Debating the Long Tail
Category: Economy & Business...
Posted Tuesday, August 08, 2006 at 02:49 PM [GMT-6]

There's an interesting dust-up going on between Wall Street Journal columnist Lee Gomes and Wired Magazine editor Chris Anderson over the validity of some of Anderson's hypotheses set forth in his best-selling book, The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More. [Disclosure: This book is laying on my end table, but I've yet to read it.]

In his July 26th Portals column entitled It May Be a Long Time Before the Long Tail Is Wagging the Web, Gomes argues that a review of some recent data either refutes or at least doesn't strongly support some of Anderson's arguments.

Anderson strikes back in this blog entry entitled The Long Tail: The Backlash, Chapter 1, accusing Gomes of misinterpreting his book, mistating the facts, misunderstanding the statistics, and being mean to baby squirrels.

It's all very amusing, and even educational, especially if you take the time to read through the extensive comments left on Anderson's post. Anderson comes across as a bit defensive (someone accused him of assuming an attitude of martyrdom), but he also raises some good counterpoints. And any thread in which someone mentions that omitting an reference to leptokurtosis invalidates the whole discussion must have some merit (if only to my pal Jim).

I'm not all that interested in whether the statistics prove the truth of the Long Tail Theory, primarily because it feels right, and I want it to be true (as a card-carrying, non-dues-paying member of the Long Tail in nearly every conceivable part of my life). That's hardly the basis for sound economic decisions, but I never claimed to be an economist. However, I am fascinated by the give and take of the proponents of both sides of the argument. At some point, the discussion over motives gets louder than the debate of the facts.

Particularly telling is this comment by well-known (OK, to some) blogger and journalism professor Jay Rosen:

Chris: In my experience, once a journalist has decided he's got a debunking column or review to write, nothing dissuades him. The more you protest, the more certain he becomes that he's got your number. The idea becomes fixed that you're so attached to your thesis that your protests are really confirmation. Climbing back from an intention to debunk becomes particularly hard.

I just didn't see that in the WSJ column, but perhaps I'm not journalistically-sensitive enough to pick up on such subtleties.

Technorati tags: | |

Permalink
Comments

I have no idea what you just said, but thanks for the link.

Posted by: Jim at August 8, 2006 03:18 PM

I stopped listing my own consulting business in the yellow pages years ago. I can't recall a single job that was worth the cost. I still have more work than I can handle.

Posted by: John Peter Smith at August 8, 2006 08:54 PM

Sorry, the comment above was supposed to go with the post below. Someday Bill Gates will invent a computer that does what I want it to do and not what I tell it to do.

Posted by: John Peter Smith at August 8, 2006 08:56 PM

I'd give you a hard time, but you're obviously a Windows user and therefore not in complete control. ;-)

Posted by: Eric at August 8, 2006 09:01 PM

I may not be in complete control, but I can hit Ctrl+Alt+Delete with one hand, blindfolded.

Posted by: John Peter Smith at August 9, 2006 07:56 PM

Heh. Don't tell anyone, but I've been known to hit Cmd+Alt+Esc from time to time, myself. It's usually for Micro$oft products, but, still...

Posted by: Eric at August 9, 2006 08:24 PM
Post a comment [Take your time...we're in no hurry.]
Note: You must provide either a website URL or an email address...but there's no rule that says you have to tell the truth. If you don't want your email address published on this site, just input a website URL, or make up an email address.









Remember personal info?