and feel compelled to defend them.
Posted by: Jeffrey Parsons | January 31, 2007 at 06:38 AM
The only complaint I had was that even retailers focused on "hits" can do a lot more than "guess" - analytics in retail is increasingly sophisticated.
If you are interested, here's my article on system support for Long Tail businesses.
JT
www.edmblog.com
Posted by: James Taylor | January 31, 2007 at 02:11 PM
You know what I find incredible? With the millions of individuals on this earth, with their millions of individual tastes, it's amazing that there are hits at all. What I want to know is what is the basis for this commonality in taste? What is that ineffable quality that defines a hit for the masses? My grandma has Alzheimer's and I've observed that even though she has lost a great deal of her memory, her aesthetic sensibility remains intact. Could this sensibility actually be instinctual? Could this aesthetice instinct (if that's what it is) be a determining factor between hits and the long tail? (Of course, I'm speaking of a quality that goes deeper than good promotion, ease of production, and expanded distribution.)
Posted by: Mary Warner | January 31, 2007 at 03:33 PM
Great to see you rebut this bunch of stupidities and statistical fallacies.
Still, while basically agreeing with you, I have two modifications:
Mistake 1:
I don't think it's completely accurate to say that there won't be any megahits. They are probably going to be more rare than in the past, but the degree of hits follow some kind of random distribution, so every now and then you do get something that kicks the pendulum out further than its mean.
Example 1: Harry Potter.
Example 2: Google. Currently bigger than it "ought" to be according to the theory. See, for example, the second chart in my traffic log analysis, where Google sits as a dot quite far above the line defined by the Zipf distribution.
Most likely there will be a regression back to the mean and the power law will reassert itself over the long term. But in the short term (i.e., any individual year), there will sometimes be a megahit that's bigger than the curve predicts.
Mistake 3:
Yes, most people won't get rich from long tail content and services, but some will actually make decent money. It's often overlooked that niche content can be worth dramatically more than generic content, because it's more value-add to the customer. As a simple example, I will point to my training video on paper prototyping (a usability technique).
This film has sold about 2,000 copies, which surely qualifies it as very long tail. But we get to keep most of the $68 sales price (less tiny replication costs for the DVD, and a bit of fulfillment). In contrast, movie studios only make a few bucks per DVD sold of hit movies. We make more than $50 per DVD sold, or $100K for this film. (Plus, of course, what it'll sell in future years, since this is evergreen content.)
OK, $100K doesn't qualify as "getting rich," but it's enough to cover the production costs and leave a margin.
Posted by: Jakob Nielsen | January 31, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Jakob makes some good points.
Also, using Netflix as the example for Mistake 2 is unfortunate, since Netflix doesn't really sell movies, it sells the idea that you can get any movie you want, whenever you want it.
More important, though, is that rentals at Netflix don't reflect what customers want, but what's in Netflix's best interest to deliver.
People aren't renting more "long tail" films off of Netflix by choice. Netflix fulfills requests for relatively older, unpopular films much more quickly than requests for recent, popular films. This lets Netflix minimize their inventory and reduces their need to invest in expensive, new movies.
If you want to make a valid case of Netflix, you should be using the distribution of movie titles in Netflix customers' wishlists, rather than what the company fulfills.
Posted by: James Lewin | January 31, 2007 at 09:26 PM
Hmmm ... the pattern I see here is more like
"The Long Tail has riches, wealth, MONEY! It's a revolution in DEMOCRATIZATION, where PEOPLE-POWER fuels the system."
"Waitaminute. I'm not rich, nobody I know is making much money ..."
"HA! You didn't understand the theory. When I said *MONEY*, I really meant money for the big retailer. When I said *DEMOCRATIZATION*, I meant you're all little sharecroppers. When I said *PEOPLE-POWER*, I meant there's no profit without labor. So you haven't refuted anything."
This is called Slick Marketing. :-(
That is, with enough license, creative redefinition, and weaving back and forth between claims, you can do the trick of selling hype then retreating to triviality.
It's not all that amazing to say there's a potential for business in a low-margin high-volume model. That's Wal-Mart. Or even that there's a slight shift in distribution. But it's both not an easy business, since low-margin means not much margin of error, and the LongTailers (usually called something like "nonunion day labor") are almost always treated very poorly - which is hardly is something to cheer about unless you're in the BigHead of the business.
Posted by: Seth Finkelstein | January 31, 2007 at 09:56 PM
Considering the repetition and nature of these explanations, it seems long tail, power distribution, applies to the continuum of critical thinking and thought: A small population that thinks and a large population that does not (the knee jerk responses).
Posted by: Reed Bailey | January 31, 2007 at 10:27 PM
The forces that shape our society are and have always been of economic nature (yeah...good old supply and demand). In this sense the Long Tail is - above all - a set of economic principles setting the stage for a new era.
As far as individuals are concerned there are - even today (in the beginning of the Long Tail era) - many many examples of people who actually made good money just by being original, having fun and share their experiences with others. Two examples come to my mind right now, the mentos-coke guys and, more recently, a guy that sold "himself" in e-bay (for around AU $7,500). I am sure that in this blog I will find many other examples (I haven't explored all of it yet :), and their number will only rise from now on...
But, I disagree with Mr. Seth Finkelstein and his Long Tail comment about the Long Tail theory in one fundamental point: calling the Long Tail theory and its related strong scientific argumentation "Slick Marketing" it is - I believe - a very "cheap" way to see it, especially when it refers to a notion that big (hey, its alerady here in these lines...can't you see it?)
Is everything that we do as individuals related to "How do I make money, How do I make money, How do I make money, etc...")?
I believe not.
p.s. How do I put links on the text? :-)
Posted by: John I. | February 01, 2007 at 02:29 AM
I don't think it's completely accurate to say that there won't be any megahits. They are probably going to be more rare than in the past, but the degree of hits follow some kind of random distribution, so every now and then you do get something that kicks the pendulum out further than its mean.
Example 1: Harry Potter.
Example 2: Google. Currently bigger than it "ought" to be according to the theory. See, for example, the second chart in my traffic log analysis, where Google sits as a dot quite far above the line defined by the Zipf distribution.
Most likely there will be a regression back to the mean and the power law will reassert itself over the long term. But in the short term (i.e., any individual year), there will sometimes be a megahit that's bigger than the curve predicts
http://read-articles.blogspot.com/
Posted by: fee | February 02, 2007 at 04:31 AM
This column appears in February "Best In Texas" Music Magazine, the print companion to the online Texas Music Chart (a Long Tail filter). Hope I captured the spirit:
The buzz in the entertainment community during the past six months has been about the economic theory of “The Long Tail.”
You and I already know about the Long Tail.
Whether you’re a musician in the Texas and Red Dirt scene or a fan who follows the artists through publications like this one, you’re a vital part of the Long Tail.
The premise is that if platinum albums and mega-million-dollar movies are the “head” of the entertainment economy, then niche products are the “tail.” Because there are so many niches that can be accommodated today, the tail is long—thus, the phrase.
With today’s easily-accessible digital technology, everyone has the tools to record, publish, or produce, so the opportunities for individual success are greater, even without a mass appeal hit. Production, distribution, and marketing are now a very democratic, truly grass-roots process.
The book The Long Tail is by Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief at Wired magazine. He surmises that the day of the blockbuster hit is behind us and the world of unlimited choice is the driver of the economy.
He describes the three forces of the Long Tail as: (1) Make it; (2) Get it out there;
and (3) Help me find it.
That’s exactly why I say you and I are already there.
Artists can make a good living without having to wait for a chance to play Texas Stadium, the Alamodome or even Billy Bob’s. There are plenty of venues where they can play the songs they – and their audiences – like.
And because we as consumers don’t have to wait for some corporate machine to approve our favorite music, we can pick it up when we want at merch tables or online. Or find our favorite singer-songwriters at intimate clubs as well as on huge stages.
That’s why Texas and Red Dirt music are so attractive to people outside Texas and Oklahoma. There’s a niche here, but take all the elements of the niche, and you’ve got enough of an audience to create a sales pattern as big as any blockbuster.
Welcome, world, to The Long Tail.
Here in Texas, we’ve been wagging that dog for some time now.
Ed Shane
Publisher
Posted by: Ed Shane | February 02, 2007 at 02:34 PM
I've been posting a nearly page-by-page critique of the book at my weblog. I'm sure I get some things wrong, but I don't think most of what I say falls under any of the items listed here. Anyone interested (self-promotion alert) can find the separate posts listed here: http://whimsley.typepad.com/whimsley/2007/03/the_long_tail_l.html.
Posted by: tom s. | March 25, 2007 at 03:30 PM
Gruezi, Super Site betreibt Ihr hier!!! Das kann sich wirklich sehen lassen...
Posted by: Sanders | June 04, 2007 at 05:51 AM
You will always have jealous minds attempting to belittle your crowning achievements. Rather than just appreciate it for what it is, a brilliant summation in the evolution of buyer behavior, they would rather pick apart the pieces. Sad, I must admit. Chris, why do you even bother?
I am infatuated with the concept, the application (as our site has 4000 unique keywords) all because of an inspiration from one of your theories. This was a deliberate attempt, when we could have easily went for the "me too" keywords, but I am amazed every day to see how people find us online, when I check the stats"
I just wanted to say thanks...
Posted by: Seo Design Solutions | November 29, 2007 at 06:51 PM