For most people, Chris Anderson’s 2006 book The Long Tail marked a new way of thinking about selling goods on the Internet. Being free of the physical limits of shelf space, he predicted, would alter what people bought. For music, this would mean the most popular music titles would become less popular as consumers were able to tap into vast online catalogs. In most corners of the business world, and especially in the music industry, The Long Tail was controversial. Would consumers actually start to ignore the hits?

A Billboard analysis of Nielsen SoundScan data going back to 2004 shows Anderson wasn’t correct on all points. Hit digital albums have lost market share to far less popular titles. But hit digital tracks have gained market share over the years. The top 200 tracks accounted for 14.5% of sales in 2004 and rose to 15.8% in 2005, 17.1% in 2006 and 2007 and 17.2% in 2008. Through October 25, 2009, the top 200 tracks’ share stood at 18.7%.

The top 200 digital albums have shown an opposite trend in market share, steadily dropping to 21.9% in 2008 from 28.7% in 2004. At 22.1%, digital albums’ market share through October, 2009 is slightly better than 2008’s figure.

These two trends imply album and track purchase decisions may be driven by different factors. The most popular tracks may be benefitting from a herd effect due to the viral nature of the Internet. The awareness generated by that small number of songs could drown out less popular songs. Album buyers show they have more diverse tastes and take advantage of the vast catalogs at online retailers. So consumers may prefer to sample the depths of long tail through albums, not by individual songs.

Any discussion of Anderson’s book and theories should include how the record label’s role has changed. A popular sentiment of The Long Tail is that artists have all the tools they need to self-release digital music. That is true. Barriers to entry have been lowered to the point where the costs of recording and commercially releasing music are negligible. As Anderson explained in The Long Tail, cheaper tools of production and distribution have greatly increased the supply of music found online.

But acquiring distribution and getting a sale are two different things. People tend to underestimate the amount of competition faced in digital music. Over 100,000 albums were released in 2008 alone – and about half of those were digital-only releases. Not only does a title have to compete against other new releases, it has to compete against the tens of thousands of well known catalog titles that are available online. It takes resources – both money and expertise – to rise above the competition and achieve sales commensurate to what career-oriented artists need. Such resources are the domain of record labels, who can still find success in the digital world.

While The Long Tail was less explicit about record labels’ role in a changing digital marketplace, in July Anderson told The Times that record labels “are now the least important part” of the music industry. That is true for those with very low sales goals. These days a more established artist, or a mere hobbyist, can circumvent a contract with a record label by using inexpensive digital tools and outsourcing some record label functions. For the more ambitious and the less established, a record label is still by far the best way out of obscurity.

Summary of Billboard’s analysis:

• As more digital albums are released, the more popular titles lose market share to the less popular titles. In other words, demand has shifted from the hits to the niches. The head (what Anderson would call the top 5,000 titles) has lost market share to the tail (all other albums). The head accounted for 77% of digital album sales in 2005. By 2008, the head’s market share had steadily dropped to 65%.
• Sales of digital albums have become less hit-oriented while digital tracks have become slightly more hit-oriented. The top 200 digital albums have accounted for a smaller share of total digital album sales since 2004. In contrast, the top 200 digital tracks’ share of total sales has nudged upward during that time period.
• Sales of individual tracks (those purchased independently, not as part of an album) account for the majority of digital music purchased in the U.S. Individual tracks accounted for 57% of all digital music sold in 2008 (assuming 12 tracks per album).
• In any given week, the top 200 digital tracks account for nearly one in four track purchases. To put that in context, Amazon.com’s MP3 store currently lists 9.99 million tracks. So, the top 200 tracks represent only 0.002% of what a large download store stocks.
• Even titles in the tail (below #5,000) have lost some market share recently. In 2008, the top 8,000 digital albums lost market share to lower-ranked albums. But it wasn’t the best-selling albums that suffered the most. Albums ranked from #200 to #800 suffered the biggest drop in digital album market share from 2004 to 2008 – between 25% and 34%
• While lower ranks have gained market share over the years, any one title has not gained much. For example, an album ranked at #9,000 in 2008 sold about 1,050 digital albums. Less than 100 of those units can be attributed to gains in market share over the previous four years.

An expanded version of this story first appeared at billboard.biz.

Out of the 18 metro areas tested on the reliability metric, a clear “leader” exists in just four areas, while in 10 of the circles, there is a tie for first place.  In the remaining four areas, there is neither a clear leader nor a tie.   Further, the leader in network reliability is not always the leader in market share.  For example, Reliance is the “clear lead” in the Andhra Pradesh area (whose capital and largest city Hyderabad), while Airtel has the most market share.  Reliance had the highest network reliability in three areas (Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry), while TATA was top in UP and Uttaranchal.

“As Indian consumers consider network performance as a major selection and retention criterion, there is a huge opportunity for network leaders to educate consumers about the superiority of their network performance to gain subscriber base.  This can be a huge marketing differentiator in an industry that is reeling under hyper competition,” said Shankari Panchapakesan, Executive Director, Telecom Practice at The Nielsen Company.

India’s wireless market potential is second only to China – and is rapidly threatening to overtake it.  With 12 service providers across 23 wireless “circles” (metro areas), and six to eight providers in each circle, competition for customers is fierce.  It is expected to heat up even more with the auction of new 3G licenses and the introduction of mobile number portability.

Is the Super Bowl the ultimate marketing ecosystem of paid and earned media? 2010 will be huge test, as the new reality of consumer expression and cross-platform integration create a powerful new dynamic hovering over the largest single-spot ad spend on record.

What marketers urgently need to understand is not only total ROI on that mega-media buy, but the full return on all the other activities triggered or reinforced by this paid media stimulus. How does paid media drive earned media? And to what degree does earned media halo future paid media efforts? These are critical questions that Marketers need answers to – along with a metric or common yardstick that quantifies the blending of the two.

Getting Real about Real-Time
In an more agile and flexible marketing environment, where there’s actually a chance of making real-time changes based on available data, marketers need to understand the real-time role they can play in making tactical interventions to grow earned media impressions and ultimately, increase odds of success.

Twitter brings a fresh dynamic and promise to Super Bowl media efficiency. The platform reached a reach tipping point in 2009 – so much so that marketers increasingly use it to fan the flames for events, interact with brand mavens or enthusiasts, and, in a growing number of cases, manage or sandbag tension points like customer disappointment or service shortfalls.

Tweets are also increasingly embedding themselves in Facebook feeds, blog entries, and Google search results, magnifying their long-term value. Translated to the Super Bowl, positive playback about Super Bowl ads can have a “latency” effect and provide brands with an almost endless annuity of “earned media.” The same dynamic will be at work with Facebook brand fan pages, which can see massive growth – hundreds of thousands – following a major ad campaign, offline or online.

Quantifying the Big Picture
In the end, Super Bowl spots today need to meet two distinct “torture” tests – one measurable based on traditional TV scoring, and another based on unique dynamics of cross-platform engagement, most notably word-of-mouth and conversation. On a pure TV-impression alone, one can argue that the Super Bowl has become such an unusual magnet for consumer attention and recall – the one day of the year that we “celebrate” advertising – that it is worth every penny. Indeed, curiosity, anticipation, guessing, nostalgia come into play big time before this festival of brand persuasion. Consumers, after all, want to see the ads, almost akin to seeing a movie.

The entertainment halo certainly matters. Over the last three years, Nielsen IAG research found Super Bowl spots achieved a 31% higher break-through and 93% higher likability than the typical ad on television. But it’s not that simple. Timing is also a factor. First and second quarter spots yield more yardage than second half spots, and 4th quarter spots are about comparable to a “normal” TV buy in terms of generating ad recall. The viewer’s ability to associate the correct brand with the ad, and reported likability levels similarly wane over the course of the game. Surprisingly, branded integration effectiveness shows an opposite trend. Recall and brand opinion are lowest pre-game, moderate during the game, and big gainers post game. For Marketers, the mix is clear: focus on ads early and branded integration efforts late. Lastly, the SuperBowl is a touchdown for brands generally: purchase consideration for the average ad the week after increases +13% versus the week prior.

So that’s the foundation of pure “paid” measurements. What about the “earned” side of the equation, which factors in free media, consumer conversation, participation, and the like? Clearly, the Super Bowl in particular shines light across a far more complicated mix of marketing activity and user-engagement. Great copy finds life in other places.

An engaging, even participatory Pepsi game spot, for instance, might trigger a site visit, a Google search, a tweet, retweet, fan-page sign-up, or DVR rewind. It might trigger a desire to share, forward, discuss, critique, rate, or review. It might bleed over into the social media stream of a New York Times or any media reporter (a growing number of whom leverage social media across all platforms.)

The good news is that this digital trail can be quantified with high levels of precision – by volume, reach, tone, source, or even depth of brand advocacy. And much of this can be delivered in real-time, empowering today’s brand manager to make real-time changes or adjustments to the site. Last year, for instance, a large percentage of brands buying spots on the Super Bowl made real-time adjustments to their websites or social media efforts based on pre-game variables.

This year, Frito-Lay’s Doritos brand sits on the extreme of early-adjustments, as the four spots they are running are sourced from user-participation events and contests. In this case, the “earned media” is stimulating the paid side of the equation. Then again, this can work in reverse. When P&G’s Tide brand ran a highly engaging “Talking Stain” spot two years ago, it triggered a user-generated contest that created an impressive annuity of online video that quickly reshaped the brand’s search results for the better. Three years ago, Nationwide insurance estimated that the “earned media” dividend from their Kevin Federline spot totaled over $20 million dollars.

So in the end, it’s just not as simple as “buying” high-reach media. The broader ecosystems truly matter. This year, Nielsen is putting its biggest effort into measuring and quantifying the full return of Super Bowl advertising, combining a comprehensive suite of paid media and earned media metrics into a total “engagement” score. And we don’t intend to stop at the Super Bowl. Over the course of 2010, we’ll be applying our new cross-platform engagement metrics across our work on the Winter Olympics, Academy Awards, and the World Cup.

Webinar: Learn more about Nielsen’s comprehensive approach to the Super Bowl. Join Pete Blackshaw and Randall Beard for a webinar Maximizing Advertising ROI in a Paid vs. Earned Media Environment on December 8 at 2:00PM EST.

Note: Effective with June 2009 data reporting, Nielsen has made several enhancements to the VideoCensus service, including a panel that is 8 times larger, more granular reporting and improved accuracy and representativeness. These enhancements provide the highest quality data to our clients and the marketplace. For some sites, trending of previously-reported data with current results may show percentage differences attributable to these product enhancements and should only be compared directionally.

VideoCensus Methodology and Metrics:
Nielsen Online’s VideoCensus combines patented panel and census research methodologies to provide an accurate count of viewing activity and engagement along with in-depth demographic reporting. Online video viewing is tracked according to video player, which can be used on site or embedded elsewhere on the Web. For example, if a “Saturday Night Live” clip from NBC.com is embedded on a personal blog, that video would be attributed to NBC because of the NBC video player.

A unique viewer is anyone who viewed a full episode, part of an episode or a program clip during the month. A stream is a program segment. VideoCensus measurement does not include video advertising.

Source: The Nielsen Company

Video Viewing on Facebook Continues to Grow
During the last year, Facebook’s online video viewing audience has experienced tremendous growth. Year-over-year, total time spent viewing video on Facebook increased 1,840 percent, from 34.9 million minutes in October 2008 to 677.0 million in October 2009. The number of unique viewers of video increased 548 percent and total streams grew 987 percent during the same time period.

“Facebook’s rapid growth in online video during the last year illustrates the site’s evolution from simply a communications focused tool to a media portal,” remarked Gibs. “Social networking sites are evolving from a venue for catching up with friends to a platform for personal expression, allowing consumers to share their experiences in the full variety of content formats available online.”
 

Source: The Nielsen Company

Although retailers have been thinking about the 2009 holiday season since last January, consumers are just starting to think about their holiday plans. As we do every year, Nielsen fielded its annual holiday retail survey at the beginning of this month to get an understanding of consumers’ holiday shopping plans.  While the economy appears to be improving at a snail’s pace, it’s apparent that many consumers intend to spend less and save more this holiday season. In fact, some 42 percent of respondents stated that compared to a year ago they were planning on spending less money on holiday gifts, compared with only 4 percent who intend to spend more.

An even more surprising trend is that of the money that consumers plan to spend this holiday season, a smaller percentage will be spent online: 63 percent of survey respondents said that they would do at least some holiday shopping online, down 10 points from two years ago. Meanwhile, 7 percent of respondents said they would not do any shopping online compared to just 1 percent in 2007.

Consumers Expect to Spend Less Money Online this Year

Among those that do plan to shop online this holiday season, many consumers expect to spend significantly less than last year. In 2008, 42 percent answered that they would spend more than $300 online during the holiday season. This year, that percentage has dropped to just 31 percent, while 22 percent of respondents said that they are going to spend less than $100 online.

So why do some consumers shop online? Interestingly, the main reason is not to save money, but for convenience. Respondents said the top reason they would shop online was the ability to shop whenever they wanted, followed closely by the ability to avoid the large crowds associated with holiday shopping.

While consumers appear to no longer view the Internet as a value channel, they still see it as a place to do comparison shopping, find coupons and do research. And it’s not just consumers coming from lower household incomes–shoppers of all ages and income levels rely on the Internet to inform their in-store purchases. In October 2009, over one-third of the U.S. online population visited at least one deal-oriented Web site.

Although many consumers don’t feel that they save money by making purchases online, they do view the Internet as a deal-seeking venue. When asked how they use the Internet before going shopping in physical stores, 55 percent of respondents said they use the Internet to compare prices across retailers and 49 percent answered that they use the Web to learn about sales and promotions available in physical stores.

It is clear that while the majority of all purchases continue to take place offline, the Internet has an important role to play—deals found online impact holiday purchase decisions and drive purchases at brick and mortar locations.

For more information and insights on the 2009 holiday season, download our recent webinar,2009 Holiday Retail Season: What Consumers Have in Store for Retailers this Season.

On November 12-13, I took part in a Washington D.C., hearing organized by the FDA on how pharmaceutical companies can use the Internet and social media to communicate with consumers. The hearing was a source of excitement in the healthcare industry – the FDA received more than 800 requests for 350 seats.

Over two days, more than 60 speakers – representing pharmaceutical companies, agencies, research firms, search and social media websites along with consumer organizations – shared their thoughts on how companies can responsibly engage consumers online, as well as questions and areas that need clarification from FDA.

Despite the variety of industries and agendas represented, I was surprised by the amount of consistency in the presentations and recommendations. Through the two days of the hearing, a few key themes emerged:

• No one can ignore the explosive power of social media.
  Several speakers shared great data about how often the Internet is used as a source for healthcare information. With patients, caregivers and doctors alike going online for healthcare information, it simply is not an option for pharmaceutical companies to remain separated from this discussion.
• No one company can be expected to monitor the whole of the Internet.
  In our Nielsen BuzzMetrics dataset of health-specific CGM sites, we collected an average of 83,000 messages per day over the past six months. This volume will only continue to grow, and no one can expect to monitor all of it.
• Pharma is ready to listen, but confusion persists.
  Most pharmaceutical companies would like to listen and even respond to consumer feedback online. However, there is confusion among pharmaceutical companies about how and when it is appropriate for them to engage with consumers online, and what responsibilities they have in doing so. This confusion often results in companies holding back on engaging in social media and sometimes even in listening to what their consumers are saying online.
• Adverse events are a red herring.
  Companies that have not done social media listening often have a fear that they will see a high volume of adverse events in online consumer conversation. (And for pharmaceutical companies, there is a requirement that these events are followed up and reported to the FDA.) In fact, the number of adverse events in online discussion is very low and manageable within the reporting systems that pharmaceutical companies already have in place.

This last point was the basis of my testimony at the hearing. In 2008, Nielsen analyzed online healthcare discussion to define the number of adverse events and found that just 4 of 500 messages contain adverse event information, and only 1 of those messages contained all of the criteria that are required for AE reporting.

For me, the key takeaway from the FDA hearing was this: More and more consumers are online looking for information on their health. Some of the information they find online is good, but some is not, and it’s not always easy to tell the difference. Right now anyone can contribute to the online health discussion except the pharmaceutical companies, who are waiting for guidelines from the FDA about how to engage online in an appropriate and responsible way.

There was a sense of hope among attendees at the hearing that the FDA will provide new guidelines on the Internet and social media relatively soon. When that happens, not only do we empower the pharmaceutical companies to interact with consumers online, but we give them a sense of duty to contribute to the conversation in a responsible way. Of course it’s not appropriate for pharmaceutical companies to get involved in every consumer discussion about healthcare online. But where these companies can contribute value to the discussion, let’s empower them to do just that.

Like many of my colleagues in the pharmaceutical/healthcare field, I look forward to watching and participating as the discussion continues to unfold.

So what are Brits doing with their smartphones?  Mobile web browsing was the fastest growing activity, with 10.4 million using that function in the third quarter, up from 8.8 million in the second quarter.  Downloading applications was the second fastest growing activity, with 1 million new users in the third quarter to 4.1 million.

“Although there have been sizable increases in the take-up of new mobile technologies such as video and location-based services, they remain niche forms of behavior,” said Edward Kershaw, Vice President of Mobile Media at Nielsen.  “The era of the handset as a truly multi-media device on a mass-market level lies somewhere on the horizon, and the key for companies to successfully harness mobile lies in a realistic understanding of what activities people on a large-scale are actually doing with their handsets now.”

Example:  The data indicates that 62.1 million home and work Internet users visited at least one of the Wikimedia Foundation-owned sites or launched a Wikimedia Foundation-owned application during the month, and each person spent, on average, a total of 17 minutes and 7 seconds at one or more of their sites or applications.

The parent level is defined as a consolidation of multiple domains and URLs owned by a single company or division. The brand level is defined as a consolidation of multiple domains and URLs that has a consistent collection of branded content.

Video from: NewTeeVee