Seth Godin had an interesting post over the weekend: #1 at the Box Office
It turns out that in the last forty years, the length of stay of a typical bestseller at #1 is down by more than 85%. In other words, bestsellers used to be bestsellers for seven times as long as they are now.
This looks suspiciously like the trend noted in my previous post A Game a Day Keeps the Developer's Profits Away in the casual/indie games industry. Hits are hits for only the fraction of the time they used to be.
Seth concludes:
If your marketing strategy requires you to hit #1 in order to succeed, you probably need a new marketing strategy.
With the shorter stay in bestsellers, isn't there more room for "number 1's" now, so the marketting strategy requiring a number 1 spot is more plausible, though with less effect than previous?
So it is more likely that number one's are a reality, and hence more likely to be included in a plan, for entities (just with less related financial/other returns).
Posted by: Matt | May 23, 2006 at 09:07 PM
""" With the shorter stay in bestsellers, isn't there more room for "number 1's" now """
I think you are looking it from the wrong angle... There is no shorter stay of bestsellers and then because of this there is more room for them --- but IMHO there is much more competition (more products)(so it's even harder to get to best 10) and because of that even if you get there you will not stay for long :) ...
Posted by: jankoM | May 24, 2006 at 10:27 AM