David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Doubting the Long Tail  
# Friday, July 28, 2006
 
I received a royalty statement last week from a publisher that’s made me think more about the idea of the long tail. Among other things, the long tail posits that even slow-selling work—things way out in the long tail of the popularity distribution curve—will gain new life as linking among digital information becomes more common. In a recent New York Times article, for instance, Wired’s Kevin Kelly asserts that “digital interlinking will lift the readership of almost any title, no matter how esoteric”.

But is this really true? I doubt it. The book that generated last week’s royalty statement was certainly far out in the long tail: my royalty was $1.14. The book itself is out of print, and so the royalty was for a digital version. If that digital version didn’t exist, I would have received nothing: score one for Kevin Kelly’s view of the future.

Yet the book isn’t popular for a couple of very good reasons. First, and most important, I misjudged the audience. The book’s approach just isn’t useful for a large number of people, and so it never sold especially well. Second, the book is old, and so the technology it describes is years out of date. No amount of long tail evangelism is going to resurrect its sales, even in an electronic version. The truth is that nobody cares about its content.

And this is the reality for most little-read work: it’s not read much because nobody cares about it. Long tail proponents argue that many books are ignored because they’re not stocked by major bookstores, and so potential readers can’t find them. I’m willing to believe this for some titles—there are bound to be a few unjustly ignored masterpieces out there, along with a larger number of specialized but high quality books that will see their readership increase—but I don’t buy it for the bulk of the tail. Most books either aren’t very good or the information they contain isn’t interesting to anybody (or both). In general, books that have low sales, like the one that generated my $1.14 royalty, are getting what they deserve.

While dreams of the long tail might comfort authors whose books haven’t sold as well as they’d expected, I’d encourage those authors to hold off on spending their hoped-for royalties. For most of us, they’re not going to materialize.


0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home