Comments on: Long Tail Vs. The Blockbuster

By: furosemide lasix

furosemide lasix — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:43:24 +0000

I liked it. So much useful material. I read with great interest.

By: Matthew T. Grant

Matthew T. Grant — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:07:24 +0000

That article reminded me of this one from the New Yorker about some guys who thought they had developed a "formula for hit movies: - http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/16/061016fa_fact6

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:36:53 +0000

Matthew, thank you for some very thought provoking comments. Your idea that blockbuster success could be “set up” via long tail actions, or previous events over time is compelling and definitely deserves more study.
Now, as to secret formulas in predicting blockbuster success- at least for the movie business, one company thinks they have it…
http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/articles/2009/winter/50207/what-people-want-and-how-to-predict-it/

By: Matthew T. Grant

Matthew T. Grant — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:33:19 +0000

Paul – I’m pretty sure there is no “secret formula” to blockbuster success, but at least two of the examples you cite – “New Moon” and “The Lost Symbol” – suggest that some blockbusters may actually depend on a long-tail but one that leads up to them, rather than following. “New Moon” after all is the second film in a series for which the audience was built over several years through the book market. Similarly, Dan Brown’s recent success is undeniably connected to the success of “Angels and Demons.”
If the answer is “success begets success,” that might not be very helpful to people trying to create blockbusters, but then again, it might, if you really think about it.

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:30:43 +0000

Ted, you said, “It would be nice if consumer product companies could come up with blockbusters routinely, but it just doesn’t happen all that often. There are very few companies like Apple in the world, able to put out one blockbuster after another.”
Could not agree more. But now I have questions. Is it an innovative culture that helps a company string together hit after hit, experience, genius, luck? All of the above? Are there other factors?
Even the most successful movie executives turn out clunkers–and these are folks with a pulse on customer preferences, a genius mindset, and they often work in highly innovative cultures. Is there a single criteria of success that has more “weight” than others?
To adopt a blockbuster mentality, with traditionally millions on the line, I think you have to be more right than wrong. Fishing for ideas on how to make it happen…

By: Paul Barsch

Paul Barsch — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0000

Kevin, appreciate your thoughtful comments. You said, “For small businesses, the long tail is a nice strategy to pursue. For 99% of medium to large businesses, not so much.”
Let’s take a small but growing online business such as Spotify that has close to zero carrying costs, an online storefront, and ability (because of digital product) to carry near unlimited products.
Do you think the major variable for whether long tail is a successful strategy is more along the lines of type of product/service (hard good vs digital), distribution mechanism, carrying costs, and opportunity costs?

By: Ted Mininni

Ted Mininni — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:21:46 +0000

Paul,
Nice post. Thought provoking.
It would be nice if consumer product companies could come up with blockbusters routinely, but it just doesn’t happen all that often. There are very few companies like Apple in the world, able to put out one blockbuster after another. IT seems to me that being able to do that requires a uniquely innovation-oriented culture. Still, smaller and mid-sized companies can be pretty nimble and put together a few “hits” with some steady performers among their product offerings and do quite well for themselves. Sometimes incremental innovations on products can make a big difference. I don’t think this approach is necessarily a bad thing, as long as there’s a steady revenue stream and decent profits.

By: Kevin Horne

Kevin Horne — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:40:17 +0000

Paul:
I’ve always had a problem with the Long Tail paradigm, not because I disagree with it fundamentally, but that it is way too often taken for a ride to a place it doesnt belong. Your opening comment (sorry to use your words against you is an example of what I mean: “commonly accepted that products with low sales volume can, en masse become bigger markets than sales of blockbuster products.” That is a common misread of long tail, maybe, but shouldn’t really be “accepted”…
The long tail is good for businesses that can focus and make money on niches. Very few, however, are able to put together a “string of pearls” that will outdo the big boys. Maybe Chris Anderson can explain why P&G is still dumping smaller coffee and jam brands, and why Unilever does a portfolio pruning of hundreds of products once every 5 years (“cleaning out the tail”, if you will).
For small businesses, the long tail is a nice strategy to pursue. For 99% of medium to large businesses, not so much.