Dynamic Quality Range

Chris Anderson continues to squeeze analytical models out of his Long Tail concept. His latest post concludes that niche content is often better than hit content and has the potential to be more profitable because it is inherently better suited to its audience.

Rather like Steve Johnson he sets up a straw man for himself to knock down - the notion that the Long Tail is "full of crap". Of course quality (and the signal to nosie ratio) declines as you slide down the curve, he admits, but "your noise is my signal" and the tail features a wider dynamic range of quality - "awful to great", compared to traditional stores where the range can be limited to "moderate to good".

Broadly, these are interesting points, but the usual quibbles apply:

The Long Tail argument is a spatial-economic one. It states that when the means of distribution are limited, a zero sum game commences whereby the space allocated for one product precludes its use for another. But prominence is not just spatial, it is cultural too. There's more than one kind of scarcity in play here.

There's an unchallenged underlying assumption that consumer needs are primarily individual in there too. (There's always a communal element to the creation and appreciation of popular art forms. )

Hit products are product + everything that goes into building a brand. The brand defines the product's cultural references. These cost money to establish and maintain, and are another reason why the margins on niche products can be (individually) better, but this doesn't stop the volumes being better on hits. I can forsee that the new economics will force an adjustment in where the best margins can be found, but won't dramatically undermine the culture of the hit, which is not an entirely economic phenomenon.