Much of the dialogue about web content over the last few years has focused on the long-tail. That’s been for good reason – the idea was one of those mega-trends with rippling consequences. It came onto the scene in a big way because it nicely encapsulated many diverse developments in the media world. But along the way, we may have lost sight of it’s equally important cousin – mainstream content.

It’s true that mainstream is not what it used to be. But it’s still around – alive and kicking. In fact, you could say mainstream is bigger than ever. If you don’t think so, just consider the popularity of the Super Bowl, which has always been ubber but continues to grow in reach and cultural significance. Last season (2007), it was watched by over 141mm viewers versus 91mm in 1993. The 10 most-watched programs in TV history are all Super Bowls, according to the NFL. This in no way diminishes the advent of the long-tail, though it raises important questions about how these two cousins will get along and work with each other. Things may be in flux, but there’s no doubt they’re two pieces of the same puzzle.

Mainstream is anything that has universal appeal to consumers despite their differences. Differences in taste, preferences and affiliations. In a globalized world, mainstream content will grow not shrink in terms of audience. There will always be a common denominator that links people. In a frictionless medium like the web, where instantaneous diffusion is built into the system, anything that can capture global consciousness will have a field day.

It would be interesting to know how many things in the public consciousness have wide recall factor and whether this figure is growing. In other words, the number of items that enter into pop culture and how quickly. Safe to say that more things go mainstream and they get there faster? Of course, there’s no precise bar for mainstream. Something doesn’t have to be mainstream at the international level to qualify.

If mainstream is still big, then what’s changing about it?

Mainstream is more fleeting than ever for media businesses – people snack on mainstream but dine on specifics. The contrast is like the hotdog stand on the corner versus the adjacent restaurant serving high priced meals. Make money on volume or premiums? You can do it both ways. But there are specific challenges emerging for each approach.

The guy with the hot dog stand packs them in and moves a lot of inventory but the street is becoming crowded with other vendors. It’s making people more fickle by the day. It’s very easy to walk down the block to the new hot spot where the crowd has gathered. Customer loyalty was never a big part of the model – you and street vendor were always transactional about it. Fickle customers means always hunting for the next hit — one-upping amongst vendors. Once you get people interested in hotdogs, they change their minds and move to other items. Bagels, pretzels or gyros? You have to work hard to keep up with changing palettes. But when you get it right, the crowds are huge and those are very rewarding moments. It’s a hit-driven business.

Likewise, in media, the staying power of any one particular mainstream item is shrinking. Customers have developed perpetual attention disorders. And by the way, it’s never been easy to build a business on hits. Hit content is unpredictable. Just ask Hollywood Studios, none of which have been able to shield themselves from boom and bust cycles.

So what if you work with people who aren’t as fickle – people who have sustainable interests in specific categories? The challenge here is that these folks are getting more diverse by the moment. There’s always another restaurant willing to give them more choices and ways to have their type of cuisine. They may still favor Chinese or French food but what reeled them in last week is not necessarily good enough. Their favorite dish is always changing. In the content business, the rubber meets the road because if you can’t help the customer go deep, then someone else will. People are empowered to act on their diversity. Google and other content aggregators are one step away to lead their way to another source that better understands. The problem here is that offering too much diversity is not terribly scalable. Small tweaks here and there do have cumulative effects. That’s why restaurants have menus as opposed to making everyone special request meals. But increasingly in the niche content business, vertical has acquired new meaning. Growing variety is a challenge for firms built around specialization and not economies of scale.

So what are the options here for media players, particularly the mainstream companies?

To borrow business speak, we’d say media firms should consider extending their franchises by back-filling or front-filling. It’s about connecting the mainstream to upstream or downstream consumption.

I prefer to speak about it in other terms. In some way, the challenge for content businesses is a challenge of geography. It’s like creating a map of the earth that tells about water on the planet – like the location of lakes, rivers, streams and oceans. I think fresh water is a good metaphor here, if for no other reason than the fact that it sustains life.

Let’s start by focusing on lakes – the places where new settlers will often center their societies. Mainstream content is like a lake – it supports the masses. A lake is the collective result and many streams/rivers coming together from their sources (mountain tops). In turn, lakes have outbound feeds that direct fresh water to places where people need it for irrigation, industry, and hydropower. The inbound connections to lakes (rivers and streams created by nature) and outbound connections (man-made channels that bring fresh water to necessary places) are equally important parts of the overall architecture.

Before something becomes a hit (forms a lake), it lives as one or more streams. Figuring out which streams will turn into lakes is something large media have experience with though it’s also getting harder to keep up with the pace. The environmental/green tech movement, extreme sports and “pimping-out” your ride are examples of interests that grew from niche markets into mainstream ones over the last ten years. Big media has the capabilities to filter and keep tabs on these domains to jump on the bandwagon when they become more central vibes for society.

On the other end of the spectrum is where big media has far less experience and capability. I’m talking about mainstream interests that branch into multiple niche directions. It’s important to remember that mainstream content is often the first point of interaction or engagement for many people about a particular topic. Of the large numbers of people who comprise the mainstream, some segment will develop deeper interest in the content and seek an extended experience. These interests can splinter into many directions. Not only that, people head in those directions are different rates. Some people get there fast, others need to pace themselves. In the past, such interests may go un-developed, but that limitation has been removed by the web. Wherever they go next, the twists and turns continue in seemingly unpredictable ways. Imagine this cycle repeating itself for large numbers of people. Far more dynamic and difficult to package.

This factor makes it challenging to retain people’s attention once you’ve grabbed it.

The question of the future for media firms – who fulfills this need? Can they bridge mainstream content into specifics?

The answer has a lot a stake. It quite literally defines whether media firms can be positioned as hubs for content consumption (versus just big spokes). Earning customers one hit at a time is no way to make a living. And the opportunity is so much greater. No reader/viewer/user who finds something a hit will tell you they would like the journey to end there. What if for every dollar you made on hit content you could make a dollar on niche content that is simply an extension of the experience packaged together? A lot of small bits of consumption add up.

Media firm understand this point very well and have made attempts. One of the most impressive has been the business news coverage of the NY Times. They’ve pursued heavy portfolio expansion in both depth and breadth. A prime example is a product called Dealbook, which is daily email digest/blog of business news and feature-writing. The unifying concept here is the Deal Economy but it covers all major segments of deal-making including Private Equity, Venture Capital, Corporate M&A, Global Financial Markets and Hedge Funds. That may not sound very surprising but consider how coverage of these areas has unfolded from a decade ago. Ten years ago, you would subscribe to (and pay dearly) for a publication like Venture Capital Journal for the kind of information you find in Dealbook almost every day. The quality of information almost certainly rivals what people still pay for through daily subscription services like Venture Wire. The point I’m making is not focused on the comodification of business news/information (things going for free). Instead, it’s about who cares for this information now versus then. Venture firms have always been a market for this type of content but Dealbook has a much broader segment focus. It’s sort of catch-all for ‘top decision-makers’ in business. Now that’s broad categorization. And meaningful because it says a lot more people need to or want to follow niche content. They may not do this consistently, as would an industry professional, but they expect it to be available nonetheless.

You might ask whether the example I’ve used in more an indication of the growing role of venture capital in the overall economy. I don’t believe that is the primary explanation. Sure, the size of the venture industry has grown by 71% in the last decade ($15.4bn disbursed in 1997 versus $26.4bn in 2006 according to PWC and the NVCA), but I’m sure growth in coverage of it has outpaced that considerably. It would be interesting to identify the number of mentions of “venture capital” in the NY Times archive for year 1997 and compare that to the year 2006. Could they be 100x more frequent now than earlier?

So has the NY Times successfully connected a lake to outbound streams? I think the answer for the time being is yes. But this need is getting more complex by the day because human knowledge and connections between different types of information is growing. I think we’re just at the start of the cycle. This is not a one-time exercise of charting out editorial strategy, it’s something that will have to become a long-term capability in the organization.

How in world will mainstream companies remake themselves to acquire the necessary agility?

One idea is Editorial Maps which talk about the direction of the conversation. Where is it flowing? What are the issues and topics being raised? How fast is it moving and how meaningful can it be for the franchise to play in those categories? This happens today informally through intuition and formal research. But it will have to be more tool-based to keep up. It’s not clear whether it will happen internally or externally at the media firm of the future. Because it’s technology problem, my guess is that content networks arise to assist media firm. By allowing them to plug into services that extend their franchises in flexible ways.

I’ll be writing more about this topic in the future. If anyone has thoughts on how mainstream media companies can realize the opportunity to profitably extend their reach beyond hit content, those ideas would be good to hear.

• Wikipedia Page on Long Tail
• From Niches to Riches
• The Rise and Fall of the Hit

Filed under: Web Apps, Innovation, Traditional Media

Email It   Digg This!   Slashdot It!

Tags: Long Tail, Mainstream Content, Big Media, NY Times Dealbook, Geography, Cuisine,