One of the questions I get most often is how I apply the Long Tail strategy to my day job of running Wired.
(Actually, the question I get most often is how I can work for a blockbuster company, Conde Nast, by day and celebrate the decline of the blockbuster by night. My physics-geek answer: it isn't hypocrisy, it's wave-particle duality!)
The short answer is what I call the "Three Cs": Catalyze and Curate Conversations.
Wired, as a mass market magazine (paid circ of around 675,000 and an estimated 2 million readers per month) is unavoidably a one-size-fits-all product. To be sure, that "all" as in "all people who are interested in how technology is changing the world" but in an era where nearly everyone in the Google generation has broadband, an iPod and a cellphone, that's pretty mass.
So in the magazine, with limited pages and a huge general-interest readership, we remain in the blockbuster business. Thus Transformers and Martha Stewart (albeit with a Wii cake) covers.
On the web, however, we have "unlimited shelf space" (an infinite number of pages, which can be created at close to no cost), so that's where we focus on the niche as well as the mass. We have room for geeky blogs on hacker subculture and Lego. Obsessive drill-downs. And for loads of user-generated content (best shown in the form of our Reddit news aggregation and voting site).
As we roll out new features over the next year, you'll see the ratio of conversational catalysis to traditional journalism climb. Not to say we'll do less traditional journalism. We're just going to be starting and curating a lot more user-driven conversations. Our new How To wiki is just one example.
Some of these experiments aren't going to work. That's fine--"fail fast" is as good a motto as any for online media. Indeed, we were just honored by the Knight-Batten awards for our Assignment Zero experiment in crowdsourcing journalism, which was highlighted as "an excellent example of learning from failure."
Here's a question: how should you reward failure? And how can you tell the difference between failure that came from commendable risk-taking and failure that came from sloppy execution?
[