“Abundance is the driving force in all economic growth and change.” -George Gilder
And the excitement continues in the latter half of Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. Iam intrigued by the concept of an economic shift from a traditional model of scarcity to a model of abundance. And while there may be a “tyranny of the new” as Anderson calls it, hits all end up down the tail eventually too. While we are in the midst of this shift to abundance in consumer choice, Anderson is careful to point out that we still have a scarcity of human attention and hours in the day. I often find myself wishing for more time in the day to be able to do all of the things I want to do. Otherwise, I inevitably end up making sacrifices, choosing some things over others with the limited amount of time that I have.
Another couple of interesting points on the structure of the long tail: 1.) it is comprised of curves within curves within curves, of micro tails that are genre based; and 2.) You need the head and the tail! Anderson uses the example of MP3.com, where their business model completely lacked a head, and therefore, there was no familiar point of entry. It didn’t work!!
One challenge of the physical world that the virtual world gets around, is that of Ontology. I never really stopped to think about how limiting the taxonomy of a grocery store or department store can be in terms of allowing customers access to the products that suit their needs and wants best. It’s always a pain in the butt when I’m looking for a product I don’t necessarily use regularly and have to read the sign from the ceiling–where intuiting it’s respective category ain’t exactly a walk in the park (I’ll talk folksonomy over taxonomy any day of the week)–then finding my way to the respective aisle. With online shopping however, Anderson says it best: “Being able to recategorize and rearrange products on the fly unlocks their real value.” Not to mention convenience.
In thinking about product placement at the grocery store, I suppose it’s true that I’m more inclined to purchase a product at eye level or thereabouts, as opposed to something on the bottom shelf. Again, this isn’t something I consciously give much thought to, but it obviously makes sense. Now in the online world, if you go to the trouble of making suggestions and pairing products for me, well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if I don’t see something appealing enough to actually buy based on the suggestions that are being made to me. Perhaps if RFID shopping carts come to fruition, that will bring physical stores one step closer to matching the capabilities of online shopping, but I’d venture to guess it will pale in comparison. I suspect that the virtual world will always remain several steps ahead of the physical. but hey, go ahead and prove me wrong. that would be sweet.
The idea that we as consumers need info about the variety available to us is key. “The more choice we have the more we have to decide what it is we really want.” I’ll take as much help as I can get from whatever filters are willing and able to direct me. I love choice–but without experimentation–or enough time to do it– it is tricky for me to know exactly what my preferences are amidst this multiplying mass. Have you ever seen the movie Gremlins? Remember what happens when the mugwai get wet??! Or better yet, have you seen the Trouble with Tribbles Episode of Star Trek? Apply this to choice (set aside the lack of variety component here–I’m talking about the growth effect)!
The long tail might say a lot about our economics, but I think it says more about how we are evolving as people–drilling down to very specified common interests. And while some might argue that the niche concept is divisive, I would argue, strangely that it’s unifying us on a much more fundamental level than we are used to — where before we were only scratching the surface of our “common ground.”