Joho the Blog
|
|
|
March 20, 2007
Usually the first economic argument presented for the importance of the Long Tail is that the area underneath the tail is far greater than the area underneath the Short Head. And since that area represents people with whom the point on the curve communicates, the Long Tail represents a far greater economic opportunity. But, that argument thinks of the points as mini-broadcasters and markets as homogeneous aggregations of consumers. Such a simplistic vew misses the knotty nature of the Long Tail. The points are engaged with one another and with their readers (as Chris Anderson makes clear in his nuanced book, The Long Tail). Yes, Long Tails are conversations, too. Britt Blaser puts this differently and quite nicely in his most recent post: The People Law trumps the Power Law. Here's how it begins:
He goes on from there...and ends it with a nice motto: [Tags: long_tail britt_blaser everything_is_miscellaneous ] Posted
by D. Weinberger at March 20, 2007 09:31 AM
|
Comments
The key surely is that any individual can appear in numerous places along the curve because there's nothing to say that an indvidual's taste cannot range from the super popular to the obscure.
But I'm not convinced that you can automatically posit that conversations in the long tail will be liable to be richer than at the short head. The average conversation at the head may be less rich than amongst the obscurantists, but the law of large numbers would suggest to me that there are some very rich conversations going on amongst some of those in the short head - maybe numerically more than at the tail.
And while most conversation may be among nearby nodes, there will be individuals whose taste is spread throughout the curve and is engaging in rich conversations at various points - because I don't see that these people would be inclined to compartmentalise those conversations. Thus individuals who in one incarnation are occupants of the short head (and by common mis-assumption unlikely to be having rich conversations) may actually be people with incredibly active networks.
Posted by: John Dodds | March 21, 2007 03:45 PM