|
Stay in touch!
Search with
Archives
June 2010
May 2010 April 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003
Recent Entries
Never a truer word spoken ...
16 Answers from an Entrepreneur and Freelancer A good digital music strategy? You bet! May update Breaking an act ... Things Indies can learn from Idol ... The Melbourne Storm fiasco cont ... The Melbourne Storm fiasco How to make a viny record - from 1956 It's better to reliquish control; Kulash gets it. Why doesn't EMI? |
November 26, 2008"Debunking the Long Tail"?The Register published an article some time back about new research that claims to "debunk the Long Tail". It takes a critical mathematical approach mainly to the precise shape of the curve - is it a Pareto curve, as Chris Anderson originally suggested, or is it a log-normal curve? Anderson posted a response here. There's another good response from Benoit Felten, who was at Page's presentation here. This analysis adds to a growing body of literature suggesting that the Anderson's maths in The Long Tail might be flawed, and, rather gleefully picking small holes in it. Gerd Leonhard posted a rebuttal of this some time ago. Leonhard makes the very good point that no study of existing data can be considered comprehensive, let a lone conclusive, because the data are all flawed by market mechanisms. Page's critique is fair enough and I'm still waiting to find a copy of Page's full report so I can think about it carefully. What I object to is the ridiculous journalistic fixation with "rebutting" the idea of a Long Tail. Now, to me it's very simple: the music I have released in the New Media environment is selling. Had I tried to put that into old-school retail stores or (God forbid) try to get record company support for it, it would not be selling (I know this because it didn't). I also know I'm not the only one who has had this experience ... there IS a Long Tail effect, no matter what the numbers tell us about aggregated sales. Anyone who claims to be "debunking the Long Tail" is full of shit and probably trying to build a career based on knocking someone else off. The Register has been at it for years because controversy is the cheapest form of publicity they can get trying to get into the US market where Wired (which Anderson edits) dominates ... beat up your rival and people might care. Whether the tail is as long as Anderson originally speculated, whether it's a Pareto curve or a log-normal curve, whether it applies to sales only or streams and file-swaps as well ... these are, as far as I'm concerned, fairly trivial details that a bunch of propellor-heads will devote the next ten (or more) years to figuring out and will actually mean very little in the real world. Looking at the other of Page's work that is available, he seems to be one of those propellor-heads: all numbers and no meaning. The new study is also based on fairly limited data, as was Anderson's. Anderson admits this, The Register doesn't. The new study (like a bunch of others with the "debunking the tail" handle) starts from a bunch of assumptions about the Long Tail theory that Anderson has repeatedly said he doesn't make. The Long Tail is NOT as comprehensive a theory as the debunking people like to claim it is. It's easy to disprove a claim that nobody made - Rhetoriticians call this a "straw man" argument. Yes, Anderson says it's hard to make money in the Tail - but that was always the case. His book is about the value of aggregating the tail where the marginal cost of administering each item is close to zero. At no stage to I recall him saying that anyone could make a living from peddling a single low-selling item within the tail. That's a no-brainer and admitting it does not equate to "effectively admitt[ing] game over for his Long Tail". My Musowiki project is built in the expectation that each page will contribute to a Long Tail of page views - no page or even section on its own will make much difference, but the aggregated effect should (I hope) prove sustainable. That's not possible in any other medium and that's Anderson's point, no matter what the number-crunchers tell us. For the record, I'm not making a living in my musical niche either but I've opened up a fairly neat revenue stream that I had previously been denied and this has allowed me to increase my catalog and devote some resources to the Holy Grail of niches: promotion. It's pretty obvious, not just from the new study, that there IS still a constraint on the length of the Tail, but that that constraint is no longer shelf space, it's now governed by attention economics - that's where the career is for researchers (and journalists!) in the area. For example, as Felton Benoit points out (and as I noted years ago in my thesis submission), the limited advertising space on the iTunes home page promotes the attention paid to big-sellers at the expense of the Tail. If I was an industry mid-player I'd be ignoring all the Long Tail debate and learning as much as I can about attention economics. Now, I'm going back to making more music, knowing full well that the Long Tail will work to help me capitalise on what I make and that if I get everything else right I might be able to increase the resulting revenue and build a business in this environment on my own ... Posted by Hughie at November 26, 2008 10:26 AM | TrackBackComments
Post a comment
|
Categories
Support independent music!
The Genre Benders: I am leaving! I am leaving! in original CD format or download from iTunes or listen on PayPlay.fm or Go to The Genre Benders' home page for more
merchandise - support Huge's bid to create new and interesting music in new and interesting ways with new and interesting people. Bun' Ber E Unplugged in original CD format or download from MP3tunes.com or Go to Bun' Ber E's home page for more Bun' Ber E's debut CD in original CD format or one track at a time or from or Read some reviews or Go to Bun' Ber E's home page for more |