Example beyond the data
First, the article draws several of its conclusions based solely on the sales data. Tsk, tsk. "But Sean X, data doesn't lie!" No, it tends not to, but it does not tell the whole story, or even remotely deal with the dynamics of intent that drive those purchases -- the purchase cycle. It is like looking at a myopic funnel of the process and extrapolating conclusions. And that is a dangerous road to walk.
 
What that article misses, is the "phenomenom of choice." I will provide several examples:

A well known 24-hour grocery store found that even though it incurred 20 percent of its expenses from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., it only made 6 percent of its sales during that period. It decided to change its hours from 24 hours per day to closed from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Their logic was that they would save 20 percent of overhead for only a 6 percent profit cut. But sales actually dropped 30 percent for a net loss of 10 percent. Why? The phenomenon of choice. By changing from the ultimate convenience, 24/7, the perception in the consumers' minds was that the store was less convenient. "Were they open 'till 9 or 10? I don't know. I'm going to the other place."

Just looking at sales data captures the end of the process, the result. It does not deal with the dynamics of what generated it. Logic based on data, often has illogical outcomes.
 
Campbell's Soup often has half an aisle in the supermarket dedicated to its red and white cans. However, Cream of Mushroom and Tomato account for a significant slice of the total profits of that aisle. Should Campbell's just make fewer soups, use less shelf space, and get rid of the dogs? Of course not. They understand that when the consumer sees a swath of red and white cans, Campbell's is soup. They peruse and then choose their Cream of Mushroom, Broccoli Cheese and Tomato soups. The phenomenon of choice.

The long tail often wags the short tail. Be careful to study what the impact will be with consumers on the perception of your brand, and not just sales data.
 
Herman Miller advertised its Resolve furniture line, even though it accounted for a small fraction of its sales at the time. Consumers drawn in by the design aesthetic of that line of products often made more practical choices when it came right down to it. But it was that line that brought them in the door. Without it they were going to be out of the buyers' consideration set. And that is the difference. If you're just looking at the "sales" data, you're not measuring the dynamics of consumer intent. And that is the major flaw in the HBR article criticizing the long tail.

What gets people in the door is often not what they eventually buy. Product differentiation is often key in consumer choice. Sexy products sell the less attractive and less expensive ones.

Even though 90 percent of the movies you rent at Netflix are blockbusters, the phenomenon of choice is why you are a member. If they only carried the top 100 titles would you join? No, because you want the choice, even if you're not going to use it. If they scaled back just to the blockbusters, the consumers would abandon the service. What the article does correctly point out is that resource allocation of the long tail is key.

The phenomenon of choice drives membership. Be careful when eliminating choice if you are a membership based service.
 
<< Previous page | Next page >>