July 11, 2005
The Eskimos have 27 words for snow … The Great Wall of China is the only manmade object you can see from space … there is more than 20% of the value locked up in the Long Tail. These are all myths that have such romantic power, you just want to believe them – but they are myths.
Before the Long Tail (a wonderful, well-written article by Chris Anderson that appeared in Wired Magazine a while back) there was Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, who created a mathematical formula in 1906 to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country. He observed that twenty percent of the people in Italy owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the 1940’s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran attributed his own observation of "vital few and trivial many" to the 80/20 Rule which he called “Pareto’s Law” or the “Pareto Principle.”
That’s enough history. The practical reality is that in almost all of the observable universe the 80/20 rule applies. 20% of the distribution embodies 80% of the substance. You fill in the discipline, you fill in the variables, it holds up time and time again. If you make a graph of Pareto’s Principle, you get a bell-shaped curve … The Big Hump.
Now, one of the few places it does not hold up is in the area of Video On Demand or Video Rentals and of course, the business of hits. Hits are unusual (not hits to your website) hit records, hit movies, hit books, etc. They follow a different curve known as a Zipf’s Distribution. Originally the term Zipf's law meant the observation of Harvard linguist George Kingsley Zipf that the frequency of use of the nth-most-frequently-used word in any natural language is approximately inversely proportional to n.
The classic case of Zipf's law is a "1/f function". Given a set of Zipfian distributed frequencies, sorted from most common to least common, the second most common frequency will occur 1/2 as often as the first. The third most common frequency will occur 1/3 as often as the first. The nth most common frequency will occur 1/n as often as the first. Zipf's law is an experimental law, not a theoretical one. Zipfian distributions are commonly observed in many kinds of phenomena. The curve that illustrates Zipf’s law looks like a long tail (hence the title of Mr. Anderson’s article).
Since both of these distribution models are fairly common in everyday life, why would I have the temerity to call the Long Tail a myth? Let’s review: With regard to content (audio and video on the Internet), there is a pretty good theoretical argument (note the word theoretical) to be made for the value proposition of the long tail. After all, in theory, it goes on forever and it is full of valuable things like old Sidney Bechet and Bunk Johnson recordings. If you had the pleasure of hearing these guys play, you would immediately understand that the 78 RPM records from which the files were made are truly priceless. These artists, by default, have a place on the long tail. But, how will you find them and if you do, who will get paid? (Fodder for a different article, sorry for the digression.) You may have heard of these guys and even be willing to search for their stuff, but who has heard of the 70’s disco band Demon Rum whose recordings are also on the tail?
There is a very real point where marginal cost exceeds marginal gain and it happens very close to the borderline of the top 20% of the selections available on the long tail. So, in essence, The Big Hump (my name for the bell curve that illustrates Pareto’s Law) is still the appropriate model for investors and content owners to follow.
Take a movie that already exists. Retain counsel (internal or external) to get all of the appropriate clearances for reduction of the work to the final form factor – ones and zeros. Rent a film chain and color correction suite for the day. Make a 4K file of the entire movie. Down-convert it to every usable format for current distribution (Windows Media, Real, Quicktime, etc.) now create files in every resolution required from 56k up. (56k, 300k, 500k, 800k, 1.2Meg, etc.) Now the fun starts. Create meta-tags and descriptions that are meaningful to search engines so people can find the work. Add a DRM (digital rights management) wrapper, so you can get paid. Come on, take a guess … how much have we spent on this single title? Call it $15,000 sitting on a server ready to go. Now remember, we don’t know who wants to watch this movie, we are just sure that in time, every movie will be watched according to the Zipfian distribution. Add the cost of money to this equation and multiply by every title in your library. Still sound like a good idea?
I didn’t think so. You probably want to do an analysis to determine which movies are the best investments: Which will bring the best return in the shortest time frame. In other words, you will apply The Big Hump to the Long Tail to determine if your content is worth encoding at all.
But isn’t the Long Tail an accurate way to look a content usage? Yes, it is. It’s just not a profitable way to look at a back catalog that was not created with the Long Tail in mind. The marginal cost of creating these files for a current production is diminimus. It is never less expensive than in the original edit suite. But after the fact, there are very real costs associated with encoding and storage. When you calculate those costs and the cost of capital, the value chain (or lack thereof) is clear.
So, as it has been for time immemorial, The Big Hump is the clear winner for modeling return on investment in the information age or any other. No disrespect to those who have been spinning the tale of the Long Tail.
|
unmediated.av:
The Weekly Show

drawing from extrastruggle.
We've been having a back channel conversation amongst the trackers at unmediated about how/whether to update the way in which we aggregate, present, and make useable the content on the site, in light of all the various aggregators, digg and its clones, and role model group blog sites that we all consume/use/hate/love. Since we all primarily support open media movements and the freedom of bits and so forth, and with all of us being busy with our primary projects, we are looking for ways to make getting content on the site easier and more streamlined, while making it obvious that we are presenting other sources content. With the availability of open API's for just about any type of media aggegration literally getting past the saturation point, and mashups taking every possible form, we are wondering, is it time to take a step back, or a step forward with how/what we do at umediated? In the course of my surfing today, i found this new site, Boxxet Which just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back in how we all perceive the current mix and match nature of the web as it now stands. What's different about Boxxet from other aggregators and mashups like the newest entry popurls, (which aggregates digg, slashdot, reddit, newsvine, tailrank, and flickr) is that Boxxet is a Website generator. Thats right, just pop in all the urls u want to aggregate (and WHAT from them) choose how u want to format it, plug in the url that u want it to be accessed at... and whammo: Your own site with everyone elses content, and all thats left to do is decide whether googleplex or yahooza is going to be the source of your linklove revenue. And if u have on older domain that u plug this into...well, we all know how the pageranking with search engines work by now. It used to be that u had to have a bit of code knowledge to make all this stuff work. Eyebeam's Re-blog engine which powers this site was not a simple undertaking at the time that Michael Frumin and Michael Migurski put it all together... a half a year before Marc Broadband-mechanicked the term Reblog as his latest buzzword before casting his attention on the ourmedia-meme. (kudo's, kudo's) But now, with the cut and paste mentality of webculture that we at unmediated have helped create, the pace at which people are remixing and repurposing code is accelerating at a rate similar to the curve that we saw with pro-sumer desktop video... almost anyone can do it. I have this sinking feeling in my gut that we will arrive sooner than later at the same existential threshold that the film studios and record labels are squirming under to our joyful cries of "die, dinosaurs, die!". What i am wondering, is how long until my hero of the open-information movement, Cory Doctorow, and the rest of our pals at BB will tolerate re-aggregation and repurposing of his content, (now that he is investing so much more time at the site) before he (or any of one us) screams, "FOUL!" Stewart Butterfield over at Flickr is dealing with this beast at the moment...and i have to admire the dryness with which he states, "I loaded the FlickrCentral pool and firefox got up to using 240mb of ram before dying. So that's not a great user experience, but it's really terrible for Flickr. If it catches on and you don't limit it, we'll have to cut you off :\" Sure, Stewart, blame it on the user experience and firefox. ;) I admire your candor, and personal attention/approach to what has become one of the hottest new BRANDS in Web 2.0 ...that u still have time to be personal and all flickr-fuzzy even after being acquired, but I am sure that your jeans feel like they're fitting a bit tighter all of a sudden. Pretty soon, I expect, a lot of us bell-bottomed infornistas are going to wake up in a similar pair of Jordaches. I'm curious which of us will cut the inseams and sew in another totally different material to keep our style,and which of us will claim that now that we're wearing skintight jeans ("they're really really comfortable...REALLY! You think i should get a pair of Reeboks to go with 'em?"), that the manufacture of bell-bottoms should be forbidden. I point this all out in good humour only to illustrate a point: The times, they are('nt) a changin'>, and Cory just might wake up one day soon in his magic kingdom, and say "Hey, man, where'd all my whuffie go? And he's going to have no choice but to join Walt's pinstripesuits in pushing for copyright extension. It's a pill i hope he (and we) never have to swallow. So i pose the question to our community readers: How do you see unmediated-Are we crossing the boundaries in how we repurpose content? Would you like to see more editorializing? Narrower/Broader scope? Are we a repository of information that you come back to use, or just part of your daily information addiction? Let us know... I, for one, would like to have an idea about what pair of jeans to wear this year ;) michael
Featured Project
Berkeley Conference: Online Video and the Future of Television - Friday, September 30, 2005
This one-day conference brings together archivists, educators, technologists, entrepreneurs, producers, legal experts, and investors to explore the enormous promise offered by the availability of online video and television content. Demonstrations and interactive panel discussions will highlight new video technologies, services, legal issues, and economic models. Participants from diverse – and until now, largely disconnected – specialties will be especially encouraged to interact.
del.icio.us/tag/unmediated
[+]
About unmediated
unmediated is a group blog that tracks the tools, processes,
and ideas being used to decentralize media production and distribution.
|
flickr/tag/
citizenmedia
[+]
|