Death of the lowest common denominator

I’m starting to get the feeling that the new millennium has arrived. We’ve been hearing about it for years, but I think it’s actually here. And I say this not in reference to the pending destruction of the world (exhibit A, B, C, D), but more as an acknowledgment of all this new technology stuff. Now for some at the sharp end of the wedge, you may have felt that it’s been here since your virgin Napster download. But I represent more of the meaty part of the bell-curve, and scale, from what I hear, is what the www is all about.

Two things that have caught my attention this week; first a great article in Wired about the ‘long tail’. Physical space, be it in the record shop, the book store or the movie theatre has dictated that the distributors of content play to the mass – dare we call them the lowest-common-denominator; a marketing response to insufficient, or inefficient distribution. Entertainment media lived in the physical world that needed to find audiences within a contained local environment. The internet has changed that. Markets are no longer held to the restrictions of physical space – electronic storage, along with a larger and more available markets has changed that.  Which means a whole lot more choice for all.

The other was an example of shifting opportunities and channels. 37 Signals (web-based application developers) , launched a downloadable (PDF) book that grossed $37K in it’s first day on-line. It’s now sold $120K within it’s first month.  Which means a whole lot more money for all...well maybe not.

Comments

[Wizard]

Nice point :), I think a decent example of someone trying to link entertainment media minus contained local environments, and www would be Nike.
Nike’s, recognition that it needs to get consumers' attention in entirely new ways led it to consider the true potential of the www. Nike was forced to be innovative after Adidas got an exclusive World Cup deal to broadcast ads in the U.S.
By monitoring conversations on social networking sites and blogs, Nike sensed an opportunity to try something new. They created The Joga.com, a social networking site. Nike started feeding video clips that highlight Nike-sponsored soccer players onto popular video sharing sites. It created JogaTV, a virtual soccer TV station, where it releases a new video clip every few days and fans can upload their own clips.

Nike claims to have reached their World Cup goal of signing up 1 million members by mid-July, when the tournament ended

[Michael Takasaki]

There was a nicely-written review in The New Yorker a few weeks ago of "The Long Tail," the book that grew out of the Wired article. While acknowledging the validity of Anderson's argument, it also points out a couple of blind spots.

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/060710crbo_books1

[Jason Oke]

Yeah the New Yorker piece is a good, balanced look at this idea. But despite the blind spots I think the Long Tail is one of the most important factors affecting retail today. And I think there's a huge lesson to be learned here for a lot of the clients we work with.

I believe there's an untapped long tail for packaged goods brands as well by leveraging customization. Our clients think in mass production terms, but if they could figure out a way to let people customize their packaging a bit, there could be a huge niche long-tail business. If people could buy a box of cereal or a tin of mints with a picture of themselves, or their kids, their team, their wedding party, etc on it, I think there could be a huge market. Look at the success of Jones Soda, for example. And you have to think there isn't a ton of organic growth left in most mature packaged goods markets.

We've talked about this with a few clients, and mostly met with shrugs so far, because they are trapped in a mass mentality and can't see why someone would pay more than a dollar or two for their products, and think customization would mess up the production line efficiencies. But I think that misses the point - people might pay a huge premium for a customized package, because they're not buying the product anymore, they're paying for the novelty of their picture on something. The economics are entirely different if you can charge $10 or $20 for a box of cereal.

ps the Carmen Electra/Dave Navarro thing made me laugh out loud. Nice.

[Michael Takasaki]

Absolutely agree with you, Jason, on how good overall the article is and how valid the points it raises are. Actually, I thought the most interesting part of the New Yorker review was the very brief mention of what the blockbuster and the long tail do to the things in the middle. Wish that he could have elaborated on that more, if only out of personal interest, as that's where my tastes often seem to lie.

It'll be very interesting to see how the mass customization of packaged goods works when it does actually work. Didn't Labatt and Canada Post both try it and not do so well? Perhaps this is, as you say, a reflection of the mass mentality and the inability to make a meaningful commitment to the idea.

And I too was very amused by the Electra/Navarro link, although I thought the news was one of the few rays of hope this week.

[wine bottle bags]

The big box retailers are driving packaging procedures and policies at retail.