“Rethinking the Long Tail Theory:How to define ‘Hits’ and ‘Niches’ – ‘knowledge@Wharton’, 16/9/09 (University of Pennsylvania)

“Rethinking the Long Tail Theory:How to define ‘Hits’ and ‘Niches’ – ‘knowledge@Wharton’, 16/9/09 (University of Pennsylvania) (Netessine)

-       Undertook analysis, using data, of Anderson’s arguments.

-       summarises the theory of the long tail very well in paragraph 4 (“The long tail theory suggests...”)

-        if you factor in product variety (how much choice there is) and consumer demand (what people actually ‘ask for’) then Anderson's argument falls down

-       mass appeal products remain popular

-       few companies operate in a purely digital distribution system

-       the whole argument centres around the idea of whether you measure the figures by absolute figures or percentages and if you factor in how many choices are being offered – essentially they writer disputes the evidence that Anderson has used, saying if you look at it slightly differently and factor in other issues, the numbers don’t support what Anderson is saying.

-       Product variety is a key factor (i.e. how many titles/texts you offer) and without this the theory is lacking validity

-       They couldn’t replicate the outcomes with the same data

-       Netessine actually shows that demand for broad appeal products (blockbusters for example) actually increased (rather than interest moving to less popular titles ‘moving down the tail’ as Anderson’s model would suggest)

-       If you have to physically stock the product, Netessine argues that the long tail model just isn’t valid/useful

-       It takes time for product recommendation features to get audiences to consume more niche products. (this is Web 3.0 – at the time of this article, the semantic web was more of an idea than a functioning and effective actuality).