1) What you like about it or found interesting and why.
The article “The Long Tail” brought up a variety of valid points all focused on the technological revolution that is currently occurring in society. The dot-com boom of the nineties inevitably broadened the horizons of a variety of marketing, production and entertainment entrepreneurs, making products of all kinds more accessible to the consumer. Chris Anderson makes it very clear that the usage of the internet allows people to access products that they would normally never see because of space and cost limitations in stores. The consumer ability to go down “the path less traveled” and purchase such items is the basis of “The Long Tail”.
I personally agreed with much of what Anderson had to say. The internet is quickly becoming the new ‘go to’ spot for quick and easy purchases. It is quick, easy and convenient, and you rarely have to worry about products being unavailable, regardless of how unconventional the purchase may be. It is difficult to understand why a company would not have their information online in some shape of form, as it seems to do nothing more than help them in the long run.
2) Questions you have about it.
Many of my questions are referring to statistics. I am extremely wary of statements that are unsupported, and although I am sure Anderson’s claims are true, I always prefer to see the facts before I completely am on board. My questions are listed below.
-What are statistics showing people are interested in that diverge from mainstream products/media?
-In comparison, what percentage of people diverge from the mainstream path now that they have been exposed to more opportunities? Are there statistics available to support the author’s statements?
-Will the “Long Tail” inspire retailers to diversify their wares both in store and online to enhance sales and increase profits? How many have done so already?
-Is there a cost involved with making thousands, if not millions of additional items available online for the main websites?
3) Recommendations for what you might want to change about what the author said and why.
My main recommendation would be to use more factual evidence to support the statements made in the article. It was very interesting, but it was lacking the necessary factual foundation to completely bring me on board with all of the ideas presented.
It seems that the author is insinuating that stores would profit greatly from including non-mainstream merchandise in their stores. He cites websites such as Amazon as prime examples, stating that more than half of Amazon’s book sales do not fall under the top 130,000 book category that would be carried in a normal book store. I would definitely like some further clarification on this insinuated point, as the concept of making non-hits earn their keep in a physical store is unfathomable to me.
One particular point that I found fascinating was the cost breakdown of selling music online. The author stated that music is marked up by 25% for online singles on iTunes; however I do disagree with the author’s statement that digital prices should reflect the digital costs. I certainly like to save money, however I also recognize the validity of keeping prices consistent with those in physical stores. By lowering online costs, they would essentially be cutting off their noses to spite their faces since they would be undercutting their own stores, inevitably putting them out of business in the long run. This would ultimately close an entire market for sales of those products, which would only serve to hurt the producers of the product. Also, for those who are not “tech savvy”, such an event would be catastrophic, as they would not have the means to purchase the items they want. The author states that such a scenario would not, in fact, hurt the producers, for they would sell more by charging less. However, I did not feel substantial evidence was cited to support this statement. I would be interested in seeing documented statistics to give more grounds to this assertion.
No comments:
Post a Comment