December 3rd, 2007
Did the Long Tail Beget Social Design?
by Joshua Porter | 
16 Comments | shortlink: http://bokardo.com/p/716
A conversation I had today rewired the idea of the Long Tail for me.
The Long Tail, or the death of the product shelf (where shelf space becomes irrelevant when content is digital) brought on tremendous change in the economics of distribution. Netflix rents most of its movies from the catalog of past movies, not from the current list of blockbusters. Same with Amazon and books, iTunes and music. Christopher Anderson goes into a lot more details in the book he wrote on the subject: The Long Tail.
When content is digital, a public good, it is freely distributable by electronic means. It is infinitely copyable at 100% fidelity. Moreover, as the Long Tail shows, libraries of content can be built cheaply which provide value for the long term. Once Google digitizes all the books in the world they won’t ever have to again.
In other words, all content is available at all times.
What does this lead to? The Paradox of Choice! There are simply too many things to choose from. Which of the thousands of movies on Netflix do I rent? Which of the books on Amazon do I read? Which of the songs on iTunes do I listen to?
In the past, we listened to either the creator or the distributor for help. Since choice was limited, they would steer us to something in their limited selection. You either went to one of the movies at the local theater, or you didn’t watch a movie. You either bought a book from the book store or checked one out of the library, or you didn’t read. If you were lucky enough to be near a creator (like a rock band) you either went to the pub to listen to them or you went without live music.
The creator and the distributor, however, had a problem. They were always and forever biased. You couldn’t ask either the band or the book store for a recommendation because they would only recommend something in their repertoire.
With digital content, the repertoire contains all possible choices. The Long Tail has given us more choice than we could have hoped for! Now the distributor can simply tell us which is the best book, the best movie, and the best music. Right?
Contrary to what we would think, however, most distributors are still biased. They still try to pick products for you, rather than helping you find the best fit for your needs. They know you’re going to buy something because they have everything. So many distributors make deals with manufacturers to see who will pony up the big advertising dollars. Who will buy the most end caps. Who will buy the preferred ads on the web site. Who will pay money for the ability to get separated from the pack.
Instead of the Long Tail solving the choice problem, the customers are still often left with the question: how do I choose the right item for me?
Social design is thus forced upon the marketplace. The Long Tail begets social features that let users help each other (either implicitly or explicitly). The only way for people to find out what’s best for them is to route around the system in the way they’ve always done.
Ask other people. Have conversations. Give and get recommendations. Tell someone what your preferences are, and they’ll give you their best guess.
And that’s what Netflix and Amazon and iTunes have done. They’ve accepted that customers do in fact know a wealth of information about their wares compared to any one source (even themselves). In a sense they were forced to recognize this, for they had no other way to give recommendations to their customers. (any amount of research would show that people still struggle mightily with choosing items online) The old constraint of shelf space, and thus a less-than-everything inventory, is gone.
Which leaves companies who have not done so (competitors to Netflix, Amazon, and iTunes) with a choice: do they help this process and build social tools for their customers, or do they continue to support business as usual?
Links to this Post
Comments
1. Scott 8:24pm, Mon 3rd, 2007
Unfortunately, shrewd companies are already skewing “social” direction by inserting guerilla marketers within the supposedly unbiased community: shill marketing.
This is a disturbing trend that is gaining popularity. How does one trust their peers when their peers may be leading them down a virtual primrose path?
2. Udi 9:02pm, Mon 3rd, 2007
exactly I’ve been trying to explain this to others for quite some time now. You’ve described this natural progression very well.
Friends helping friends find good things in a sea of choices is exactly why I built Feed Each Other.
3. Humbleweaver 9:51pm, Mon 3rd, 2007
This is a great read. I agree with Scott. Marketers flood communities and in a subtle way (or not) stir the pot to the benefit of their cause(service, product, group, whatever).
But then, looking forward, how is this going to change? Better yet, how can a user be guarded from biased influence in the future? Is there a workaround?
4. Richard Morton 9:55am, Tue 4th, 2007
“Once Google digitizes all the books in the world they won’t ever have to again.” – Hmmm, are you sure about that. Remember the digitisation of the Domesday Book in the 1970’s onto laser disc and the problems that caused later. No doubt a goverment review will have identified all the problems to “ensure that they never happen again” – that phrase sounds familiar too.
http://www.qm-consulting.co.uk/
5. Nicholas Frota 12:15pm, Tue 4th, 2007
Hey, I totally agree on that… Social design brings back the small world and limit our choices by the group we belongs.
I discuss something related when proposing a redesign for the freshdirect.com website and its awful interface: http://blog.nonlinear.cc/old/freshdirect-lack-shelves/
take care, and keep up the good work!
6. David Lifson 3:05pm, Tue 4th, 2007
Maybe it’s because I’m an optimist, but I’m always surprised at how many people assume that Amazon recommendations are skewed or tainted by marketers. We show you the best products we can, every time.
Examples where we’ve been “accused” of bias:
1. Showing a book on Judaism to someone who bought a book on Christianity. Not surprisingly, there are many people who, after buying one book on religion, buy other books. And yet, we get accused of “religious propaganda”. Same for political books.
2. Showing a Blu-ray DVD to someone who bought an HD-DVD. Unfortunately, we do this by mistake as we’re not yet “platform” aware. That said, we most definitely are not “trying to push Blu-ray”, or vice versa.
Generally, any time we recommend a “controversial” product, some people assume that Amazon is evil or underhanded in some way. At the very least, it’s an interesting look at human nature.
7. Britt Raybould 5:08pm, Tue 4th, 2007
Ask other people. Have conversations. Give and get recommendations. Tell someone what your preferences are, and they’ll give you their best guess.
Josh, I think the guessing part is something we still skip over. Recommendations aren’t an absolute science, but that’s not always how we treat them, thus the anger at Amazon for recommending HD-DVD when you’ve only ever bought Blu-Ray. Ultimately, because reviews and recommendations are make by humans, don’t we still need to have patience for what pops up on the screen?
8. Josh 5:31pm, Tue 4th, 2007
Thanks for all the great comments, guys. I think I miscommunicated my intention. I was saying that Netflix, Amazon, and iTunes (albeit iTunes recommendations are shaky at best) is the *only* way forward. I was trying to commend them for their efforts, while all their competitors took years to realize that this was the future.
I’ve amended the post to be more clear.
9. Ben Nevile 1:15am, Wed 5th, 2007
Guerilla marketing will only go so far. Most people only trust recommendations from their friends – people they actually know. Crowds don’t really have any wisdom, because wisdom comes from CONTEXT. If my friend Sam recommends a movie, I know I’ll probably like it. If my friend Abigail recommends a movie I know I’ll probably hate it. Without context a recommendation is close to meaningless.
10. robojiannis 3:25am, Thu 13th, 2007
There’s an interesting book about the subject you’re discussing, maybe you’ve heard of it. The paradox of choice: why more is less; Barry Schwartz>/a>
11. Piter 10:40am, Wed 23rd, 2008
All content is available at all times, Guerilla marketing – i couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
12. Edd 12:33pm, Mon 4th, 2008
Crowds don’t really have any wisdom – i think the guessing part is something
13. shhost 8:48am, Thu 7th, 2008
meaningless – ???
14. Lukasz Nowak 4:34am, Wed 13th, 2008
crowds? – small group of people can make change (10, 20, max 150) check the book “Tipping Point”
15. Tiffany 12:31pm, Fri 6th, 2009
@All: It’s nice to read this article and all the comments, knowing that Josh started this discussion more than a year ago and the topic is still relevant. More and more organisations have adopted the Amazon approach to customers. Some have tried their own version, but failed.
@Edd, in my opinion the crowd isn’t stupid and doesn’t lack wisdom. Some people are followers, but most people can deceide for them selves very well.
Regards, Tiffany