Archive for The Long Tail

Response to Ch. 10-12 of The Long Tail: Fragmentation

{ April 24, 2008 @ 3:38 pm } · { The Long Tail }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Fragmentation to Re-formation

 

            The idea of fragmentation within the media context can be generally applied across various situations and mediums. Discussed in the chapters of Chris Anderson’s book (The Long Tail, Chapters 10-12) is the chaos of choice overload on consumers and audiences and the resulting fragmented focuses and preferences. The abundance of products are increasingly accessible and available via media technologies. Anderson asserts that the dominance of the digital age on consumer habits, audiences and thus culture is affecting the way that people are categorized into cultures.  

            Dually noted is the portion of this week’s reading assignment, The end of TV as we know it: A future industry perspective (http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/index.wss/ibvstudy/imc/a1023172), and the diagram that features the new divided consumer/audience. This model paints a very clear illustration as to how there are now parallel cultures that are consuming media in their own fashions. This reinforces the idea of fragmentation. Like Anderson says the audience (consumer etc.) is distributing as wide as the choice (2006, p. 176). The IBM article provides a business model affiliated with the changes in the tendencies of the fragmented consumer/audience. This includes the explanation and justification of at least six premises to build from: segmentation, innovation, experimentation, mobilization, openness and reorganization. All of the business premises can be linked to the sentiment and necessity to stay open and super available to the consumer. The more open, comprehensive, accessible and flexible that an entity can be in the digital era, the more inclined toward success the entity becomes. The chart or diagram within the article’s summary features three different types of audiences. They are the traditional (“Massive Passives”), the geekster-type whom drive the control end of media and are all hands on (“Gadgetiers”) and the “Kool Kids” who can be interpreted as the members of the audience who keep themselves very linked and exposed to the content being featured, but they don’t necessarily take the initiative to produce. Unlike the Gadgetiers they chose not to have as much control of the media in production or being consumed. This interpretation is done by translating the very technical and business geared wording of the article summary.

            There is definitely the chance that I personally have misinterpreted what was meant to be conveyed in the diagram. More thoroughly understood (and demonstrated) are the overall underlying issues. Again this being the fragmentation that divides the consumers into categories as the culprit of what the IBM article defines as the generational chasm. This is the prevalence of behavior differences among the three groups “Massive Passives”, “Gadgetiers and Kool Kids collectively designated to be most notably present because of the age differences of the members of each group. The massive passives having matured as an audience in a time of limited means of mass media controls in contrast with the Gadgentiers or the Kool Kids who are a majority of a younger generation highly active within and exposed to the internet boom.

            The arguments in opposition or support of increased consumer/audience determined outcomes weighs the issue of to much choice heavily (Anderson, 2006, p. 170-172). Anderson expresses that he is in support of the increasingly popular niche culture and the transgression away from common mass culture (2006, p.180-182). He offers the observation that people are not pulling away from cultures and commonality entirely they are just identifying more freely within their own selected contexts and specifics. Anderson denotes the habit of individuals to identify and be a part of more than one culture as living amongst parallel cultures (2006, p. 181-184). Repeated multiple times within his writing is his ruling that with infinite choice comes “ultimate fragmentation” (Anderson, 2006, p181). Although some argue (i.e. featured Christine Rosen) that there is an issue with an overly individual and “narrow” selection affiliated with personal choice, Anderson defends the benefits over burden approach to high volume and high accessibility supported by the digital era. He includes in his argument that as long as businesses latch on the positives and produce effort towards complimenting consumer behaviors there can absolutely be capitol success. He exemplifies Google as the picturesque example of the utility of displaying abundant choices in an organized fashion. As corporations and business models cater to the new demands of the consumer it is vital to latch on to the trends but continue to assist in selection of the goods. Make anything and everything available to the user/ consumer/ audience but if someone needs your help jump at the ability to help them search (Anderson, 2006, p. 174, 190-191).

Response to Ch. 4-6 The Long Tail

{ April 12, 2008 @ 1:07 am } · { The Long Tail }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Self Publishing and Long Tail Democracy

 

In the opening of Chris Anderson’s Chapter 4 (The Three Forces of  The Long Tail), he discusses his understanding of the changes taking place in the economy based on the transition between the producer and consumer as a more horizontal exchange of power. He faults three aspects affecting the market as primarily responsible for the change; democratization of the tools of production, the cost decrease of consumption by democratization and connecting supply with demand (2006, p. 54-56). He provides an exact example of this in chapter 5 (The New Producers). In the portion of the chapter “Self-Publishing Without Shame”, he mentions the website Lulu.com as an avenue for writers to easily and affordably publish their work. A very abbreviated explanation as to how this works is as follows: The DIY publisher turns the authors piece into a physical paperback or hardcover piece with ISBN number, lists it with online retailers, prints the book in batches (a few dozen), restocks as it is needed and all for roughly $200. According to Anderson, “Once it’s listed, the book will be available to an audience of millions and potentially side by side with Harry Potter, if the winds of the recommendation engines blow that way” (2006, p.75-76).

Noted also, are Anderson’s sentiments that the book industry is admittedly, popularity wise, on the fritz. He argues that the mass-market for book sales requires a profiteering author to write in a conversational manner and to pick topics that are general. According to him, many authors (niche authors) refuse to succumb to the demands of mass appeal. In that case, if an author wants to move a boulder but can only lift stones, then the idea of Lulu.com is the perfect chance for the altruistic author to hit it big (Anderson, 2006, p. 76-77). Anderson’s research reveals that in 2004 the CEO of Barnes and Noble agreed with him on his self publishing findings. Steve Riggio (Barnes and Noble CEO) equates the effects of non-mainstream authors and their work within the book industry as follows; “(1) the efficiencies of print-on-demand, which keeps more books in print, (2) the increase in the number of smaller and independent publishers; and (3) self publishing” (Anderson, 2006, p.77). The reported 20% increase of unique titles on Barnes and Noble Shelves is a testament to Anderson and Riggio’s statements. The power has shifted by the democratization process, into the consumer’s hands as to whom they want on the shelves of their bookstores. An author or producer can do all things possible to put themselves at the pique of the Long Tail, but the niche artists will still prosper, at their own pace and their own place.

Response to Ch. 1-3 The Long Tail

{ April 3, 2008 @ 7:09 pm } · { The Long Tail }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

Mill’s take on Tyranny of the Majority and Ch. 1-3 The Long Tail

 

(Is it possible to fuse these two together; Chris Anderson and Jon Stuart Mill? It’s worth a shot….)

In Mill’s book On Liberty, Mill argues among a few other things, for the importance of the will of the people within a society as opposed to the tyranny or threat of the majority (1978, p.4). The translation means a praise of liberty of individual independence verses the restrictions and blinding tendencies of society associated with social control. In the case of arguments presented in Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail, there is discussion of the historical events associated with the dissolution of American Pop Culture. Anderson uses America’s legacy of Music chart topping “hits”, as an example of a source of culture, controlled by media corporations (perpetuated by the affiliated technologies) and the limitations of exposure associated with “New Media” from the 1950’s to around 1998 ( 2006, p. 1,21 & 29). To grant acceptance to Anderson’s observation that American culture as heavily influenced by media and it’s massive “popularity contest”, is an understatement. So then, obviously agreed upon is custom and culture defined by the” connective tissue of our common experience” (Anderson, 2006, p. 1). Mill argues that it is not by choice that people are born into their identifiable society. Opinions are held by societal members as a result of time and place, and usually unquestioned and adopted as customary (1978, p. 17 & 56). Anderson argues that as a result of the internet era, the restricted majority of American society at the mercy of capitalistic and monopolistic media marketers exists no longer. He enunciates his points in Chapter 2 of his book headed as “The Rise and Fall of the Hit” (2006, p. 27-40). As a result of the dissolution of the common market of “hits” he presents the observation of the market and society adapting to be “niche oriented” and the new “economics of abundance” (Anderson, 2006, p. 6-10 & 24). In favor of what Mill argues as optimized society than, is the right and diversity of individual opinions, the niches (1978, p. 43). As international cultures are allowed to blend by technology and the internet, there is no longer a majority but a plurality of numerous niches of personal hits (Anderson, 2006, p. 50). (Mill would be so pleased).

WANNA PLAY? CLICK ON THE “LAUNCH STANDALONE PLAYER” BELOW……C’mon we live in a really bad ass time right???? Sooo cool.