The Long Tail defination

According to Wikipedia:

The Long Tail or long tail refers to the statistical property that a larger share of population rests within the tail of a probability distribution than observed under a ‘normal’ or Gaussian distribution. The term has gained popularity in recent times as a retailing concept describing the niche strategy of selling a large number of unique items in relatively small quantities – usually in addition to selling fewer popular items in large quantities. The Long Tail was popularized by Chris Anderson in an October 2004 Wired magazine article, in which he mentioned Amazon.com and Netflix as examples of businesses applying this strategy.[1][2] Anderson elaborated the concept in his book The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More (ISBN 1-4013-0237-8).

Books About The Long Tail

1. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling Less of More

In The Long Tail, Chris Anderson offers a visionary look at the future of business and common culture. The long-tail phenomenon, he argues, will “re-shape our understanding of what people actually want to watch” (or read, etc.). While Anderson presents a fascinating idea backed by thoughtful (if repetitive) analysis, many critics questioned just how greatly the niche market will rework our common popular culture. Anderson convinced most reviewers in his discussion of Internet media sales, but his KitchenAid and Lego examples fell flat. A few pointed out that online markets constitute just 10 percent of U.S. retail, and brick-and-mortar stores will never disappear. Anderson’s thesis came under a separate attack by Lee Gomes in his Wall Street Journal column. Anderson had defined the “98 Percent Rule” in his book to mean that no matter how much inventory is made available online, 98 percent of the items will sell at least once. Yet Gomes cited statistics that could indicate that, as the Web and Web services become more mainstream, the 98 Percent Rule may no longer apply: “Ecast [a music-streaming company] told me that now, with a much bigger inventory than when Mr. Anderson spoke to them two years ago, the quarterly no-play rate has risen from 2% to 12%. March data for the 1.1 million songs of Rhapsody, another streamer, shows a 22% no-play rate; another 19% got just one or two plays.” If Anderson overreaches in his thesis, he has nonetheless written “one of those business books that, ironically, deserves more than a niche readership”

The Long Tail successful Cases

Case 1 : Google

Google is the most typical Long Tail company.Its develop is a process The long tail commercialization of Advertisers and Publishers.

Hundred of Small business and individual, They never advertised in the past Due to their  low budgets.However,Google Adsense make it possible.Advertises are no longer expensive but cheap,everyone could do it.On the other hand,Advertising on thousands of BLOGS And websites becomes more and more popular.

Case 2: Amazon

A Stuff of Amazon said: Some books could not be sold in the past could sell well now.

Criticism

A 2008 study by Anita Elberse, professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, calls the Long Tail theory into question, citing sales data which shows that the Web magnifies the importance of blockbuster hits.[24] On his blog, Anderson responded to the study, praising Elberse and the academic rigor with which she explores the issue but drawing a distinction between their respective interpretations of where the “head” and “tail” begin. Elberse defined head and tail using percentages, while Anderson uses absolute numbers.[25] Similar results were published by Serguei Netessine and Tom F. Tan, who suggest that head and tail should be defined by percentages rather than absolute numbers.[26]

Also in 2008, a sales analysis of an unnamed UK digital music service by economist Will Page and high-tech entrepreneur Andrew Bud found that sales exhibited a log-normal distribution rather than a power law; they reported that 80 percent of the music tracks available sold no copies at all over a one-year period. Anderson responded by stating that the study’s findings are difficult to assess without access to its data