http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tail

have a read through the JK & Tipsheeters, very interesting indeed.....

have a read through the JK & Tipsheeters, very interesting indeed..

Sorry Bobby but I don't subscribe to the long tail theory, especially when it comes to music and other sectors. It's very relevent to retailers, but, not to music or music producers.

As an aside, Andersons 98% theory (i.e. no matter what you put online, someone, somewhere will show up and actually buy it) was mentioned twice on his Long Tail book's jacket and that's what stopped me buying it!

It's not exactly rocketscience to conclude that if you have an infinite amount of shelf space to sell books or cds, the low-sellers - when added together - will beat the high-sellers. How he managed to flesh that out into a full book is beyond me.

Andersons original Wired article made a big deal about 25% of amazons book sales coming from it's tail..well..I would argue that also means that 2.7% of Amazons books provide 75% of the revenue.

When you consider that the 'tail' sales are much cheaper than those made at the 'head' and 'body' i.e. they're predominantly bargain bucket sales, the theory begins to fall apart at the seams.

He also forgets the fact that the first person to buy a book or album is probably the author/band themselves.

Even your local pub band would shift 10 copies if the price is right and their families are large enough.

In other words, the long tail always existed and from a retail perspective, it makes perfect sense to have the biggest shelves known to mankind.

But from a music perspective, it actually doesn't mean much.

Rhapsody & eCast - two of the bigger music streaming companies, which are, according to Anderson, classic long tail operations - regularly report no-plays at between 20 and 30%..and rising... which debunks andersons 98% theory claims completely.

If you look at the ever expanding blogosphere or even youtube, the same is true. i.e. the vast majority of blogs/youtube producers have zero subscribers...not the other way around as anderson claims it should be.

Even youtubers with a few subscribers (part of the 'tail') are missing out on the ad revenue share by google (Google announced they will share revenue with only some, not all, youtubers recently). The likely reason is that it's too expensive to do the paperwork for those with under a certain amount of subcribers.

Which sorta rips the whole long tail theory to shreds.

In a nutshell, I think Andersons theory is true (there is a long tail) but that's not news and his conclusion (based on the long tail theory) that 'hits' are no longer important is simply bollox. Not just from a music perspective, but, any perspective.

A far more interesting read might be The Tipping Edge by Malcolm Gladwell, which delves into how social groups work and how social phenomena happen...in a way that's almost like a disease spreading virally.

In many respects, The Tipping Edge book is the complete antithesis of The Long Tail..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point_(book)

I think the "long tail" theory is interesting but is becoming more and more replaced the "New Headline" thread, to punch a point home.

This all depends on which version of the Long Tail is being considered.

From a musician's point of view it shows there are enough people online to support almost any venture - getting to those people in the first place is the problem.

At the top of the tail it is high demand and highly competitive, along the tail is opportunity for smaller concerns, less competition but also fewer punters.

The Internet gives "bedroom" enthusiasts a way to reach a much higher number of people than before - the 1 in 10 000 who's interested.

The Internet gives "bedroom" enthusiasts a way to reach a much higher number of people than before - the 1 in 10 000 who's interested.

In theory, you're right, zooloo.

In reality, the internet also gives 'bedroom' enthusiasts who should never be let near a musical instrument or microphone a way to reach a much higher number of people than before.

In other words, MP3.COM, MYSPACE.COM, PROJECTOPUS.COM and many other sites like that are not only a great place for good bands to reach out, they are also a celestial landfill of shit music.

The problem is most consumers simply don't have the time to filter for themselves (some of the music online is so bad it would put you off randomly browsing those sites for life) so they rely on what they read and hear about, whether it's on the tipsheet, record of the day, on the radio, in a magazine or from a pal.

The net effect of which means the better promoted music will *always* sit at the head and body of the long tail.

Anderson makes a big noise about amazons long tail with book sales as an example. I'm not disagreeing that it exists, but, I would argue that he's misinterpreting it.

Another way of looking at it is that the thin edge of the book-sales long tail is made up of books discussing the fine art of knitting or pigeon fancier books. In other words, they will *always* remain at the thin end of the tail, because they are niche.

i.e. the long tail has always existed. some publishers specialise in niche books/magazines about knitting and manage to turn a modest profit. That's not news.

What I find more interesting is how you move up the tail. How social groups work and what triggers something to spread like wildfire - some call it the viral factor or the Tipping Edge - is fascinating to me because the way social groups work online is quite different to how they operate offline.

What I find most interesting is how the tail ends.
Usually with a witty comment, followed by someone trying to be wittier and then the thread stops.

I must say Mister Smart, I actually operate socially and business-wise in the same way as I am contributing to this thread, which anybody who has met me can verify.

The long-tail theory is very interesting(probably invented by Wikepedia), I do like the "tail-is at the end theory" as well.

I was called in person by a blogging site friend, a few years back asking me to think of something to shut a particularly anarchic thread down on his site.

I successfully did this once.

The next time I did it, the thread was ended by a four letter word directed at me.

I believe in edited threads, or we won`t have anything to read.

Can you imagine a day, in which between every line I have just written there is an advert for a pair of slippers?

Blimey this is a dull thread lets close it guys, love you all!

Very good point on those in the long tail is where they belong (Niche) and will never move upwards. As you observe it was ever thus.

The Internet long tail of itself is not new, what is different is it's a very long one with lots of people. Many more than you or I could hope to meet in a lifetime.

The issue of getting their attention is secondary to their presence. The long tail theory doesn't deal with how to use itself but is really an observation that it exists.

Considering social networks, the long tail still lurks. Rather than try and compete with MySpace I can start a niche social network and filter out the obvious dross for my niche market for example.

Where musicians can flourish is were the big players can't afford to play - the return is not massive enough.

It may not be global stardom but it could be an honest living for some.

The main problem is treating something like the Long Tail as the only option and not as part of the overall scheme.

I am not an advocate or expert on Long Tail things, as I understand it what is being pointed out is the side streets to the main thoroughfare can do good business too. If you are a small operator there is still opportunity.

There is another way to look at it.
Creating a momentum online is actually quite simple but not always at your control.

What you need to do is create something that contains a genuine trigger for the punters to pass it along.
Of course this means that it must be free to do so.
How this will translate into sales will depend on the story. Nizlopi's JCB is a great example of how to create a hit online and then move it offline to go for the kill.

The video was novel, interesting in itself regardless of the music's appeal, thus guaranteeing people passed it along. That in itself had a small impact on sales but nevertheless created a viable story to which the push for xmas number one was the outcome. Then with a good team they were able to capitalize on this and had a big hit.

I still maintain and we are now beginning to see the big boys jumping on this bandwagon, that you MUST monetise your viral campaign with ads, offers or sell related product that appeal to the masses as they are not necessarily going to buy your product at this stage. A small percentage will but don't expect them to.

It is a slow process but the alternative is to gig for 3 years plus to build your fanbase. Forget about radio playlisting your music unless you are tied in with the majors or have big business backing you as radio tend to not have the balls to playlist anything that doesn't have Major Label or big corporations behind it.

DJKZ wrote:

...that you MUST monetise your viral campaign with ads, offers or sell related product that appeal to the masses as they are not necessarily going to buy your product at this stage.

It is chicken and egg, to get worthwhile advertising you need a high profile. If you have that profile you don't want advertising you want sponsorship.

Rather than ads that divert people you'd be better off focusing on your own product.

(Unless you are trying to rival things like MySpace and aggregate other people's content to fill out a page of adverts - then the product is adverts)

I must say Mister Smart, I actually operate socially and business-wise in the same way as I am contributing to this thread, which anybody who has met me can verify.

That maybe true for you Mart, but, evidence suggests that the majority of people do a lot of things online they would not do offline and as a result, social groups online interact, grow and evolve differently than those offline.

There are some parallels, of course, such as humour being the most common catalyst for viral phenomenon across social groups, but, in the context of this discussion about music and the online marketplace, I don't think the long-tail access-to-market theory is as interesting as discussing how social groups work online.

It was quite interesting when anderson wrote the original article 3 years ago..but for me, it's more a long beard theory, that has gotten way too long.

The best long tail ends in a phone call.