At the Edinburgh Festival 4 (Long Tail analysis)

I was standing at the bar waiting for my drink when a local turned and asked,

"You up for the Fringe?"

"Yes."

"Wanna know what's wrong with the f***ing Fringe?  Too many of the f***ing acts are f***ing sh*t.  You cannae work out what's good and what's not."

(He was, after all, an Edinburgh local)

He had a point.  As I've mentioned in previous posts there are over 2000 shows and the Fringe positively prides itself on the total lack of quality control.  The very best of theatre and comedy is right alongside shows so awful that they beggar belief.

The obvious comparison is between the Edinburgh Fringe and the World Wide Web.  Let's look at the Fringe through the prism of Chris Anderson's 'long tail' model.  We have near enough to an infinite variety of products available and since audiences are happy tramping around the city to obscure venues at all hours, a surprisingly efficient mode of delivery.  The problem, as my drunken Scottish mate identified, is how do you know what's good and what's not?  Price is no guide as some terrific acts are performing in the free venues whilst terrible ones are charging £12 ($24 USD).

This is where the Long Tail analogy falls down I think: much of what's on offer out on the far left of Anderson's tail isn't merely outdated or obscure, it's just bad.  The Fringe is that tail in living colour.

In this environment the various Fringe reviewers wield immense influence as the only vaguely efficient guide of what to see and what to avoid.  I think the more important role is in warning people away from the bad rather than towards the good.  An hour in the company of a delusional idiot who thinks he's the next Eddie Izzard is an hour you're never getting back.

Last night we were standing room only again, which means over 30 in the audience.  And we got reviewed!