Entertainment For Lively Minds
Goodbye to the "long tail" theory?
Don't know whether this got noticed around these parts amid the pre-Christmas rush.
Very interesting Guardian article that contradicts the oft quoted "long tail" theory of selling music via the internet.
Would love to know the details of at least some of the 10 million unloved and neglected songs that failed to attract one single buyer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/dec/23/music-sell-sales
'According to a new study, of the 13m songs available for sale on the internet last year, more than 10m failed to find a single buyer.
The research, conducted by the MCPS-PRS's Will Page and Andrew Bud, brings us that much closer to proving Sturgeon's Law – that 90% of everything is crap. It also provides evidence for the famous old rock critic adage – your favourite band sucks.
More importantly, these findings challenge the "long tail" theory that diverse, specialised items – though individually less popular - will together outsell mainstream "hits".'
- More from Neil Walker.
- Login or register to post comments
-
801 Live
with missing bits, bought that online for a fiver delivery included and spurred on by that purchase's 'cheapness' I also bought two David Sedaris tomes (one which was second hand, jes' doin' ma bit fer the plamet) - I love this interweb me, I also hate shopping, as we knew it.
I don't believe what I read
The article suggests to me that the rule that 90% of newspaper articles are deliberately misleading is the one illustrated here.
I decided what I thought was the most obscure album I downloaded in 2008 was and wasn't surprised to see it ranking at 314,567 in the Amazon bestsellers list. I looked at another on the US Amazon site and it showed at 224,099. Now I don't know what period the measurement is made over but those figures certainly suggest that more than 173,000 different albums were sold last year. If the Amazon rankings are done over a period of more than a year then it seems odd that the albums in the top ten are all the ones that you would expect to be currently selling best as opposed to those that have sold over a long period.
Could be completley unrelated
but a number of small artists I know of, who have sold music through the likes of iTunes and other online distribution, haven't seen a penny from the sales. The general feeling is that unless you sell thousands of downloads iTunes don't bother coughing up.
Maybe that accounts for the lack of sales data for the long tail, if it's true.
Do the small artists have a record label (how quaint)?
If not, and Apple are pocketing the cash then that is a disgrace. If there's a music company involved they've kept the cash until the bands recoup, no doubt.
Maybe...
But there's got to be a critical mass in terms of sales to make accounting even feasible. If an artist is earning a penny a download (I have no idea whether that's the going rate, but it wouldn't surprise me), no company will account to you until you've sold X number of tracks, and it could be in the thousands. And an artist should be aware of that. But, as you say, it's more likely the label are seeing the money and waiting for the artist to recoup.
There's a copy of the paper here
http://www.mcps-prs-alliance.co.uk/monline/research/Pages/default.aspx
It looks at first glance that he's trying to make a name for himself by challenging all the usual web 2.0 clichés.
He doesn't say where the sample of data came from. I imagine the purchasing model has a lot to do with how long the tail is. I know from my own behaviour I'm much more likely to experiment or take recommendations from a cheapish subcription model than the 7digital type model.
The other obvious thought is that anybody can load their music onto the internet somewhere but it won't get any buyers without some promotion.
There was a piece in New Scientist a fortnight ago
which also questioned whether the internet had created the "long tail" predicted - I don't know whether it was from the same study but I'll dig it out if it's not gone in the recycling.
"Online shopping and the Harry Potter effect"
Here's the New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026873.300-online-shopping-and-t...
'long tail'
Is there a more annoying phrase right now than 'long-tail'? Does anyone outside of the media/music business actually use terms like that? What was it called before someone coined 'long-tail'?
It was just called...
'back catalogue'
My business uses it.
Our customers buy maybe 5 things reguarly in large volume and then one off's of everything else - we have a considerably broader stock range than the biggest supermarkets. At this point a member of senior management would draw a graph with a long tail off going all the way to the right, out of the sales meeting room, through the sales office and into the canteen.
Sturgeon's Law – that 90% of everything is crap
As a collector of crap music I like the sound of that! I prefer to call it exotica mind you. Admittedly crap to most people but some can be fun to have.
Isn't it the same as the rule of a car boot sale. Pile loads of valuables/tat on a table and most will remain unsold, however cheap it is. What will be surprising is that someone will come along and pay good money for something you see as worthless crap.
The difference with music, sorry, musicians, is that a great deal of them release their tat in the hope of greater fame and fortune. Like buying a lottery ticket, not a chance of winning but someone has to. With the internet it can be done much cheaper than having to to have records pressed, sleeves designed and shops solicited to sell their wares.
In my quest for Christmas music I downloaded a free legal compilation called A Very Indie Christmas Vol. 1. with 50+ tracks. To my ears 98% was crap. Not even funny crap. I kept one track and deleted the rest. So if bands like Endeavor The Seas, Hope For The Dying or Push Push Pull ever make it big then you can remind me I will never make it in A&R.
So for the 10 million unsold tracks on the internet, imagine how many unloved free tracks there will be to add to that total. However in 2009 I will be paying more attention to the unplayed and unloved tracks I have sitting in my own collection, in my attic and on my hard drive. I will be giving them more love and affection this year but if they don't reciprocate they are off to the great car boot sale in the sky. Ebay.
Too much music
Must admit, enclined to join beany in listening to some of my stuff that i have bought over the years that i have not had a proper chance to listen to, and believe me there is quite a bit.
Finding now that there is literally too much music to get a grip on, i certainly don't have the time to listen to all these new artists peddling their wares.
How much time would i be wasting on this stuff that is for the most part, to be kind, rubbish. But there lies the rub, one of them artists that is dismissed, could be that great new band you have been searching for.
Put it another way...
So there are 3 million tracks out there that DO sell? How come UK radio only plays about 50 songs altogether?
Have you heard Capital radio recently?
they play the same 5 songs on rotation ALL day and all of them are shite.
Leona Lewis, The new Leona-lite X Factor winner one, Coldplay, Take That and Snow Patrol...not much of a merry f**kin' xmas there!
The Word Gateway Service
As there is too much music to listen to, Word could offer a Gateway service to those wishing to publicise their direct-to-net music. For (say) GBP250, that will buy a listen from a Word journo and a three-line review in the mag or online and your website/url. You take your chances (Word might tell readers to steer clear), but if you back yourself - you may get invaluable publicity in return for your outlay.
Word may develop a ratings system or "recommended" headings. Just like the old days with the singles.
Payolatastic!