This popped up on Techmeme this week, and was an interesting reminder of Chris Anderson’s Long Tail theory and its appeal but also its weaknesses. Kudos to Anderson for highlighting this research himself, and he does a reasonable job of illustrating why it’s not totally contradictory to his own research.

The long tail theory has a lot of appeal – it instinctively makes sense to most of us (we’ve all bought things online we could never have bought in our local store) and the data seem to bear it out, at least as far as the buying patterns go. However, I think one of the weaknesses of the theory is still the viability of any business case based on the long tail. Very few specialist retailers have been able to make a living off the tail itself – most have to focus on the head first and add the tail second – blockbusters in any business still do constitute the bulk of sales, especially from ordinary consumers. As Anderson points out (and the study he cites confirms) heavy users (i.e. fanatics and aficionados) are more likely to consume from the tail, which also makes instinctive sense. But it’s terribly difficult (and market limiting) to focus on the fans and not the core market. 

Still, perhaps the parties that benefit most from the long tail are the producers of long tail products and content: they benefit whether suppliers sell just the tail or the head as well, as do we as consumers.

Bookmark with: