toe_tag_black_whiteThe debate over the continued relevancy of the “Long Tail” theory reignited yesterday following a press release by eMusic that claimed its internal numbers prove the theory.  Mike Masnick over at TechDirt, an erstwhile defender of the Long Tail, jumped on the news as more proof the theory lives on.  Mike argued that:

There have been a series of criticisms to Chris Anderson's concept of "The Long Tail" lately. While most don't hold up under scrutiny, a few have made some good points that don't actually go against the long tail concept, but may adjust some of how people understand it…

…eMusic has some good features (they could be better, honestly) to help people find new and obscure music — and that helps spread interest to new acts. So, once again, it appears that the long tail is still very much alive, but it does still depend on the filters being used.

I’ll admit it. I’m a long tail kinda guy. I love obscure music and film, and have been a fan of Chris Anderson’s writings on this subject. Therefore, I want to be with Mike on this, but I just don’t see it.  There continues to be promise in Long Tail for businesses, but I think we can Tag and Bag Anderson’s initial hypothesis.

First, Chris Anderson coined the term “Long Tail”  in a Wired Article entitled “The Long Tail” with a long subtitle which read “Forget squeezing millions from a few megahits at the top of the charts. The future of entertainment is in the millions of niche markets at the shallow end of the bitstream.”  That is what the Long Tail theory was about…the concept that “The Future of Business is Selling Less of More”.

The eMusic data does nothing to really bolster the concept that the Long Tail is the future of business.  eMusic is a prototypical Long Tail company.  It is a niche player, with a catalogue full of niche music, that markets itself toward niche consumers.  The fact that the people who are members buy a lot of obscure stuff is a self fulfilling prophecy.  The real question is whether the business itself is sustainable, something nobody knows because the CEO refuses to say whether the company is profitable.

Today, even the High Priest himself, has admitted that his theory is not quite right.  Despite the hype, the technological revolutions that have made Long Tail-based businesses feasible did not transform the rules of networks that Barbarasi so effectively summarized in Linked.

In a November blog post, Anderson offered a sorta mea culpa on this point, following a McKinsey study and contrary data from Google.

I'll end by conceding a point: It's hard to make money in the Tail. As Schmidt notes, it's also hard to make money if you don't have a Tail (to satisfy minority taste, which improves the consumer experience), but the revenues are disproportionately in the Head. Perhaps that will never change, but what will change is our definition of Head. Once that was choice counted in tens or hundreds of items. Now, especially in Google's world, it's counted in tens or hundreds of thousands.  Powerlaws may indeed create bigger fish, but the Long Tail is all about the bigger pond.

To translate, he admitted that his grand theory on the Long Tail the future of business and media has been debunked, but the Long Tail can and will be an important part of the media landscape in the future. 

Now, that’s a theory I’m still buying and one that the eMusic data supports.  Perhaps that is what Mike meant by "adjust some of how people understand it."