The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free
from the have-fun-with-it dept
Ok. I'll be the first to admit that I've taken the long way around in going through my series of posts exploring the economics of goods when scarcity is removed. What I had thought would be a series of 5 or 6 posts, turned into something much longer -- but each week people came up with new questions or discussions or objections, and so I tried to spend some time digging down on various pieces of the economics at hand. However, what I haven't done is tie it all together in one single spot. In the last couple of weeks there's been tremendous confusion among people from Scott Adams to CNN to various others that have made it abundantly clear that the one thing I've failed to do is put the whole concept together in a single place. That's resulted in people being confused about what I'm actually saying -- where they only pick up a tiny piece of the argument or confuse it with the arguments made by others. So, while I still think it was important to go through the details, now is as good a time as any to pull the whole theory together (with some links back to the previous articles in the series).First off, and this is key, none of what I put forth is about defending unauthorized downloads. I don't download unauthorized content (never have) and I certainly don't suggest you do either. You may very well end up in a lawsuit and you may very well end up having to pay a lot of money. It's just not a good idea. This whole series is from the other perspective -- from that of the content creator and hopefully explaining why they should encourage people to get their content for free. That's because of two important, but simple points:
- If done correctly, you can increase your market-size greatly.
- If you don't, someone else will do it correctly, and your existing business model will be in serious trouble
From a high-level perspective, though, the reason that giving non-scarce products away for free will increase your market size goes back to the same Thomas Jefferson quote that we kicked the series off with:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.What Jefferson noted is the wonderful feature of a non-scarce, or infinite, good that it is effectively a free resource. Once created, it costs nothing to give to someone else, and you still retain the original. In fact, economists have finally realized that this is the very key to economic growth and progress. The infinite resource known as an "idea" that improves what was already there is what increases the size of a market. Or, putting it another way, that infinite resource of a new idea makes an existing scarce resource more valuable. It's easy to understand that when it's an idea applied to, say, a machine making it more productive -- but it also applies to any infinite resource appropriately bundled with any scarce resource.
The way it works is actually quite easy and fits in with the same basic economics that's always been in place. Knocking down the barriers of artificial scarcity opens up tremendous new opportunities -- just as knocking down the artificial scarcity known as "protectionism" helps to grow markets by creating new opportunities. In this case, those new opportunities have only increased in number as we've gone digital, making more content infinite in nature. Where some people have trouble is that those new opportunities may be in different places than the existing opportunities -- and those new opportunities may not all be capturable by the creator of the content. Indeed, there will be some externalities created by the free flow of an infinite resource. However, the total amount that any content creator can capture is still much larger than it was before. It's one of those cases where getting 20% of a huge pie is much better than getting 90% of a tiny pie.
You just start by redefining the market based on the benefits of what you're providing, rather than the specific product you're selling. If you're focused on selling the benefits, then discovering a better way to sell those benefits is seen as a good thing, rather than a threat. You then break down the different components that make up those benefits that you're selling -- and you begin to recognize that every bundle of goods and services that make up the benefit you're selling has components that are scare as well as components that are infinite. In fact, if you look closely enough, you realize that any scarce product you buy actually has infinite components while any infinite good you see also tends to have scarce components.
Once you've broken out the components, however, recognizing that the infinite components are what make the scarce components more valuable at no extra cost, you set those free. Not only do you set those free, you have every incentive to create more of them, and encourage more people to get them. You break them into easily accessible bites. You syndicate them. You hand them out. You make them easy to share and embed and distribute and promote. And, yet, all the while, you know exactly what scarce resources those non-scarce goods are tied to, and you're ready to sell those scarce resources, recognizing that the more people who are consuming the infinite goods, the more valuable your scarce resource is.
So, the simple bulletpoint version:
- Redefine the market based on the benefits
- Break the benefits down into scarce and infinite components.
- Set the infinite components free, syndicate them, make them easy to get -- all to increase the value of the scarce components
- Charge for the scarce components that are tied to infinite components
- Redefine the market: The benefit is musical enjoyment
- Break the benefits down (not a complete list...): Infinite components: the music itself. Scarce components: access to the musicians, concert tickets, merchandise, creation of new songs, CDs, private concerts, backstage passes, time, anyone's attention, etc. etc. etc.
- Set the infinite components free: Put them on websites, file sharing networks, BitTorrent, social network sites wherever you can, while promoting the free songs and getting more publicity for the band itself -- all of which increases the value for the final step
- Charge for the scarce components: Concert tickets are more valuable. Access to the band is more valuable. Getting the band to write a special song (sponsorship?) is more valuable. Merchandise is more valuable.
So there you have it. After many months, one single summary of the economics of "free" and how it can be used to anyone's advantage. It's not about defending unauthorized downloads. It's not even about getting rid of copyright -- just recognizing that copyright holders can actually be better off ignoring their own copyrights. It's very much about showing the key trends that are impacting all infinite goods -- and pointing out a clear path to benefiting from it (while making life more difficult on those who refuse to give up their old business models). And we're giving it to you all... for free. So, enjoy.
If you're looking to catch up on the posts in the series, I've listed them out below:
- Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention
- The Importance Of Zero In Destroying The Scarcity Myth Of Economics
- The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue
- A Lack Of Scarcity Has (Almost) Nothing To Do With Piracy
- A Lack Of Scarcity Feeds The Long Tail By Increasing The Pie
- Why The Lack Of Scarcity In Economics Is Getting More Important Now
- History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers
- Infinity Is Your Friend In Economics
- Step One To Embracing A Lack Of Scarcity: Recognize What Market You're Really In
- Why I Hope The RIAA Succeeds
- Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period
- Perhaps It's Not The Entertainment Industry's Business Model That's Outdated
- An Economic Explanation For Why DRM Cannot Open Up New Business Model Opportunities
- Recognizing That Just About Any Product Is A Bundle Of Scarce And Non-Scarce Goods
- Scarcity Isn't As Scarce As You Might Think
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: techdirt feature
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Giving Away the Infinate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm not sure that alot of people haven't "gotten" your scare resources arguments... but i might be wrong.
so for my sake, and my own opinions.. let me rant for a sec..
i'm an artist.. i create music.. i release music... i say to my customers, if you buy my music, you can't/shouldn't go copying this for 50K of your closest friends.. nor should you put the music you purchase anywhere where someone/50K people can copy it..
my question to you mike, do you think i should have the right to do this?
it appears that you really want me to essentially give up the model that i want to implement, so i can implement a model more in lines with what you want me to create...
there's a demand for my music.. otherwise it wouldn't be copied... there might be a demand for my t-shirts.. but my question back to you.. why can't i produce my music, and sell it as i want, and create tshirts as well..
you see mike. the cenral tenant/thesis to alot of the "conversations" regarding music/content is that the guy creating it, should then let others have it for free, and i should generate revenue via some other means..
you guys are stating that i should somehow use the music/content as a draw for other revenue generating functions. these arguments/conversations, while nice, are not what i'm interested in. i'm interested, as an artist, in making music, and being able to sell my music.
you as a customer, have a right to say to me, go to hell, that you don't choose to buy the music. fair enough. what you don't have the right to do, is to essentially rip the music off...
there is no difference between digital content and physical items...
the blank cd costs $0.05 apiece... it's the software/music/video on the cd that gives the additional value. the bits are worth something!!
i'm pretty sure that i'm in the minority here on this!
peace
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. You should have the right to do that. I tried to make that clear above. The point, however, is that as more of your competitors go in the other direction, you won't be able to keep doing this. Your business model will go away.
it appears that you really want me to essentially give up the model that i want to implement, so i can implement a model more in lines with what you want me to create...
No, you misread my argument. I'm saying that the model you want to implement won't be supportable.
there's a demand for my music.. otherwise it wouldn't be copied... there might be a demand for my t-shirts.. but my question back to you.. why can't i produce my music, and sell it as i want, and create tshirts as well..
Because the business model won't be supportable. Your competition will learn to give away stuff for free, and people won't pay attention to you. Demand, by itself, is meaningless. There's a lot of demand for air to breathe, but we don't pay for it because the supply is infinite.
you guys are stating that i should somehow use the music/content as a draw for other revenue generating functions. these arguments/conversations, while nice, are not what i'm interested in. i'm interested, as an artist, in making music, and being able to sell my music.
And you have every right to *try* to do so. What you don't have the right to is have it guaranteed that you'll make money. All I'm trying to do is warn you that your business model is going to go away.
As for the claim that you're just interested in selling music, to me that's the same thing as me saying I'm just interested in selling horse buggy whips. That's great. I can still set up a shop and try to sell horse buggy whips, but it won't take long before I realize that there's no market for them any more.
you as a customer, have a right to say to me, go to hell, that you don't choose to buy the music. fair enough. what you don't have the right to do, is to essentially rip the music off...
Did you actually read my post? I make it clear that I'm not saying anyone should copy music that's unauthorized.
the blank cd costs $0.05 apiece... it's the software/music/video on the cd that gives the additional value. the bits are worth something!!
That's exactly my point. The bits are worth something. They increase the value of the scarce good quite a bit in many cases. But, again, that doesn't mean the business model you want to use will work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sam - Mike
In your post you state that this will cast a bigger net, hopefully grow a larger audience, essentially making a bigger fan base to spend the money on "Sam" related products?
I have to strongly disagree. There's a huge leap of faith your asking Sam to take by not selling music. You're assuming the fanbase will not be content simply downloading and listening to Sam's songs. I might be a little old fashioned, but I don't own a single concert T-Shirt, and most of the people I know don't either (30+ yrs old) The few they own where purchased from overpriced vendors at concerts with already overpriced tickets.
You expect to raise the price of these "Sam" related products and the concerts beyond the already inflated prices (example, Tool concert $40 for LAWN seats!!)and you expect people to redirect "CD" money on their own? Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sam - Mike
Not quite. That's a part of it, but there's a lot more to it. It's not about "baiting" them. It's about exposing a much larger market to "Sam" and Sam-related products. Then, putting in place a business model to capture that interest.
I have to strongly disagree. There's a huge leap of faith your asking Sam to take by not selling music. You're assuming the fanbase will not be content simply downloading and listening to Sam's songs. I might be a little old fashioned, but I don't own a single concert T-Shirt, and most of the people I know don't either (30+ yrs old) The few they own where purchased from overpriced vendors at concerts with already overpriced tickets.
Again, I think you're misreading what I've said. I clearly state that there will be a percentage (perhaps a large one) that will do nothing more than consume the free stuff. You see commercials on TV, but you don't buy every product you see advertised, right? Are you somehow "stealing" from those advertisers? No. This is the same thing. The music itself is advertising for Sam-related products. So the fact that you aren't willing to pay for those things right now just means you're not a part of the immediate market. That's fine since the overall market for Sam-related products is much wider.
At the same time, Sam should also be looking at additional scarce products that you might be interested in.
In the meantime, you also ignore the other impact that I describe in the post, which is that if everyone else is giving away their music for free, Sam simply won't be able to sell his music at all, and won't be able to get any attention for it. Then what does he do?
You expect to raise the price of these "Sam" related products and the concerts beyond the already inflated prices (example, Tool concert $40 for LAWN seats!!)and you expect people to redirect "CD" money on their own? Give me a break.
No, that's a really bad example. I'm expecting there to be a lot more people interested in going to any particular event by any particular musician. Picking a musician who already commands a large fee isn't a good example. However, those musicians will have many opportunities to open up other lines of business as well. We've already covered examples where a band with a loyal following made a lot of money by opening up its own travel agency to help fans come see them. I'm not saying focus just on concerts. I'm saying focus on *ALL* of the ancillary scarce products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sam - Mike
I believe you're under the misconception that a talented artist will be able to write music and generate indirect revenue. The revenue not coming from the music would have to come from these alternative sources, sources a faithful fanbase would happily supply.
I agree that your free music business model would work, assuming this fanbase could be generated (given that the music doesn't suck :-) ) and assuming they are willing to suppliment the lack of CD sales with purchases of other music related goods.
I disagree only because all people are cheap/greedy. Yes, you can get die hard fans to follow a band (dead heads) and you can get fie hard fans to purchase non CD music based goods. But the percent of die hard fans with disposable income is nominal. The vast majority of fans will not be "die hard" and will simply take free music an not recipricate anything to the artist. It's the darker side of human nature to want something for nothing.
In a utopia (Think Atlas Shrugged) we'd all settle for getting the exact worth of what we generate, and we'd all pay the exact relative value of what we recieve. But this isn't Atlas Shrugged, and you're not John Gault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is what makes me laugh...YOU Mike, are guaranteed to make money at your job, right? You don't have to work for "maybe" making money. So why should other people do so?
Selling the scarce doesn't work for every content creator; it might work for us musicians and maybe movie theaters to an extent, but people like software creators and game devs don't have a "scarce" product. People that want a program or a game don't want stupid bs like shirts or stickers; they want the main product. Sure a few people might want a t-shirt of their favorite game or a sticker of a program's logo, but most people want the main deal...and for the people that do want the stupid bs, they are usually not willing to pay a fair price for it. I know this because I follow quite a few game devs on their facebook, and people always bitch about how a hoodie or a shirt should only be like 10 or 20 dollars. That is not a fair price for the content creator, especially if it's their only revenue stream like you want them to have.
It's not always possible to control the main product and the scarce; if a band releases their music for free in hopes to sell the scarce, what happens if BOTH are free to consumers? It's easy to just copy a sticker, and I'm sure if someone took an image to a printing service to have it put on a shirt, they could do that too since those places really don't check if someone actually has the right to use those images. You can literally type up a bullshit letter and scribble a signature, and these shops will usually accept it. Sure this will still cost some money, but $5 for a cheap t-shirt and maybe another fee for the shop to print the image is probably less than what the content creator can afford to charge. So Mike, your favorite phrase seems to be "you need to adapt" when it comes to content creators; how would someone "adapt" in this situation when EVERY product they offer can be obtained for free or a cost lower than what is offered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't forget that Mike's specialty is PR
yeah, he wants you to sell t-shirts instead of writing good music
That's all his "theory" is about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Really not sure how to respond to that. Why would I want worse music out there? The whole point of the post, if you read it, is that this model would allow for a lot more music to be produced and it would likely be a lot better because there are many more ways for musicians to get attention and get money.
As for Angry Dude's other points, he keeps accusing me of being in PR, which I'm not (and never have been). I don't know where he gets that from, and I've told him before that it's wrong, and yet he keeps repeating it.
I've also pointed out that he focuses on insults and he never backs up anything he says. If he actually stopped the insults and had something useful to say then we'd respond. But making some weird claim saying that I want there to be worse music in the world when the whole point of the discussion is the opposite, hardly seems like something that requires a serious response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike, dude, if you want to sell your t-shirts you need to feature the link prominently on your website's front page. That's basic website design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
yeah, he wants you to sell t-shirts instead of writing good music
No, I think his point is that by giving away your music and making sure it's as easy to share as possible, you will expand the interest in your music so much that you'll be able to make more money selling t-shirts than you could have just selling the music to a much smaller audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Music sales
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You said "there is no difference between digital content and physical items...". But I think it's a very important distinction between the two. The cost (to the publisher) of reproducing a digital item on a grand scale, with the likes of p2p approaches 0. Where as with even the cheapest physical item, there are still constant costs throughout the process, including the physical materials and transport and storage that do not apply to the digital.
I don't think the point is necessarily that you have to do this or Mike will get in your face. I think the point is that it can, and will increase overall market share and then profitability. And If you don't do it, at some point, your competition will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @ Sam
Mike has been explicitly clear that he does not support breaking the law. His arguments are that you should distribute your music in a way that people don't have to.
Your argument goes wrong here: You can choose to market your music any way you please. If you only want to make and sell music, then that is your right. However, consumers are starting to show very strongly that they do not consider obtaining a song and listening to it to be worth very much. The popularity of file trading underscores this. If the market sets the price of listening to your music at $.00001, you have every right to sell your music as your only revenue source, but don't expect to be very profitable.
The fact is that the music business is changing. The record labels are fighting against it as hard as they can with copyright lawsuits, but that doesn't change the fact that the market is devaluing access to music. Other content is being similarly devalued. Consumers see that it costs next to nothing to create a new copy of a song, so they don't see it as being worth $10-$15/album. That necessitates a change in focus to scarce goods and a business model something like what Mike described.
You can run your business any way you want, but if you do not adapt to the market, you will likely not be successful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sam, the starving artist
You are right, there is a demand of music, but demand is inversely related to price. That means, since music is practically free to copy and distribute, the demand is high. An artist selling a creation for $20 lowers the demand of his product. (plus you waste resources trying to scare everyone into compliance). Mike is saying that since distributing the creation digitally is free and costs you nothing, it is essentially like an idea, and you will profit more by letting people distribute it for you to increase your fans who will then demand your non-scarce resources, namely YOU, your time, your effort. Your creations are no longer scarce, so you won't thrive if you do business as if they were.
Examples abound, but take Homestarrunner for free entertainment for example. They make money selling t-shirts, etc, but wouldn't have the market for the t-shirts if they had tried to charge to view their cartoons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's see... First off, I didn't rationalize theft. I didn't even discuss theft at all. Why would you think I had?
Second, I didn't even rationalize copyright infringement (which is what you probably mean instead of "theft"). In fact, I quite clearly pointed out that it was a bad idea.
Third, lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a category such as "broke kids/dumb people" suggests you're not actually reading the argument (given points one and two above, this isn't surprising) but just reacting emotionally.
Finally, declaring that people who disagree with you, but who back up their viewpoints with detailed explanations and economics as "having nothing of value to offer" and then declaring "period" isn't much of an argument. You raise no actual point of debate. You just insist anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong. Which seems more believable, the person who actually backs up their point or the person who unilaterally declares everyone else a "broke kid/dumb person" and insists that an economic explanation for why *creators* should set content free is actually a rationale for users to commit copyright infringement.
That's not particularly compelling.
Alternatively, you have the crowd that thinks that "artists make too much" and that CDs are ripoffs because the content is "free" (as in the watch you stole from the jewelry store is also "free").
I never made that argument. Why do people keep insisting I've made the argument that artists make too much money. I haven't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Extreme patience
For those who don't believe in a free lunch: look at all the people who actually *pay money* as well as countless hours of their time (and many people say that time = money) to be able to put their thoughts, pictures, music, etc. online. For anyone to view. For free. Billions of pages of it. If that's not a free lunch, I don't know what is. Look at Google. Wikipedia. Remixter.
Eventually, those vehement naysayers will finally get it. I suspect that their invective stems from the fact that they're making money with the current model and are clutching to it for dear life, because doing otherwise would mean: a) thinking, b) working, c) competing... They just feel threatened the same way that the typewriter/buggy wip/telegraph/oil lamp globe manufacturers and vaudeville performers and traveling circuses dreaded the advent of the wordprocessor/automobile/telephone/light bulb, movies, and television, etc. I just hope they're not ruined by investing everything in a dying model. Adapt or perish. It's simple.
Dave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? Because the market won't let you
You can, but the market isn't responding to that model anymore. That's the point of the article: as the music market changes, artists need to change, too. And just as water will find the easiest path down hill, so too will an audience find the easiest way to get a song. You could spend a lot of time and money trying to fight the flow, or you could just go with it. Your choice. We'll see where the market leaves you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sam and his old business model
The alternative (free music, sell things that can't copy+paste) uses the technology that the old business model fights against. In other words, it follows the river instead of trying to divert it.
No where did he say that you HAVE to switch, he simply said that if you dont, you will more than likely get buried by the other artists that embrace the new business model.
I dont see why this has to be a thing where everyone has to agree on one model and stick to it, thats the OPPOSITE of what this article is saying. Try new things or don't, and the market will decide what models work and what don't. Also, what works or not is likely to shift, a lot, and I would think the key to being successful is being able to adapt to the market, instead of trying to make the market follow you.
Last thought, the current business model is only being held up by tons of lawyers and lobbyists fighting natural evolution, while the model and ideas proposed here fight nothing at all and doesn't require extra people that have nothing to do with music to be paid with money from your sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reply to Free Music Thread
When I get a musical tidbit I love for free, I almost always go back and purchase the whole CD. I don't know the technical term for this syndrome. Perhaps it has something to do with "you were so nice to me, thanks for the freebie, I now have respect for you" and am more likely to buy your product.
That sounds like a contradiction coming out of my own mouth...0.50 is cheesy, but "free" has value? Well, it does because it's a gift to me. You appreciate me so much you gave me a gift!
The "buy my stuff for fity-cents" seems so gimmicky to a consumer like me. The freebie-effect works.
I have so much respect for you when you reveal your passion QUOTE: "I i'm an artist.. i create music.. i release music..."
What struck me the most and what rings true for me is Mike's statement: "What the band has done in this case is use the infinite good to increase the value of everything else they have to offer."
BINGO! That is sooo it in a nutshell. I also think that your intense passion for your craft & Art can be making you miss the boat a little. (just a little).
I really enjoyed your article, Mike, and the comment thread was very informative!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Economics of free
Here's my opinion on this --
Of course you have a right to charge what you want for your music and to demand that it not be copied. However, I think what people are trying to excpress (in a confused way) is that more artists could understand that they may earn more while charging less for their works -- it doesn't even have to necessarily be free. The idea is just that because bits are now easily moveable, this creates a business opportunity to actually potentially make more money by charging less, but selling more, or by charging less but selling other things along the side which you wouldn't have otherwise had the chance to sell.
I think the idea of "free" side-tracks the discussion. Think of it more as "charging less" than as "giving it away free". Free is the extreme. But I think another example that fits this thinking would be charging $5 for a CD for example -- instead of the mythical, decided upon at some time in the past, and for some reason never really changed standard $15 price point.
Cheers,
Jonas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-diRt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If your music were of crucial societal importance for historic reasons, of course, we would legally copy it under the fair use doctrine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can U charge for your content
I believe he's saying there are business models that will eat "charging a small group for each copy of the essentially free item" for lunch. You will have competitors who give away their music in various smart ways in order to make more money from limited resources - like their live shows. Charging for infinite items (electronic song copies) is difficult when competitors are giving their versions away for free as is clearly their right. You can exercise your freedom to market your infinite resource as you wish, but your decisions affect how much you make.
The author's point is that different (better) decisions may very well lead to more money, but nobody is holding a gun to your head insisting you give anything away.
A solid example from the music industry: Dave Mathews Band has made more money than any other musicians in the last decade, and they did it by encouraging paying customers at concerts (who paid for the limited resource: live shows) to record and share audio at the shows (give the free bit away to encourage loyalty and interest). DMB fans are intensely loyal and happy to buy tickets and swap free song recordings, and DMB is happy to take more money for their efforts than any other musicians on the planet. Hard to argue with success, but nobody is insisting that you market like them, just noting that you might want to consider it.
Of course you are free to approach your marketing however you want, and you DO own the copyrights to your work, so you can try to limit access to your infinite resource (copies), that woks to keep me and the author from touching it. Dishonest people may steal/share it anyway, but that's your problem to solve. If you solve it in a way that impairs my ability to listen to your music (embedded DR etc.) then you turn me from an unlikely sale to a complete no sale. You have every right to do it, but you're a) probably making much less money approaching it in this manner and b) this limits your music to a very small circle of paying customers. Your call either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Grand Unified Theory On The Economics Of Free - Comment from 'Sam'
I didn't feel that Mike was suggesting you MUST give anything away for free. I took it that Mike was arguing that it make sense in certain circumstances. I do feel that with regard to many musicians the argument fell down though - not every musician can command large venues if his music is of a narrow interest, and not every musician can get a decent deal from tour organisers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Don't Guess Mike is Answering
In order to do that, you might consider giving copies of your music away. Reason being, copying your music is free anyway. The only way you ever get, or got, paid was by getting the government to threaten people with jail time and heavy fines for doing something they really don't need you for to begin with. That's not nice of you, and indeed it is not some sort of innate right you have.
If you find it hard to make money singing and dancing, you might consider some other line of work, and sing and dance for fun like most of the rest of us do.
Not meaning any offense, but I am worn out by the requirements you and other artists put on our lives, then get upset that we are all somehow putting you out somehow.
I can get free music every Sunday at church. You know why? Because they have a message that the music helps sell.
Do you have a message? I mean, apart from, "Please give me money?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Don't Guess Mike is Answering
Ah well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Move with it or sink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sam
He hasn't even advocated that you give up any rights to your music.
Nor has he advocated that anyone who places your music on file sharing, against your wishes, has any right to do so.
You are still free to attempt to sell your music in any way you choose.
You may, if you wish, and you certainly appear to want to, continue to sell your music in exactly the same way as you have already been doing.
You are also free to take on board any suggestions Mike has made.
What you seem to have misunderstood is some simple facts of life.
That fact is that whether you like it or not, whether you try to protect your music with DRM or not, whether it is legal or not to do so, your music WILL get shared on file sharing, if enough people like it enough.
Given that you don't want your music shared in this manner, you are also free to spend as much money, time , and other resources to try to stop this from happening.
You are also free to do nothing other than complain about it.
You are free also to take advantage of this fact, and find ways to make additional income from it.
The choice, as they say, is yours.
Speaking as a musician, I'd rather find ways to generate income from it, but well... that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Small suggestion
I've read the site for years and contributed a link or two. The economics stuff has been really enjoyable - that's my background, even if it isn't what I do anymore.
Anyway, I have a small observation to offer: you talk about absence of scarcity and infinite supply. These can't ever REALLY be true. Marginal costs can't ever truly be zero, if nothing else there's the opportunity costs, which can be really small, but there's always some alternative use of your resources (time, etc.) that would yield some utility.
Instead, does it make sense to introduce the concept of "Microscarcity"? Where MC tends toward, but does not reach zero. NASA uses "microgravity" instead of "zero gravity" for similar reasons. This allows you to make the analysis you have already, but without a bunch of messy math that ends up in divide-by-zero problems.
Plus, you gotta admit "MicroScarcity" is a catchy name for a book. It's all yours, man, go for it.
-Mark
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Small suggestion
Thanks.
Anyway, I have a small observation to offer: you talk about absence of scarcity and infinite supply. These can't ever REALLY be true. Marginal costs can't ever truly be zero, if nothing else there's the opportunity costs, which can be really small, but there's always some alternative use of your resources (time, etc.) that would yield some utility.
Ah, interesting point, though I'm not sure I totally agree. The opportunity cost is actually one of the components of the bundle -- "attention," which is a scarce resource. As you indicate, there's a real cost there, but again that's what you charge for.
So, I think that when you break it down to the component level, what you're saying agrees with my point that every product or service is really a bundle of scarce and non-scarce goods. You're highlighting the attention component which is inevitably tied to the infinite goods. So the components still are infinite and have zero marginal cost, but they're directly attached to things that aren't infinite and do have marginal cost...
nstead, does it make sense to introduce the concept of "Microscarcity"? Where MC tends toward, but does not reach zero. NASA uses "microgravity" instead of "zero gravity" for similar reasons. This allows you to make the analysis you have already, but without a bunch of messy math that ends up in divide-by-zero problems.
Interesting way of looking at it. I'll need to think about it a little more, though my first reaction is to wonder if that obscures the point by blending the scarce and infinite components...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glad to see everything in one place
I am hoping we have a "Rubicon" moment where some company does something so blatantly anticompettive and against the spirit of the patent system (to promote innovation) that Congress cannot ignore it and rights the IP ship. It may be naive given the lobbies arrayed against any such movements being truly helpful, but it seems like change is starting to creep into the air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who's in control of the scarce?
I do realize that your first point was that you don't encourage, believe in, or practice the downloading of unauthorized music or other "finished works."
But that being said, your argument hinges on the originator controlling the free in order to determine the scarce.
What has the music, movie, and software industry so enraged is that control neither. Bands allow for free downloads of tracks ( infinite ) to promote sales of CDs ( scarce ) They then turn around to discover their scarce is now free. Movie makers create a movie ( scarce ) and hand out movie trailers to any site or theater who will play them ( free ) they then turn around to find their scarce is free. Software makers make demos and trials ( free ) to promote the sale of (scarce) full products, only to find their scarce free.
So when these industries try to control the likes of kazaa, youtube, bittorent, people rush to the defense of of the free. Claiming that the corporation can't see the value of free. But if a content creator can't control if their works are free and scarce, how can they ever leverage the model?
I can understand how one could counter argument that perhaps bands aren't in the music business, but the music experience business and they should forsake the value of music sales for the value of merch, concert, etc sales, and how one can argue studios aren't in the movie business, but in the entertainment experience business but with DVD sales being a major portion of studio revenue and the quality of illegal copies increasing studios will be soon be left with options for zero scarce revenue, and the argument for software makers is even more flimsy because they only make money on the use of their software.
So Mike I agree with you, and you are right that your model works. But its viability in the real world is suspect at best unless creators have more control on whats is scarce and what is free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
But that being said, your argument hinges on the originator controlling the free in order to determine the scarce.
Interesting. What gives you that idea? I actually believe the opposite is true. The model works better when the originator doesn't control the free at all. The more widespread and uncontrolled the free is, the better.
What has the music, movie, and software industry so enraged is that control neither
That's not quite true. They absolutely do control *some* of the scarce -- and that's the scarce parts they need to sell. This is actually a very good point that I perhaps didn't state clearly enough. The thing that you sell isn't "any" scarce good -- but the scarce goods that you control.
Bands allow for free downloads of tracks ( infinite ) to promote sales of CDs ( scarce ) They then turn around to discover their scarce is now free.
How is the scarce now free? The CD itself still costs money. I think what you're trying to say is that the music on the CD is now free. That's true, but you can still put in place plenty of incentives to make the CD worth buying. Make the liner notes especially cool. Make it so having the physical CD lets you access a special website where the musician hangs out with his or her fans. The list can go on forever. You can make the scarce worth buying. You can't just assume the non-scarce makes *any* scarce good more valuable.
Movie makers create a movie ( scarce ) and hand out movie trailers to any site or theater who will play them ( free ) they then turn around to find their scarce is free.
Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here. The market the movie industry is in is entertainment -- and a big part of that is the social experience of the theater (the real scarce good). So the more they can promote the movie and encourage people to go to the theater (get a free DVD of the film you just saw if you go to the theater, make the theater experience more fun and enjoyable, get a chance to appear in the sequel for going to the theater, etc. etc. etc.).
Software makers make demos and trials ( free ) to promote the sale of (scarce) full products, only to find their scarce free.
No, the full product isn't scarce. It's also infinite. So, the mistake there is thinking that an infinite good is scarce.
So when these industries try to control the likes of kazaa, youtube, bittorent, people rush to the defense of of the free. Claiming that the corporation can't see the value of free. But if a content creator can't control if their works are free and scarce, how can they ever leverage the model?
You can always leverage the model. If you understand the benefit provided, understand the infinite components and the scarce components that are tied to them, you can always leverage the infinite to make the scarce more valuable.
how one can argue studios aren't in the movie business, but in the entertainment experience business but with DVD sales being a major portion of studio revenue and the quality of illegal copies increasing studios will be soon be left with options for zero scarce revenue
I already answered much of this above, but there are tons of scarce things associated with the movie business.
the argument for software makers is even more flimsy because they only make money on the use of their software.
Again, I think you haven't defined the market appropriately. The benefit isn't "software." It's usually something like "productivity." Take a look at Red Hat. They're making a lot of money thanks to free software. Take a look at IBM. They're making a ton of money thanks to free software. In both cases, they're using that software to make something else a lot more valuable (usually services and sometimes hardware).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
"Again, I think you haven't defined the market appropriately. The benefit isn't "software." It's usually something like "productivity." Take a look at Red Hat. They're making a lot of money thanks to free software. Take a look at IBM. They're making a ton of money thanks to free software. In both cases, they're using that software to make something else a lot more valuable (usually services and sometimes hardware)."
Mike, dude, just give me a break, pleeeeze
There is nothing "free" (as in "beer") in this world.
The "free" software isn't quite free...
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/10/HNredhatbalk_1.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
Oh but it is free. Just can't tell the truth can you?
Actually, the example you cite is an example of giving away a product with a marginal cost approaching zero in order to sell ancillary services. In this case, software support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
First off, angry dude, I think this is the first comment you've made in a long time that actually tries to add value to the conversation, so thanks.
There is nothing "free" (as in "beer") in this world.
You just posted here for free.
The "free" software isn't quite free...
An article from 4 years ago is your proof? Yikes. Have you looked at how well Red Hat has done since then?
Anyway, if you read the post above (which from what you're saying here seems clear you did not), you'd recognize that this article doesn't go against what I said at all. It actually supports it. Everything has scarce components and non-scarce components. The article you link to just shows Red Hat shifting around what they charge for and what's free. That's the model I discuss here. How does the fact that Red Hat is embracing exactly what I describe as a successful model show that I'm wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
>You just posted here for free.
Oh, thank you, thank you very much for not charging my credit card...
But isn't it "free" as in "free speech" and not as in "free beer" ?
On a serious note, Linux is predominantly used as a server operating system, as opposed to Windoze
So they just sell it to their corporate and institutional customers, for some good money btw
Given the fact that Red Had didn't spend a dime (well, they spent some money, but not nearly as much as MS) on development, they can just give away their distro to the end users for free (as in "beer") but charge their corporate customers.
So it is not "free" for everyone and every use, it's just targeted to a different market.
Same way MS doesn't care too much about losing billions on end-user pirated copies if they can make huge profits from their corporate user base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce
No, it was free as in beer. You did something without getting paid. According to your "no free lunch" theory, that would never happen.
On a serious note, Linux is predominantly used as a server operating system, as opposed to Windoze
And how does that disprove the model?
So they just sell it to their corporate and institutional customers, for some good money btw
And how does that disprove the model?
Given the fact that Red Had didn't spend a dime (well, they spent some money, but not nearly as much as MS) on development, they can just give away their distro to the end users for free (as in "beer") but charge their corporate customers.
And how does that disprove the model?
You keep saying stuff that doesn't disprove the model and actually supports it. Did you even read the original post?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce
Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm currently posting from a SUSE Linux box. I downloaded it for free. I'm using it for free. I don't have to pay anyone anything for the privilege of using Linux. Anyone can download and use any of hundreds of different distributions of Linux for free and use them for absolutely any purpose. For free. The fact that there are a few non-free distros in no way invalidates that.
I'm trying really hard to believe that you are ignorant and stuck in your own wrong-headed beliefs instead of just being an outrageous liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
Actually, there is. I have had people give me beer. Yes, that's right; I got free (as in "free beer") beer.
On the other hand, I have got a lot more free software than free beer. I'm currently running SUSE Linux, and I didn't pay one thin dime for it.
Yes it is. See above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
I suspect the way to go about making movies for entertainment is to cast about for people who want a certain kind of movie made, or else write a story and pitch the idea of making the movie, then looking for people to fund the project.
There are legitimate concerns about the business model of using the free to market the scarce, but none of them are worth trading in our civil rights for, and that is the root problem. Technology has advanced to the point that it is now impossible to hide the fact that IP laws directly violate ideas of free expression and civil rights concerning free speech and press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
the scarcity is the online experience and not necessarily the game itself.
i would imagine that it's tough to do that for non-interactive content but i don't remember the last time i bought a DVD (i rent plenty tho) but i have gladly given city of heroes $15 a month for quite some time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who's in control of the scarce?
Of course, the MPAA/RIAA megacorporation members' tendency to use crappy, damaged, cut masters kind of ruins that. But it's still true for an individual band or small studio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't conflate
But what I think you could clarify more is the difference between what is "smart business", and what is "currently legal". These two are not necessarily the same.
Again and again I've read you lambast Viacom or other content owners for sending takedown notices to YouTube. You clearly show that it's not smart business. But what you don't always make clear is they are legally entitled to do so.
Furthermore, I've heard very strong defenses of YouTube and how they're providing a service that enables smart businesses to get free promotion. But what you don't always make clear is they are quite possibly breaking the law in doing so.
So I entirely agree with and appreciate your excellent breakdown of how to do smart business in this new age. But what I'd like to see is greater attention to where smart business and the law conflict.
Specifically, I want to know how precisely the law should change, and instructions for how to help you in changing it. These items creep into your writing occasionally, but a more crisp and comprehensive review on the necessary legal changes would make a great addition to what you've provided in this article today.
-david
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't conflate
At any rate, Mike and Co aren't lawyers, and this isn't a law blog - although they frequently link to exellent law blogs in their posts.
If you're interested in supporting a great organization that does a lot to protect fair use, internet privacy, etc - you should check out EFF - www.eff.org.
respectfully yours,
emi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't conflate
Indeed.
Furthermore, I've heard very strong defenses of YouTube and how they're providing a service that enables smart businesses to get free promotion. But what you don't always make clear is they are quite possibly breaking the law in doing so.
On this one, I'm not sure I agree. How is putting your own content on YouTube breaking the law? Or are you saying YouTube itself breaks the law? I don't think they are as I'm pretty sure they're protected by safe harbors (and reasonably so...), but we'll have to see what the courts decide.
But what I'd like to see is greater attention to where smart business and the law conflict.
A good point, but I think part of the point is that businesses can free their content no matter what the law says -- so it's not so much of a matter of the law conflicting with smart business. It's just learning that just because the law is a crutch you can use, it doesn't mean you have to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't conflate
Actually, we do agree, as you indicate at the end: I'm saying YouTube might be breaking the law, and you reaffirm that the courts haven't decided.
How is putting your own content on YouTube breaking the law?
Obviously not; nobody is arguing this.
Or are you saying YouTube itself breaks the law? I don't think they are as I'm pretty sure they're protected by safe harbors (and reasonably so...), but we'll have to see what the courts decide.
That's correct, I'm suggesting (and I'm not alone) that it might be illegal to enable, encourage, and profit from the unauthorized hosting and redistribution of content to which you and your users do not own the copyright. As we both have already agreed, the courts haven't yet decided.
But my point isn't to defend Viacom or attack YouTube. Rather, my point is it's possible to make the above statement and still say that the law should allow YouTube to do precisely that, and that despite YouTube possibly violating the law, it's smart business for companies to cooperate with them for free promotion.
This is what I mean by clearly separating your understanding of current law, your opinions on what is good or bad law, and your opinions on what's good or bad business.
Because just like you argue that it muddles the discussion to conflate infinite and finite resources, it is confusing to ambiguously blend discussion of good/bad/current/law/business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't conflate
This is what I mean by clearly separating your understanding of current law, your opinions on what is good or bad law, and your opinions on what's good or bad business.
Because just like you argue that it muddles the discussion to conflate infinite and finite resources, it is confusing to ambiguously blend discussion of good/bad/current/law/business.
David, understood. I can see why it may get confusing to mix those things up. Sorry if that's what happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few ideas
It's the same with movies. I don't go to them in the theater because I can't get them anywhere else, I certainly can, its that I want to see it now.
I don't really believe its about scarcity or anything like that, but I'm no econimist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the Sams of the World
1. You can make your market bigger by changing the way you make and sell music
2. If you don't (and you don't have to! - copyright gives you that choice), someone else will.
When someone else starts making money on music whilst giving it away (and they will), you will no longer be able to make money using your current model. It is at that point you adapt or bust. Such is evolution, in markets as it is in life on earth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To the Sams of the World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To the Sams of the World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
look, all i really want is for us to agree that i have a right to decide how i want to market/sell my music/content, and that you don't have a right to copy it. if we can agree on this, then who cares about the rest.
i realize that others can give their content away for free. i don't have an issue with that. i stand on a table and loudly support them!!
if their model causes me financial pain, i'm not going to run and tell them they have to sell their content, that they can't give their content away.. of course they can... it's their content...
as long as we all agree that copying someone else's content is wrong/theft, then we're pretty much ok.
now.. the question is, do we all agree on this!
mike, you might be right. an artist might make more $$$ by selling tshirts, and using music as advertsing! who knows. but these kinds of experiments are up to the owner of the content to decide if this is the direction that he/she wishes to go in.
as far as an artist not being able to sell music because someone else is giving their's away for free.. in some cases, maybe... in others, hell no. i don't give a damm who you are giving your music away for free.. if miles davis has a new album, i'm buying it... and let's be real, most of the music by most artists just isn't that good... there are plenty of bands in austin who'd give their music away, i still wouldn't listen to it...
different strokes/different folks!! but i'm 40+ years.
and this is the funny thing.. to be a bit sterotypical, i was probably involved with music/distribution on usenet, when most of you guys were in high school!
so i've been around distribution models for awhile.. the difference now, is that there seems to be a generation that really hasn't developed serious hardcore apps/content, and believes that they have a 'right' to access the content however/whenever they want...
sorry to diverge from the topic!!
peace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sam, if I light my candle from yours, have I stolen your fire? And will you thereafter go about in darkness without light so as to keep anyone from stealing your fire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Problems with Mike's Model
Very interesting mix of truths and wishful thinking. Reminds me of Internet Bubble 1.0 Thinking 101.
There are several large holes in your blanket theory, but I will try to briefly outline what I think are the two most significant ones:
1) Nothing is infinite. Even downloading mp3s. The marginal costs are small (my guess is a few pennies per song, at most, exclusive of the wait time on the part of the downloader). But fixed costs are fairly significant, including:
(a) technical costs, such as the cost of the server, the time and other resources to maintain the server and its connection to the Internet, programming costs, etc.;
(b) artistic costs, such as the time and effort it takes to write a new song, time taken to maintain or increase proficiency in singing or musical instruments, time taken to record the music and put it into digital format, etc.; and
(c) the opportunity costs, such as the cost of making music rather than spending time to make more money to pay the rent, time not spent with your friends and/or family, time spent not going to school or training to increase your earning power, etc.
As the volume (what you call market size) grows, these fixed costs become less significant. At a very large scale, say when you are selling out concerts at the MCI Center, they become very small. But 99% of artists never get to anywhere near that scale, so your "infinite good" theory does not apply to them.
2) By de-coupling what is charged for from what creates the most value for the most fans, you de-couple the financial incentive from the most valued activity.
I value new music. I would much rather have new music from 100 different bands than t-shirts from 100 different bands. And I will never have the opportunity to see most of the bands whose music I like because of travel costs, schedule conflicts, just being too old for the crowd, or because the band just does not want to play live shows.
Thus, your model essentially completely excludes any kind of significant financial reimbursement for fixed costs for musical artists who do not want to spend their time designing and making t-shirts and touring around the country. And, because your model only works well when the artist's audience gets to a certain size, it also encourages the crass commercialism we all love so much ;->.
While I would agree that "true artists" are not "in it for the money", I have yet to find anyone who prefers not getting paid over getting paid. Some people will create music even if they never make a cent from it. That's easier for trust fund bunnies than it is for the rest of us, but even some poor working stiffs will do this, at least for a while. But the lack of financial incentive for people to actually just create music (as opposed to making t-shirts and touring around the country) will mean that less music gets made. Because making new music is not free. It takes time and effort.
I think there is a better, more inclusive model that better rewards artists who just want to make music and get some kind of financial reimbursement for his time and effort, even if they cannot make a comfortable living exclusively from creating music.
The model I think would work better would incorporate DRM that kicks in after a certain number of plays (say, 10). This permits people to try music risk-free to the point they can be sure they want to continue to listen to it, before making a decision whether to reward the musician so they can keep listening to it. The basic music-sharing site model would work OK with this, as would a some kind of search engine (think Google) hosted site with a revenue-sharing arrangement with artists.
Mike may argue that, with this model, people will just get DRM-free versions of the songs they like and download those instead. But I think that if true competitive pricing comes into play (and I think it will), I think the per-song costs will settle in the 10 to 20 cent range, which really is not much of an incentive to hunt around the Internet for a DRM-free version of a song.
So in summary: Mike's thinking works for large-scale commercially-oriented artists, but my model (which I have posted here before) works for the other 98% of artists who just want to create music. Oh, and my model works for commercially-oriented artists, too, but just does not overwhelmingly favor them the way Mike's model does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
Approaching zero; leading to other things that approach infinity.
Check out the fundamental theorems of calculus, it's all there. Unless you don't believe in calculus either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
Ok.
Nothing is infinite.
This is false. Plenty of things are infinite.
The marginal costs are small (my guess is a few pennies per song, at most, exclusive of the wait time on the part of the downloader)
You don't seem to understand what marginal costs are. The marginal cost is zero for infinite goods.
But fixed costs are fairly significant, including:
Indeed, fixed costs may be significant, but as your basic economics tells you, fixed costs have nothing to do with pricing pressure -- so bringing them up is fairly meaningless. I don't see how that proves anything wrong with my model (especially when you also seem to be confused about marginal costs).
(a) technical costs, such as the cost of the server, the time and other resources to maintain the server and its connection to the Internet, programming costs, etc.;
Right. That's a non-scarce resource. You charge for that part. As per my discussion above. That doesn't invalidate my argument, it supports it.
(b) artistic costs, such as the time and effort it takes to write a new song, time taken to maintain or increase proficiency in singing or musical instruments, time taken to record the music and put it into digital format, etc.; and
Again, these are a non-scarce resource, in fact, it's one of the examples I used in my discussion above. That doesn't invalidate my argument, it supports it. You're doing a good job of breaking apart the components into scarce and infinite resources, but you seem confused about how to then fit them into the model.
(c) the opportunity costs, such as the cost of making music rather than spending time to make more money to pay the rent, time not spent with your friends and/or family, time spent not going to school or training to increase your earning power, etc.
Again, this is discussed above (somewhat in the article, but in more detail in one of my other comments). Opportunity costs are a recognition of attention being a scarce resource. So, yes, you're right, but it fits into my model, which notes that scarce and infinite components make up any good or service. You just need to charge for the scarce ones, rather than the infinite ones.
Your complaint here seems to be that you think I'm saying you should give away the scarce goods too, but that's not what I said at all.
2) By de-coupling what is charged for from what creates the most value for the most fans, you de-couple the financial incentive from the most valued activity.
This is absolutely the opposite of what I say. I do NOT say you de-couple what is charged for with what creates value. I say that you recognize what the bundle is and how the free things increase the value of the non-free things. They're still very much "coupled."
I value new music. I would much rather have new music from 100 different bands than t-shirts from 100 different bands.
I never said you needed to have t-shirts from 100 different bands. You're saying you'd rather have new music from 100 different bands, and I'm saying, why not have music from 1,000 different bands rather than 100 (more value to you). You don't need to buy 100 different t-shirts. You don't have to do anything. But because that music is free, and everyone can have 1,000 different bands in their playlist than 100, you're more likely to find a larger group of people who are willing to pay for a t-shirt, or pay to go to a concert, or pay to get access to the musician, then if you're limited to only being able to afford the music of 100 different bands.
And I will never have the opportunity to see most of the bands whose music I like because of travel costs, schedule conflicts, just being too old for the crowd, or because the band just does not want to play live shows.
You don't have to see the bands. How many times do I need to repeat this: NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO SEE THE BAND. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS TO GO BUY A T-SHIRT. But more people will be likely to, because the music spreads further.
And, it just means that there's more opportunity for them to create *OTHER* products that suit what you like. Say you really like the lyrics that a band comes up with. Perhaps they could set up an exclusive online group where they discuss the lyrics they're working on. Some people would pay to join that. Or perhaps if you pay to join their fanclub there's a chance they'll write a song for you.
You just set up the incentives in a way that more people are willing to pay for something. There are tons and tons of ideas on ways that bands can make additional money from all of this. Don't get so focused on just t-shirts or just concerts. The idea is that you have so many scarce resources (time, attention, which you discussed) and all of those can be charged for.
Thus, your model essentially completely excludes any kind of significant financial reimbursement for fixed costs for musical artists who do not want to spend their time designing and making t-shirts and touring around the country.
No. It absolutely does NOT say that. Perhaps read my post again, because I think you think it said something else. There are MANY MANY ways that you make money by selling the scarce resources. I've listed a few above. Another (and this has been done by a few bands) is to ask the biggest fans to pre-pay for the cost of creating new content. That new content (as you noted) is a scarce resource, so it makes sense to ask people to pay for it. But once it's been created, it becomes infinite, so then you set it free, to get more people interested and willing to pay for the next set of music.
The model I think would work better would incorporate DRM that kicks in after a certain number of plays (say, 10).
Why would you want to limit the audience? That's like saying that you want fewer commercials shown to people, even though the commercials are free.
This permits people to try music risk-free to the point they can be sure they want to continue to listen to it, before making a decision whether to reward the musician so they can keep listening to it.
That's a model that makes no economic sense. It simply opens up the opportunity for other musicians to use the model I'm discussing and cut the market out from the model you're discussing.
What are you more likely to do: listen to the band that *wants* you to hear their music and enjoy it, or listen to the band that sets up an annoying tollbooth for you?
So in summary: Mike's thinking works for large-scale commercially-oriented artists
Huh? My model is for any artist, but it works especially well for small scale artists -- the type that are totally cut out of today's ecosystem. The economic realities I'm discussing open up many more opportunities for smaller unknown artists to get noticed and make money for getting noticed.
I don't see how my model "overwhelmingly favors" large scale artists. I actually see it as the reverse. It should, in effect, limit the level of success for the large scale artists, but widen the overall playing field for all the other artists. That's because you no longer have those big artists able to capture the same monopoly rents that they were able to before because there's much more competition in the marketplace.
You make a lot of assumptions in your criticism that suggest what my model is still is not clear to you. I'd suggest you reread it and then if you still have questions, raise them. However, none of the points you made here invalidate my model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
fixed costs have nothing to do with pricing pressure
Trust me on this, Mike. I have a Masters degree in economics from a good university and I have worked in the field and in business research for 15 years, for companies big and small. I was a student in the second graduate level course in existence on the economics of the Internet. I have worked on websites and marketing them and their digital products and services since 1994. Fixed cost DO matter. They DO impact prices. Any company that ignores fixed costs in their pricing model will fail. Period. I can point to at least 200 examples of companies that used your basic model in the 1990's and tanked. And at least another 100 since then who refused to learn their lesson and also tanked.
God, I hope I have never invested in any company that has listened to you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
Well, I appreciate you trying, though, dropping to the level of insults seems like an odd teaching technique.
This is not 1998, Mike. Your BS does not hold water anymore.
Weird. The business model I'm discussing goes back well before 1998. It's really basic economics. The same that Adam Smith taught... Do you actually think that protectionism is a better policy than the free market?
But the most basic hole in your whole theory centers around your basic misunderstanding of economics and business:
Ok. I'm willing to learn where I'm wrong.
Trust me on this, Mike. I have a Masters degree in economics from a good university and I have worked in the field and in business research for 15 years, for companies big and small. I was a student in the second graduate level course in existence on the economics of the Internet. I have worked on websites and marketing them and their digital products and services since 1994.
Thanks for posting your resume. That, alone, of course, doesn't mean that you're right.
Fixed cost DO matter.
Wait, wait, wait. I never said that fixed costs don't *matter*. I said that they're not involved in pricing pressure. In your graduate level economics courses they must have taught you that at some point. Marginal cost is what influences price. This makes sense if you think about it logically. If the market is competitive, then there will be pricing pressure. You either differentiate or you lower price -- and you're always willing to lower price down to marginal cost eventually, because you can still make some money on each sale up to that point.
Of course, where many people (even those trained in economics) get confused, is they view this as a static, rather than dynamic market. What's happening all the time is that the producer is trying to differentiate, perhaps even by making production cheaper (lowering the marginal cost). However, with infinite goods, you simply can't lower the marginal cost, so focusing on selling that particular item is going to get you into trouble eventually. What I'm describing is a way to get around that problem, and to use the zero marginal cost aspect as a *resource*. That is, it's about using it to your advantage.
What I think you're trying to say (and I agree) is that you have to come up with a business model that will later account for recovering the fixed costs. I don't disagree with that and I'm sorry if you thought I said to totally ignore fixed costs.
That's not what my model is intended to say. What it's saying is that the pricing pressure on infinite goods is going to be pressured to zero -- and it's as simple as the basic P = MC equation you must have learned at some point in your life.
But, you obviously still want to recoup the FC, and you do that by differentiation. Right, that's how any business makes money, by basically creating a *temporary* monopoly. That allows you to charge above MC for the time being. What I'm saying with this series is that you use the *free* infinite good to create that monopoly for the scarce goods. That's how you profit and that's how you make up returns that are greater than the fixed cost. In fact, because you're using the free good to enlarge the market, it makes it even easier to recover the fixed costs (and more).
But you have to recognize the fundamental market that you're dealing with.
I can point to at least 200 examples of companies that used your basic model in the 1990's and tanked.
Really? I don't think there are that many. There were a bunch of companies in the 90s that used "free" things, but they didn't fully embrace this model. They didn't know which things should be free and which should be charged for. In fact, most of the "free" companies that I remember got the model ass-backwards, giving away the scarce things for free and trying to charge for the non-scarce.
So, please tell me which companies focused on the model?
God, I hope I have never invested in any company that has listened to you!
I'm sorry you feel that way, though I'll also note that you didn't respond to any of my other points earlier. Each point you made that supposedly disproved my model didn't actually do so. You seemed to confuse the scarce components with the infinite.
Anyway, you don't have to believe that my model works, but if you only invest in companies that fight the tide, then I would suggest your companies are going to face a lot of challenges. But, that's something we'll discover eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
Fixed costs do not affect pricing pressure in a *competitive market* -- this is econ 101, the efficient markets theorem. The "new listener" market for music is quite close to a competitive market.
Every economist knows that in a truly competitive market *profits go to zero*.
You've just noticed the fact that most companies are not actually in a competitive market. Competitive markets are rare and no seller wants to be in one. Companies are usually in a market with very few sellers -- and therefore, as price setters, can charge a premium over marginal costs. Which they do.
One of the things a musician or artist is trying to do is to change the market they're in, so that people do not perceive other people's music as an alternative to theirs. At that point the musician is in a monopolistic market and can charge more than marginal costs. This is why, for example, *after* releasing multiple albums for free and getting lots of fans, a musician can charge an arm and a leg for exclusive early access to the next release. Or an comic strip artist can publish 2000 comics for free... and then have people pay $100 a pop, or more, for a single sketch of a character.
Mike is actually describing the process of market differentiation. Don't be "some musician selling music" -- make an effort, by *giving stuff away*, to become "THAT MUSICIAN I LOVE", and then you are in a market where you can make profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
1) Nothing is infinite. Even downloading mp3s. The marginal costs are small (my guess is a few pennies per song, at most, exclusive of the wait time on the part of the downloader). But fixed costs are fairly significant
As the volume (what you call market size) grows, these fixed costs become less significant. At a very large scale, say when you are selling out concerts at the MCI Center, they become very small. But 99% of artists never get to anywhere near that scale, so your "infinite good" theory does not apply to them.
This is nit-picking. Infinite, or close to it, costs involved with the internet we can say are already in existence. As if people don't already pay for their own hosting etc. just to share pictures of their dogs! Who doesn't have an internet connection, computer and harddrive space etc. already, to be able to copy/send a song? And what band doesn't already have a free myspace who's only cost is the time to personalize it? To say that small bands would be disadvantaged in this model isn't true.
As for my own point, this model from the band's point of view practically exists already. Shows and scarcities sales are where bands make most of their money, with labels getting most of the cd sales for their distribution and marketing. So to go from the current model to Mike's is really only to replace distributors with the internet, who would almost cancel themselves out of the equation. I think such a transition would be more transparent to most bands than you realize.
Finally, Mike you clear up a lot of your points in these comments, i would try and work them into the main article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Problems with Mike's Model
Now the nature of the world has changed, breaking those geographical barriers of entry (distribution primarily, but also marketing - all of which can be online)- hence the smaller artists/new artists have to compete with a larger number of sellers. Fortunately they do have a much larger pie to share, as they can also reach the wider world - in simple terms one could argue that it levels the playing filed. BUT,one of the aspects of the changed world is that it is a difficult to control the distribution of content ( DRM is only a minor inconvenience for those seeking to take away your control over distribution)-hence if some of the sellers, adopt the free content business model as a promotional tool to sell "other stuff" which is scarce, the "traditional" sellers wanting to sell their stuff would loose out. Take into account, all the pirates who will make your stuff available for free anyway - the only viable option left is to adapt your business model. The free content Business model seems to me as the most viable option. Record companies, would in view have to evolve into advertising companies ( that is what they have been doing all along essentially) and offer services to the artists to help differentiate them and grab a piece of the pie (attention) in the increasingly crowded market place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the math ok?
For those who don't understand, another analogy is "An ounce from the many far out-weights a pound from the few". Lets use some simple logic. Where before an artist might have had (simple numbers) 100 fans, with Mike's model, they have the potential for 100,000 fans. If 100% of the 100 fans purchased artist related material at $50/ea, that would add up to $5,000 for the artist/label. Whereas if 10% of the 100,000 purchased artist related material at $50/ea, that would be $500,000. If you were an artist, and you could give away your music for a 1000x increase in fans and make $495,000 more than before, which would you choose?
In addition, labels could sign small artists and do the same thing. Currently a small artist doesn't stand to get as much attention as a mega star. With Mike's distro-model, the labels do the same thing with the little guys and make as much as they did before on the big ones.
In the model, using the 100,000 number, the labels have 90,000 customers to win over. All those customers who may be listening to free music. These the companies have the opportunity of turning into paying customers through merchandising or services or whatever. In the current model they have to make the 100 buying more than $50 worth of "X" each to make more money. In Mike's model, they only have to get a few more of the remaining 90,000 to buy something. This opens the opportunities up of offering a little something different to capture the attention of the other 90%. You have a lot more room to move and maneuver.
To recap, and just so everyone understands - give away the music, create a bigger fan base.
(customers) x (percent who buy) = (customers who will buy) ---
(customers who will buy) x (amount of purchase) = (money made)
100 x 100% = 100 --- 100 x $50ea. = $5,000
100,000 x 10% = 10,000 --- 10,000 x $50ea. = $500,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the math ok?
100 x 100% = 100 x $50ea. = $5,000
1,000 x 10% = 100 x $50ea. = $5,000
10,000 x 1% = 100 x $50ea. = $5,000
Your maths just proves you and prove anything if you choose the right numbers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the uploaders they are going after...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comics
Think about comics. I read 5 different webcomics every day. I will point out that these comics are free and globally available and that I live far far away from those who write them (Australia). As a contented reader and vaguely social person when I find something really funny I can't help but share it. I link the comic to whoever is currently online.
All the writers have to do is be funny (their service) and I'm happy to use some of my resources to promote them. If I target my sharing to people who will enjoy the comic I have potentially increased their readership. This happens. Some of them also advertise scarce stuff. I bought some of it. In a global market there are lots of people willing to play if they know about you. The stuff was reasonably priced so I went for it.
You might be one of those people who just want to consume but that's ok. If you don't share then you're not part of the market. If you do share you're advertising. If your advertising leads other people to buy then it's worked.
Back to music, you use the songs as advertising. If your songs are good people will share them for you: "Have you heard this song? It's great!". It's getting quite common that real people share things faster and better than traditional advertising. I'm happy only listening to a few bands that I know I like and I like to show that I like them by wearing them or using their products.
Mike: you may like to check out www.tmbg.com and see how they fit your example. I might just wear them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The music industry to me is called that for the soul purpose of the music. That's all I want, I don't want to see them, know their names, wear their shirts, scratch their CDs, or even read any commentary about their music. If I didn't understand it, or in it at least find something I identify with, then I wouldn't like it. So, why would I want the writer to explain to me what I understand or don't care about?
Maybe you'll come back at me saying there aren't enough people who think like me, and there probably aren't because too many people care about too much more than the music these days. Apparently it's cool to be a real fan and real fans watch the videos, look at the pictures, and buy the extra useless merchandise.
Your example succeeds completely if, and only if, the band releases tolerable but poor quality (bit rate) songs, and then completely controls the better quality songs. If they can't completely control those, any piracy resulting in court action with an intelligible lawyer will say the protected content of the band is not a bit rate number, it's the artistic effort put into a song that may or may not have a good quality final release. And, that to think something like that would be ludicrous, because to the same measure you buy a book for the words, and the author is paid for the words. You're not paying for, nor is the author responsible for, the font size, type, color, or even the quality of the pages it's being typed on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, that doesn't matter. If you don't want to buy those other things, that's fine. Others will buy stuff. You don't buy everything you see advertised, right?
But nothing in what I said means that the music industry still can't make money off of you. How do you find new music? Well, the music is available in lots of places, but if there's a good one that aggregates the music you like (recognizing that your time and attention are scarce resources), they can advertise on that service and there's money that's made off of your attention.
Again, the idea here is that there are MANY MANY different things related to music that all can make money -- and they make more money if the songs itself are free. The fact that you just want music doesn't change that.
Also, how do you want to listen to music? You probably want a good music player. Do you have an iPod? Yeah, you paid for that, right? It's a scarce good. The more popular the music is, the more popular the iPod is -- so a company like Apple now actually has incentive to pay some money to good musicians to make more good new music. So, by buying an iPod, you're actually indirectly funding musicians. And the model still works...
The point is this list goes on and on. Don't think that just because you don't want to buy a CD or see a concert or wear a t-shirt that you're not paying money into the music industry.
Your example succeeds completely if, and only if, the band releases tolerable but poor quality (bit rate) songs, and then completely controls the better quality songs.
Huh? That goes completely against my example. The songs are infinite, so no matter what the quality, you set them free. I'm not sure why you think my model would ever require anyone to control their songs. It's the opposite. You give it away and find ancillary services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike
Well, that is a good point but I don't own an iPod and if iTunes or Apple or whatever somehow sponsored bands I like, I'd probably kill myself.I hate them because their player's suck, and their approach to the iTunes market sucks, they're like a world wide virus, but nobody seems to have any sense enough to realize that because they were the first does not mean they are the best.
But, how does Apple know that their investments would be profitable? You're assuming they would be but what if they aren't? What if the amount of bands, the amount of genres, and the unknown underground makes the market so hard to get a handle on that Apple could only get returns in iPod sales of 1/5th the money they put in?
Anyway, we're arguing the example, even if this one is good or bad the only way I can disprove your theory is by disproving much more than one example, so come up with more.
But you forgot to agree with Raymond that just when I like a band makes me free advertisement, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raging against the machine...
Success will be determined by the relationship you have with your customers, and how good of a businessman you are in a very competitive market.
Distribution companies will need to accept it as well, and evolve into service providers with innovative marketing, or they too will litigate themselves out of the industry.
Quickly fading are the days of irresponsible primadonna "superstar" with his head in a mountain of blow, and soon-to-be-gone are the days of the behemoth record companies that churn out shitty quality products, screw over their contract artists and their customers.
I can't tell you how many times I've thrown away CD's because the production quality, replication quality, and/or production engineering have been horrendous. (...regardless of good or bad CONTENT)
Quite frankly, I see this as all quite refreshing, because it's all evolving in the right direction:
better availability
better accountability
better quality
better rewards for the artists/businessmen that create REAL art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The first part of your statement is correct -- and, in fact, is the very basis of my post. The second part is wrong. The cost of production is very, very relevant. That's just basic economics.
Let me put it another way that maybe is more understandable:
You have two machine makers, both of whom make very valuable machines. There's a market of 100 people who really want those machines. The marginal cost for both machine makers is $100. It's a competitive market, so the price of the machine eventually drifts towards $100. This gives incentive for the machine makers to do something to differentiate their product. Let's say machine maker A figures out a way to decrease his marginal cost to $90. Then he can undercut machine maker B, and start selling the product at $99 and start profiting. Machine maker B can't sell it at $99, because he loses $1 on every machine!
Note that the *value* has nothing to do with the price here. The cost of production is extremely important to the price.
So to claim that the cost of production is meaningless is very wrong. You're making the assumption that value drives price, but that's wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Problematic Assumptions
Thank you for the series.. It has been interesting and has value and has helped me to refine my business model. I have been trying to put my finger on scattered thoughts where my business experience doesnt't jibe with the assumptions in your theory:
1. I have found that it costs a great deal of money to give something (even an intangible with no distribution costs) away for free. Your assumption that there is zero cost for this is suspect. Every musician I know spends hours every day (even while on tour) hitting multiple social and music sites to keep their name and blogs and music mentions out there. A common technique for them to utilize to be controversial (kinda like you) but as you know it takes a deep amount of resources to keep fighting vigorously.
2. Several times above you cite that if someone doesn't execute your model and tries to compete with your new model they will get snowed under and underpriced. For this to be true then all music would have to fit a strict economic "commodities" definition. Poll anyone, anywhere, anytime and they will refute this theory you have that music is a straight up "commodity" with any one piece of music substituting cleanly for any other.
3. I was not an economics major but it seems like you are confusing "macro" and "micro" economic theory. You are basically arguing "micro" economic theory and trying to extrapolate it into "macro". You may (or may not) be correct to argue that individual bands could follow the model that you suggest and make it work in certain sets of circumstances having to do with band life stages and capitalization levels and ability to tour. However if everyone followed that model then the pie would get smaller. On a macro level we already have every band following your free model because everything is available for free peer-to-peer. According to your theory then, the total pie for CDs, concerts, tee-shirts, paid downloads should have blossumed in this period. Obviously that has not been the case- the pie has gotten smaller even as paid downloads have grown. Our macro economic system has a certain paradoxical nature to it. "Greedy" corporations can lead to societal good. And in your model of "good sharing" at the micro level can have unintended consequences at the societal level.
Please, keep on exploring this important issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Problematic Assumptions
Gosh, you mean they switched over to Mike's model without telling anyone? I guess it must be working out pretty well for them.
I seem to recall reading that the industry's profits have been up since the internet came along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some Problematic Assumptions
Thank you for reading.. and chiming in with your thoughts.
I have been trying to put my finger on scattered thoughts where my business experience doesnt't jibe with the assumptions in your theory:
Ok. Cool, let's take a look.
1. I have found that it costs a great deal of money to give something (even an intangible with no distribution costs) away for free. Your assumption that there is zero cost for this is suspect. Every musician I know spends hours every day (even while on tour) hitting multiple social and music sites to keep their name and blogs and music mentions out there. A common technique for them to utilize to be controversial (kinda like you) but as you know it takes a deep amount of resources to keep fighting vigorously.
This is a good point, but again you are combining different components of the product here, some of which are scarce some of which are infinite. The song itself is free. There's zero marginal cost to protect it. However, the effort involved in promoting the artist is a scarce product. That's actually why I think there's still plenty of room for labels in the music business, to help with promotion. But the fact is that promotion is still much cheaper than before.
However, again, if you focus on the components, the song itself is absolutely free. And the more you fit that into the business model, the better and cheaper the promotion becomes.
2. Several times above you cite that if someone doesn't execute your model and tries to compete with your new model they will get snowed under and underpriced. For this to be true then all music would have to fit a strict economic "commodities" definition. Poll anyone, anywhere, anytime and they will refute this theory you have that music is a straight up "commodity" with any one piece of music substituting cleanly for any other.
This is a good point, though I disagree that it needs to fit the strict economic definition of a commodity. Think of it this way, if there are only 100 musical acts in the world, and 99 of them give away their content for free and make it up elsewhere, how likely is it that the 100th, who wants to charge for his content, is likely to get anywhere? So, no, it doesn't need to be a commodity at all.
All it really needs is a tipping point moment where there are a few success stories that really embrace the model, and those left behind will suddenly find themselves in a difficult spot.
However if everyone followed that model then the pie would get smaller. On a macro level we already have every band following your free model because everything is available for free peer-to-peer. According to your theory then, the total pie for CDs, concerts, tee-shirts, paid downloads should have blossumed in this period. Obviously that has not been the case- the pie has gotten smaller even as paid downloads have grown.
I disagree whole-heartedly. There's one major thing wrong with the proxy that you've set up above -- it's that (as I said in the post) you don't just give things away for free and hope to pick it up on the back end, but you actively look for ways to use the free to promote the scarce goods you're selling. That's how you grow your market. Not all that many artists have done so.
Secondly, I totally disagree with your claim that the pie has gotten smaller. It's true that the pie of *CD sales* has gotten smaller, but that's a small component. The pie for the overall *music* industry has grown -- just not all in the ways you might expect. A recent report noted that the music industry is actually booming in many areas. A lot more music is being produced. There are more live shows. More instruments are being sold. More technology for recording is being sold. In other words, the overall music industry is making a lot more money. The trick for musicians is to make sure they can capture a big enough piece of that pie. But, the pie itself is clearly growing.
Our macro economic system has a certain paradoxical nature to it. "Greedy" corporations can lead to societal good. And in your model of "good sharing" at the micro level can have unintended consequences at the societal level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd like to point something out
Let me just say something from personal experience: I'm a 3rd year college student and I download music via P2P. I don't upload, but I download a fair amount of music. If I hear of a good band from a friend, I'll download some songs by that artist via P2P. Sometimes I'll download a song and put it on my iPod after hearing it on the radio. If I like the song I'll download more music from that same artist. The fact is, if P2P weren't available, I wouldn't have a clue about some of the music I listen to now.
Perfect example: I hear a song by Rise Against on the radio. I like it, so I download it and then I download more Rise Against music. I like most of their music, so now I've decided to go to a Rise Against concert in Dallas at the Palladium Ballroom on June 15th, 2007. I'll be buying the tickets soon. I asked some of my friends to go with me because it's more fun with them. Tickets cost $30 each. Myself and about 6 other friends are going. All because I liked most of Rise Against's music. The only reason I was able to listen to more of their music is because of P2P file-sharing.
Bands are starting to realize truths just like these... and it's not just me, many of my friends find out about good music and then buy merchandise... and *SHOCK* sometimes even CDs even though they could easily download it. But they sampled the music first because of file-sharing. Bands will not pass up this free advertising and promotion... so those sticking to the old ways WILL be left behind.
I don't care if some of you guys think the fundamental economics don't work with this way of thinking or you'll say "Oh, that won't actually work in the real world." The direction my generation is going... all artists who capitalize on this opportunity will benefit, those who go against won't live up to their maximum potential.
And 2 more things to add: 1. The music STILL has to be good, or else I wouldn't go to their concerts and buy their merchandise. 2. My generation is the record labels' and musicians' biggest customer; as Mike has been saying record labels have been suing the hell out of their best customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics of Free
It would be a great companion to books like Blue Ocean Strategies, Wikinomics, Freakonomics.
Best of luck. In any case thanks for what you've done already. Keep it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not the model, it's the outcome
- it costs almost nothing to distribute content electronically
- all around the world, it is legal to distribute the content that you created yourself
- the market "doesn't care" if a musician can't make a living
Some may argue that in the end, "we" are all better off with the current situation where copying without permission is illegal, and illegal content distribution is prosecuted.
however, this is not what market pressure or evolution is about.
If there are content creators that make a living, and they find out that their revenue is increased by the promotion of their free music, then this will happen. For example, an African band that freely distributes their music and asks for donations on their website.
If the supply of free music grows, the demand for payed music will shrink. In time, consumers will not be willing to pay $20 for a CD with 10 songs. Does this mean that some US/EU musicians will lose their job? If they stick to their current business model? Most likely!
If I were a musician, I would want to make music too, and not bother with selling T-shirts. But it just doesn't work that way. The only way to stop the market pressure would be to block not just the illegal content distribution, but also all "free" content. Anything less is insufficient. I don't think our society is willing to do that (if it is possible at all).
So this series of articles should be a wakeup call for everyone who is currently "overcharging" content that can be copied cheaply. Whether it be copyrighted material or not. In time, market pressure will force your prices down. For some artists/studios/businesses it might no longer be opportunistic to keep doing what they are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The artist is right, but wrong
Mike's model argues that perhaps there is not a demand for YOUR music. There is a demand for music. So make YOUR music freely available in as many ways as possible. You can do this because digital formats has released content from its media of distribution. The listeners don't need a physical CD or record to hear your music. Recognize that music, digitized, is an infinite resource.
Then, after releasing your music widely, creating, or feeding a market demand for your talent, sell the scarce resources: the physical CD, the time spent with you performing, etc.
The physical CD you want to sell is not your music. And, as an artist, the audience's need for entertainment or artistic exposure is not satisfied by buying a CD.
This last point is similar to Mike's many arguments about the experience of going to the theater to see a movie. The need to see Spiderman #10 can be met in a number of ways. Yet the experience of going to a theater cannot be recreated on an iPod, or in a living room. Separate the scarce and infinite components to strengthen a business model.
I am sympathetic to the artist who doesn't want to sell t-shirts, but only wants to create music. However, a desire to do one thing will not necessarily square with the real world need to do that thing plus another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pie Size Follow Up
Well argued on your rebuttal. In regards to your below quote:
Secondly, I totally disagree with your claim that the pie has gotten smaller. It's true that the pie of *CD sales* has gotten smaller, but that's a small component. The pie for the overall *music* industry has grown -- just not all in the ways you might expect. A recent report noted that the music industry is actually booming in many areas. A lot more music is being produced. There are more live shows. More instruments are being sold. More technology for recording is being sold. In other words, the overall music industry is making a lot more money. The trick for musicians is to make sure they can capture a big enough piece of that pie. But, the pie itself is clearly growing.
Certainly if you include in the pie
things like iPod hardware, MP3 players, music recording software and sample libraries, broadband adoption rates, even increased sales of computers to handle multimedia duties, etc
then the pie has gotten bigger. The correct pie share analysis here at this stage is beyond my current capabilities (and other studies have struggled to answer the same issue).
There are some big time players who have in essence invaded into the music space because it does benefit them (and by the way the whole ecosystem). Clearly there are winners and losers in the new music/technological world and you are doing a good job of detailing. Others have touched upon these issues by using North California (tech companies, Web2.0, Apple) against the South California (Hollywood, LA music scene, content) to picture the battle going on.
Regards till next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't. What makes you think I did?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have an iPod? Yeah, you paid for that, right? It's a scarce good. The more popular the music is, the more popular the iPod is -- so a company like Apple now actually has incentive to pay some money to good musicians to make more good new music.
Certainly if you include in the pie things like iPod hardware, MP3 players, music recording software and sample libraries, broadband adoption rates, even increased sales of computers to handle multimedia duties, etc then the pie has gotten bigger.
This is absurd.
Yeah, musicians are going to get a cut from Apple for Ipod sales. Amp, microphone, and emquipment companies will start giving bands money, too! Because they're helping make the pie bigger for these companies!
The last time I checked, corporations don't pay anybody anything they don't have to. If you can find ANY instance of this sort of thing happening (companies that produce hardware paying, voluntarily, those who provide free content) in the real world, please give examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Intel. Intel paid lots of content creators to make content that could be shown on PCs. They recognized that it would help increase demand for more powerful PCs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explaining things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walk the talk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walk the talk
I've made it clear from the very beginning that people can do what they want with our content -- and that doesn't require a Creative Commons License. While I appreciate what CC is doing, I find it silly that I should have to specifically state that you're allowed to do what you want with the content I create. So, go ahead and knock yourself out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems so basic
The downside? This doesn't work. Your music is not in demand and you move on sooner rather than later...again at significant savings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just common sense?
If you are a no-name band that's just starting out, how will you make money? You can try to sell music, but you need a fanbase. So... you'll need to market yourself. Giving away your music for free is definitely a means of spreading the word. And if every other startup band is doing so, you'll kind of forced to go along as well. Heck, you'd do concerts for free, give away schwag for free, etc just to spread your name further.
If you are Metallica, however, what do you care? You can keep on charging 20 bucks per CD and prohibiting others from illegally copying your music. You already have the fan base and you already have the demand. What does it matter if distributing music has a zero marginal cost?
I think this is just common sense. No economic theory needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open Source
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scarcity music and free goods
First of all, you mistake music as a free resource. It's like mistaking water for oil. Both are liquids but you can't run a car on water. Music is not a song, nor the beautiful expression of an artists soul, something that connects with an audience. It is the sound made by a combination of notes and melodies. Great songs are scarce and always will be. A Beatles song, a Led Zeppelin song, a Dylan song...Most of the music on the internet is awful. There's a lot of "good" music as well but "great" music that captures the soul and the people that can make it remains scarce. AND it should be treated as a scarce resource and not flooded into the market with all the other "free goods". If you mix enough water into oil you won't be able to run a car on it either.
The business model you describe simpy doesn't work. Concerts, merchandising, etc all drive the artist to the most difficult and expensive part of the business model. Putting a crew together, dropping your jobs and going on the road. Buy any gas lately? This makes it MORE difficult for bands to grow and disseminate rather than easier. There is no evidence that sell through of a viable economic product is the result of the "new content model". CD's are not selling through, digital downloads are controlled and not an adequate cash replacement model and because of market fraqgmentation, bands can't afford to go on the road for more than a few weeks at a time.
I guess people and artists have a choice. They can wade through all the "free" crap out there and be unsatisfied or they can try to find a way to identify "great" content and pay for it. This is why we have a resurgence of "classic" music. The kids in college have gone back to the selectively filtered "classic" works. Artists who believe they are worth something should keep their works scarce while using the new technologies to help people find them. In the end we need a trusted filter that is egalitarian and free of economic control which allows artists and content users to find each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scarcity music and free goods
I'm afraid it's you who are mistaken. A song is scarce before it's created -- but once it's created, it can be copied freely infinitely. It is automatically abundant.
Most of the music on the internet is awful. There's a lot of "good" music as well but "great" music that captures the soul and the people that can make it remains scarce.
The fact that most music is awful is meaningless to the economics of a single song.
The business model you describe simpy doesn't work.
Actually, we're seeing it work over and over and over again.
Concerts, merchandising, etc all drive the artist to the most difficult and expensive part of the business model.
And yet it's where most bands make their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Long Tail
http://web.archive.org/web/20041127085645/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.ht ml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Long Tail
First off, I've been writing about this since 1997... well before the Long Tail. But, more importantly, the Long Tail is only a small part of what's being discussed here. It's important, as I discussed here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061206/011155.shtml
but the long tail only describes a small fragment of the bigger picture -- which are the economics that impact infinite goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is a major problem with your theory Mike, although I much appreciate your effort and time to talk about this. The problem as I see it is surprisingly absent from your critics, suggesting to me they don’t understand how the music industry actually works.
You seem to be making the mistake that if songs are distributed for free that somehow that makes the demand for the artist (and his/her scarce product) proportional (even at low percentage) to the level of that distribution. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You can have your song on a million web sights; you might even get people who have never heard of you to download one of your songs in the 10,000 others they have. But you will only get those people who download a bazillion songs anyhow, your chances of them actually giving your song a chance is next to zero.
The point is that marketing is king in the music industry. I will take James Stevens who posted above as a perfect example. Were did he hear this “new music” that he downloaded? What avenue was responsible for his “hearing” the music? You guessed it: Radio. I don’t like to be a pessimist, but when it comes to music people are sheep like they are in almost no other arena. It’s ALL about marketing, and viral marketing for Indie bands. A person like what they think is good, and what is good has for the most part been constructed by the record companies. The vast majority of people do not get their music tastes and “likes” from browsing the internet. They cant, there is too much content. There are hundreds of thousands of bands and artists with content on the net, yet none of them are making it “big”. Why? Are they all that bad?
The facts are people can only really like music by about 10 bands/artists at any one time. The human mind can only handle this much, having 10,000 songs really doesn’t matter because most of that stuff is old, already created not new, and the rest wont be listened too. Even if you had 10 new bands that you liked every month (a huge leap, it’s more like 1 every year, if that, for most people) where are you going to hear them? Do you think people are going to wade through miles of junk to get the ten bands they are going to like? Not likely.
So this comes back to marketing. To be successful under your model, its not enough to have your songs for free everywhere, you have to have your songs making an impact, rising above the crowd. The general public, and even many musicians and music critics are under the false “supernatural” idea that the business is driven by this unseen hand of meritocracy. This simply isn’t the case; the best music doesn’t rise to the top, the marketed (and slickly produced) rises to the top, just think Spice Girls and Brittany Spears, as sad as that is. Every once in a while in the industry you have a “saviour” like a Nirvana or the like, an exception to the rule, but this only happens once in a blue moon and its not the norm. And even Nirvana had to make a music video, how much did that cost?
My point is that, without marketing, none of this matters. The only real way to market a band (assuming they have the songs to deliver) is to spend $$$. Where, now that there is no money from the actual recorded music are artists going to get this money from? It’s a catch twenty two, something that occurs all the time in this great “free-market’ economy of ours. It’s a basic investment principle: without the cash to invest in marketing your group you’re never going to make the cash to invest in marketing your group. Record companies have been the traditional vehicles for doing this, like the great music VISA card, and they have made their money on physically recorded media. Now that their revenue stream is dried up, guess where they are turning? Yep, the poor artists. So then in order to get popular you now have to sell even more of your soul to the record company, because they want revenue from you concerts, and your t-shirts and every other thing they can get their hands on, because their traditional revenue streams have gone.
This is the point that is missing. Distribution means nothing. Marketing is everything. Marketing costs $$$. Cash that the traditional record companies used to be able to afford, and now they cannot. What will fill the void?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: market me this
basically i think its going to be very hard for anyone to make a lot of money on entertainment, anywhere in the system.
on the other hand i have no problem with this at all.
its going to be more like in the middle ages where being a minstrel wasnt necessarily a very high class position. so it goes. regardless of what songs sell a lot of copies i think profit motive wasnt foremost in the creation of most music any of us like. or if it was, only in the sense that "the kids are gonna love this, itll sell a million".. which is a case of capitolism working okay in my book.
i think the film world is also interesting in this context because the distribution cost is also free but the production costs are typically quite high, and for perhaps more obvious reasons in movies than in audio production- blowing up cars etc.
but basically you can do anything for free, or in any case trivially low cost, if you are persuasive enough. having a big credit card in the form of a record label greases the wheels but im not convinced that its a good thing for the level of artwork produced in the world for the wheels to be greased in that way, by those people for their profit motive, even if it does in the process finance the occasional cool thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: market me this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: market me this
nobody is yet giving away computers for free to sell access to their isp though according to this article that may be a goodidea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: market me this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: market me this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hardware companies fill the void
welcome to reality everyone- a huge amount of content gets created by funding from hardware companies. through sony owning hollywood and also through things like ATI paying artists like me to make stupid demos just to sell theeir new video cards. and on and on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hardware companies fill the void
and you can also gain by controlling hardware the way sony does by developing first party games for their own playstation, to make money by selling the games themselves somewhat but also to sell the hardware first and foremost. thats why th first party games have way larger budgets than most third party games that must actually make money from the game itself.
fun world eh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
also note the total death of PC based gaming
but the games which sell copies sell those copies mainly cause its more of a pain to pirate console based software. the ease of doing this completely discouraged pc gaming to the point where its essentially dead compared to the level of development even by indie developers making xbox live arcade games.
games were also among the first things supposedly of value to be very widely pirated. i know i was trading games for many many years before mp3 came around or it was possible to get feature movies online.
so i think its a good harbinger for how things are going to go elsewhere in the entertainment world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and to any artists who think this will change much if anything
apple will hire all the a and r guys that got fired by the collapsing record companies and life as usual will go on till capitolism itself folds. probably all of us creatives will get a bit less money and maybe more of us will get jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the once exeption to the death of pc gaming is of course
will this encourage better products to be made in the end? i think it will, a better product will still encourage sales of whatever you are really selling. the whole thing is a bit funny but till capitolism totally gives way we will have to live with some paradoxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PC games are now free.
It's taken a while for programmers to replicate some of the key genres, but at this point games are works of art worked on "for the love of the art".
No, they're not profit-makers and nobody's going to make a living off of them. So what? They don't take THAT much time to create. People are still making them and people who enjoy them are still playing them. This has happened to text adventures (as early as the 1990s), to CRPGs, to arcade-style games, to action games, to action sims, and now even to world sims (which actually seem to be harder to write than most other genres).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sorry for the chain posts- a summary
to sum up all that crap i see things going two ways-
one the traditional big budget credit card to finance for profit commercial entertainment role will be and already has been largely filled by hardware manufacturers- the sector of the economy that specialized in selling products that can now be reproduced and distributed for essentially free, is going to just go away as it stands today. (barely stands we might add.)
second, for "independant" musicians who dont want to participate in the big money system, there are, thanks to free distribution, many more opportunities to reach a large audience, which will very likely have a miniscule "sell through" rate but still potentially enough for many entertainers, bands, filmmakers etc to make a modest living or supplementary income equal to any hard costs incurred in creating the recording, movie whatever. (buying gear, blowing up cars, etc). computers have also greatly lowered the production costs, though not to zero, a gigantic amount, so it doesnt cost more than a few thousand in hardware to make a completely professional recording and consumer distribution of media of any sort these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Concept is Market Tested=Market Failure
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080425/124144950.shtml
Re: Utopia by Mike on Jun 11th, 2008 @ 3:29am by Lloyd Shugart on Jun 11th, 2008 @ 9:35amBr>
If this model worked Open Source would have displaced the current model long ago, at the very least created a market share, that competes. The Open Source companies that are able to achieve any success, are the ones who rely on the current model to protect their most valuable part of the product.
Another fine example of this market failure is Made in Japan it wasn't until they left the cheap valueless economic model and invested in R&D protected by IP, to create products of quality, that the consumer market would in fact value, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay a higher price. Now made in Japan=Value Lacking any IP protection the investment capital required to make this market change simply would not exist.
The models propounded above fail to provide the capital to make the leap to free. If I increase my market share from 100 to 100,000 I have a cost to get there, now short of having a trust fund, or infinite capital how do I get there? I have to go to the capital markets, I have to either collateralize with other valuable assets, or I have to have a product protected by IP to the extent the the investor feels safe on their return. My cost on that return is directly related to the risk. My cost of capital is either going to be very low for something well protected, or very high as related to the risk. Now all of those things come against my bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This Concept is Market Tested=Market Failure
Hmm. The internet is mostly based on open source software. Linux has the vast majority of server implementations out there.
I'd say it competes very well.
Lacking any IP protection the investment capital required to make this market change simply would not exist.
I pointed out how false this statement is in a comment on the link you posted above.
Take a look at the actual research and you'll discover that there's plenty of investment without IP.
The models propounded above fail to provide the capital to make the leap to free
Again, history suggests otherwise. Look at the research of Eric Schiff, Davide Levine, Michele Boldrin and Petra Moser, and then come back and admit you made an assumption here that isn't true.
I have to go to the capital markets, I have to either collateralize with other valuable assets, or I have to have a product protected by IP to the extent the the investor feels safe on their return.
You're falsely assuming the return needs to come directly from selling IP.
Do you know how much money IBM makes from services related to Linux these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
“invisible hand”
Joseph E. Stiglitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
The Nobel Prize economist (2001) Joseph E. Stiglitz says: "the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there." (Making Globalization Work, 2006) [2]. Stiglitz explains his position:
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the “invisible hand” and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.
Whenever there are “externalities”—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have been long understood—environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, will produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, will also produce too little basic research. (Remember, the government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and most of the advances in bio-tech.)
But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always.
Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights.
The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third “sector”—non-governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance will differ from time to time and place to place. [2]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: �invisible hand�
Um. Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source for economic theory... but ok.
As for Stiglitz, he's done great work (and, I should note, he's against pharmaceutical patents), but when were his statements on externalities made?
Romer's recent research has opened up a whole new vein of exploration concerning the classical theory of externalities that are not at all reflected in the Stiglitz comments you quote.
But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always.
Indeed. That is what the recent research has shown, but MANY of those externalities are *positive* not negative. You need gov't intervention to deal with the positive externalities, not the negative ones.
Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights.
On this we agree -- but copyright and patents are not property. They're artificially monopolies on infinite goods. Very different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there were no incentives for those who discover
A resource with which to analyze arguments against IPRs is Innovation and its Discontents, Princeton Univ Press (2004), where Professors Jaffe-Lerner outlined the basic tenets for patents. The scholars noted the relationship between innovation costs and marketing, as well as the role of commercialization. Its significant that in a book critiquing the current patent system, Jaffe-Lerner highlighted baselines for IPRs that critics have overlooked.
If there were no incentives for those who discover and develop new technology, it is likely that fewer innovations would be developed, slowing progress and the benefits it brings. Potential inventors realize that without adequate protection rivals will rapidly copy their discoveries, and that therefore innovation is at best an uncertain route to future profits. As a result, companies would be unlikely to spend significant amounts of money on R&D that is the source of new products and processes in a modern economy. They would instead choose to spend their money pursuing other activities- for example, marketing campaigns...
… …
our capitalist free-enterprise systems has demonstrated a unique ability to generate new technology: industrialized economies have increased their economic productivity more in the last two centuries than in all the millennia of previous human history. The basis for this advance is firms’ pursuit of profit, which forces them to innovate.
Society benefits from creators and innovators investing in more than selling t-shirts. Society needs innovation in IT, not ways of marketing t-shirts! Basic research-product development are high risk ventures, advertising for t-shirts is not. It’s a bit ironic that IPR critics would not have creators leverage the phenomenon known as the Internet for anything more than advertising. The difference in margins between delivering products/services online versus selling t-shirts alone suggest that enabling creators to tap the Internet would lend to more innovation and consumer welfare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If there were no incentives for those who discover
"It is likely?" Very scientific. How about looking at the actual research that's been done.
Specifically, how about actually looking at Jaffe-Lerner's research on the impact of patents on innovation, rather than PFF's weak summary of it.
Or, how about looking at Bessen/Meurer's research. Or Eric Schiff's. Or Levine/Boldrin. Or Petra Moser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If there were no incentives for those who discover
*Monopolies are bad* -- and worse, the studies have shown that monopolies like patents and copyrights are *sucky incentives*. Getting paid upfront to create something, that's an incentive.
That is now the model in the software industry. Some company needs software which does X. There is no such software. The company pays someone to create it. Then it is released free.
Stipends are an incentive. Patents aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Pull Back the Big Black 45. Curtain by Lloyd Shugart on Jun 12th, 2008 @ 11:02am
Mike, my response is here http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080425/124144950#c644
excerpt Mike, I guess I am having a hard time discerning what you are truly advocating. It appears to me that as opposed to providing a true journalistic approach, you have moved to the side of "Cheerleader". In my mind a true journalist seeks information in all of it's glory on both sides, then presents that in an unbiased way, which allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusions based on that info, along with his/her other factual investigations.
You have a habit of taking bits and pieces from other presentations and skewing them to support you argument (Cheerleading).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Pull Back the Big Black 45. Curtain by Lloyd Shugart on Jun 12th, 2008 @ 11:02am
excerpt Mike, I guess I am having a hard time discerning what you are truly advocating. It appears to me that as opposed to providing a true journalistic approach, you have moved to the side of "Cheerleader". In my mind a true journalist seeks information in all of it's glory on both sides, then presents that in an unbiased way, which allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusions based on that info, along with his/her other factual investigations.
I responded there, but again, I will note that I am not a journalist. I am an analyst, and what I write here is my insight and analysis based on my research, backed up by plenty of evidence.
Telling me I need to pretend I'm a journalist is silly and meaningless. It's a way to not actually respond to the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
best affiliate programs
it is very complicated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal control
Artists should be signed non-exclusively. Signing an artist means you have the right to distribute their music, but more than one music label can sign the artist. The label will only be as powerful as its ability to distribute (something of actual value).
Also, artists can sign with more than one label and get more distribution and the labels only make money when they distribute the music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As if...
(1) Scarce number of venues. If more artists attempt to make their living performing in venues, this increase in supply will drive down the willing price paid by venues for artists.
Already, the live music data suggest that revenue are becoming increasingly focused upon a smaller set of performers. How will giving music away for free increase the number of venues?
(2) Scarcity of attention. We humans already have thousands of requests each day for our attention. How exactly is it that musicians will increase their stake of this scarcity simply by giving things away?
Giving music away will simply increase the volume of media groping for my attention. The result is a tournament, the spoils of which will accrue to a smaller percentage of artists.
(3) Thousands of artists giving their music away does not increase the value of any one artist's concert tickets, t-shirt, etc. Giving something away is in no way a competitive advantage in this marketplace - anyone can do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As if...
Offering a partial solution to this problem is the basic service provided by Google, iTunes etc. The useful sorting out of an overwhelming volume of info. So far no one has come up with anything like a complete solution, and the long term data ceiling issues may yet render all these innovations moot. Like yeast in a beer vat, the internet may be smothered in its own growth components.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Analogy
Does this model of your's have an analogy to the "Cash Back Credit Card schemes" that the banks were playing with.And what the scheme essentially said was you spend a certain amount on your card and we(bank) pay you back a percentage of it in cash. Now in its most obvious sense this sounds weird, where the bank provides you credit to buy items and in turn gives you cash for buying more credit. It is true that the Banks do not lose money by running such a scheme but what they promote is the something that is scare, which is affinity to spend on using the same card again and again.
If for a while we assume Mike's theory does generate a net higher equilibira for both the consumer and producer, wonder how can it be applied to the Medical Industry where the money an individual medical practitioner makes is directly proportional to the number of patients he sees, but offering this service for free to grab more patients thru the internet might prove counter productive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Infinite?
The first thing you need to do is remove the word "infinite" from the discussion. There is no such thing as an infinite resource and it distorts the actual dynamics. I'm not being snarky. It's important to keep a certain level of intellectual rigor.
People pay what they are willing. But people are also willing to NOT pay if they can get away with it. If I have a fruit tree, it is considered theft if you pick the fruit for yourself. In order to prevent this unwanted outcome, I can put up a fence. You seem to be saying "lets tear down all the fences and everybody will be happy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Infinite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Infinite?
The problem is that if everyone is simply picking all the grower's apples for free, and no one is paying for them, the grower goes out of business.
Unless of course he makes all that money back selling "Barney's Orchard" t-shirts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Infinite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason why this cannot work?
The problem in my opinion is that while the theory should work (and has been proven to work in other markets, as some people have remarked), as far as the music industry is concerned, they cannot just abandon the old business model based on the artificial scarcity of the song and find a new scarce resource that will compensate the loss of the original income.
Allow me to elaborate: I think peer to peer networks give us a good idea of how the market would behave if we moved to this new economic model, because although currently illegal for this particular copyrighted content, they make music distribution effectively free like the theory suggests, and the people using them should already be allocating their money toward the scarce resources whose value has been increased by the free ones.
I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I'd bet that the revenues linked to the scarce components listed in the article like access to the musicians, merchandise and so on haven't increased much. Probably not even the demand for new songs by the same artists, since with so many songs to listen to, whether the next good song comes from them or from the next band you'll listen to for free doesn't really matter.
But there are indeed scarce components that you *need* to enjoy music and that would thus benefit from the free resource. I would start with a good broadband connection, then a shiny new portable music player, and probably a good content provider/filtering service to avoid having to listen to too much music that doesn't suit your tastes between the good songs (also known as 'crap'). Maybe you can add other items, but I think a decent summary would be: music related hardware and services. And while we may disagree on the cause, I think we can say easily that the market for those has greatly increased during the past few years.
Presented like this, the problem the music industry suffers becomes obvious: it sells neither. Since they came too late on the market, the industry (and artists, since in this, their interest should align) only gets a cut of the action on the service side (paying downloads, web radios, ...) because the songs themselves are not yet free (as royalties), and I don't think they get much on the hardware side either (I remember reading that they tried to get money from the iThings sales without success, at least).
I'll conclude this rant (it sure looks like one, by now) by saying that this "grand unified theory of free" can only work if the people who benefit from the increased value of the scarce resources end up paying the cost of producing the "free" ones that support them. It probably works in the free software world because the people that produce a software look like the most able to provide support for it (which is the main revenue model, I think), but I don't think it can be a viable alternative for most artists (and for the industry in general) in the current economy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The analogy to recorded music is perfect and it demonstrates why Masnick's "Grand Theory" is a grand failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Barney's best move is to sell *authentication*, which is always scarce.
"Genuine Barney's Orchard Apples".
The biggest market error which the MPAA/RIAA have made is in crappy releasing -- releasing bad masters, cut masters, masters hit with the brick-wall limiter, censored masters, etc. *This means that they do not provide authentication*. That is the only thing they were selling. People will still pay a lot to make sure they have a copy of Yellow Submarine which sounds exactly like the original release, or as-aired episodes of The Muppet Show -- and the record companies *don't even bother*, and the movie companies rarely bother. This means *pirated copies often have better authentication* than "official" copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 2cents - infinitely copied
Example of a big name artist making money through digital distribution
Additionally the UK Music market made more money in very tough economic times but including a drop in physical sales.
The "stats" that the global pie is shrinking
And yet, why is this "one industry"? (Legally signing artists to contracts, Recording them with technology, Marketing their product, Distributing the product, Lobbying governments, Lawsuits and Enforcement) ... could they buy radio stations, sell advertising, and still be in the same industry?
The RIAA spend money to defend their business model:
Tenenbaum $675,000 fine
Thomas $220,000 fine
RIAA Lobbying costs
As I don't imagine that amounts awarded will pay for all of the RIAA legal fees considering how long it will take to get them out of the defendants. But it's obvious that lots of lawyers can make an ugly example out of someone.
Note that this has nothing to do with the principles of enjoyment, betterment of society, or artist re-imbursement. U.S Constitution on Copyright:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors...the exclusive Right to their...Writings"
Ironically, previously, Sony were the defendants in a case about technology and IP.
Did that ruin the industry?
"In 1992 videocassettes accounted for over 50 percent of movie receipts..."
page 199, Industry and firm studies by Carol Horton Tremblay
Did Television ruin the Movie Industry? What about DVD's? Or movie rentals?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As statistics and examples are infinite, (both for and against), I'll skip to the "scarce stuff", good ideas...
If I give you a widget and you give me a widget, we each still only have 1 widget.
If I give you an idea, and you give me an idea, we now both have 2 ideas.
Technology has made it so that what we called a widget (a song, a movie, etc.) can now be copied and transferred like an idea.
Distinctions between analysts, experts, journalists, professors, etc. seem trivial - someone has an idea and explains it with true examples.
So here we have common sense about selling things, now "changed" by technology, put in the perspective of economics.
The phonograph and other technologies commoditized what was previously a service and created an industry. Now technology has greatly reduced the intrinic cost of distributing that commodity. So perhaps more profit should be found from selling it as a service again. Or finding new ways of commoditizing it.
Google Adwords profits from a free service and they're a technology/media company.
I'm sure there are other links on the internet but for people who have gotten all the way to my comment, maybe you'd like to read about "Better Than Free"
Marketing does cost money (though if you read "The Google Story" you'll find that Google spent very little on marketing), and Britney Spears is huge due to marketing.
BUT technology not only reduces the cost of Distribution, this InterWebNet also reduces the cost of Marketing. (MySpace, Email, Band Websites, Entertainment News Websites, etc.)
Technology quantifies "x downloads" or "x plays" of a particular song whereas before it was estimates of Radio listeners.
While it is possible for the current model to continue to profit, it's anti free market and anti evolution. And to take advantage of the efficiency of many of the technologies (Does the RIAA have a website, use email, create pdf's?), but to claim that others are illegal or encourage illegal behaviour is disingenuous.
If you're an artist, go ahead, make music. But as the jazz pianist Tee Carson once told me, "Music, what a great life. I don't know about the money, but what a great life".
If musicians are "demoted" to only making money from their performances and advertising, like athletes, then I'm sure they too will find a way to cope.
Highest earning US Athletes
There was even a time when athletes didn't make money from playing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just found this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics of free concerts - new blog
cheers,
Anne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JOIN NEOBUX FREE - CLICK HERE
1. Standard Member
Per Click : $0.010
Per Referral Click: $0.005
2. Golden Member
Per Click : $0.010 to $0.20
Per Referral Click: $0.010
2) Minimum Payout - $2 - Instant Payout.
3) GOLDEN MEMBERSHIP UPGRADE REQUIREMENTS
1. Have 50 clicks credited.
2. Have rented referrals 2 times.
3. Have registered atleast 15 days ago.
I Highly recommend to Upgrade to Golden Membership.
If you have a Golden Membership, click 10 top ads a day and refer 150 members who also click 10 top ads a day :
You win $30.2 (US dollars) per day that translates to around $936.2 (US dollars) per month. Now, try to multiply that for a year.
So, Register Now and start earning money for free!
Important: Click ads daily after joining to become your account active, otherwise your account will be deleted.
NEOBUX SUCCESS SECRET: AFTER JOINING NEOBUX, GO TO FORUM --> YOUR SUCCESS STORIES --> PAYMENT PROOFS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unified Theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clothing designs which are universally allowed to be copied, while the competition of directly copied(non-trademark infringing) clothing based upon the original designs being allowed to compete in the same market, are what makes the fashion industry one of the most creative and innovative industries in existence. No matter what they can create, it absolutely will be copied immediately, and by competitors no less, so they must always continue innovating new designs time and again to stay current. Or in other words: the polar opposite of what the entertainment industry does.
Even though they don't want to admit or acknowledge it yet, the entertainment industry is in this position already, they just haven't been forced by law to do as the fashion industry must do (yet). In this instance though, it is the customers themselves who are bypassing the monopolistic artificial scarcity model rather than the government being called on by the customers to force the industry to give the model up by force to promote creativity and innovation for the good of the industry as a whole. Not that the government would necessarily come to the aid of the customers if/when called upon in this issue, but that is a problem for another discussion.
Is the fashion industry able to exploit a monopoly on ideas to protect extreme and arguably undeserved profits for itself spanning ridiculously large periods of time? No, and for many good reasons. Does this mean that they are somehow unable to survive, and in fact thrive, just because they are not propped up by a government-installed system to guarantee them a monopoly along with a competition-free environment in which to do business? It's actually quite the opposite...
The designs, no matter how much time and equitable cost input is dedicated to their design, are always free. The design is no more than an idea, which once shared with even one person, is no longer your exclusive property anymore. When you buy their product you are paying for the tangible good... the brand... the trademark. You are paying for the original instead of a knock-off for no other reason than to reward a trademark owner for their innovation. You can have the same clothing for less, of course, but you will not be supporting the people who designed it and you may not see the next installment if enough people refuse to buy the original. Good thing "everyone" doesn't "always" pick the cheapest route or this system would have imploded on itself decades ago. The entertainment industry is in it's infancy still and has a lot to learn yet... if we can ever get it, as a whole, to mature beyond the courtroom temper tantrums and other infantile nonsense maybe it will learn to be a responsible adult.
The people who would buy these copies or even illegal knock-offs(file sharing/P2P/second hand sales) probably do so because they do not have the money to afford the originals(direct purchase of content which benefits and supports the content creator) anyway, and thus, were never really a part of the target market for the original creator in the first place. They are the target market of the copy/knock-off manufacturers because the costs associated with the originals often remove these consumers from their market by default via financial exclusion.
Won't be long now... until entertainment is deemed "utilitarian" as well and loses all these ridiculous protections and gets forced to focus once again on the heart of copyright's *real* purpose: to promote innovation and creativity. Right now, their business seems to serve only to stifle innovation and keep creativity locked away. For profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But because pay as you want existed I downloaded it again off the Girl Talk website. And now I am happily listening to Play Your Part (free stream on Lala here). And Im blogging about Girl Talk. And Ill Twitter the blog post. And the odds that Ill go see Girl Talk next time theyre in town just went up. Fat loss Factor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bandwidth isn't free
when i pirate a movie through my cell phone it can cost me over 40 dollars. 10 dollars a gig, at 4 gigs for a 720p movie.
it seems to me that moving forward fines for using bandwidth will increase rather than decrease - these fines did not originally exist and they have only gotten heavier since their inception.
i looked up metallica flac on google and found it on the pirate bay. 14 cds at 18gigs. on 3g that's 180 dollars. i use metallica as my example because of how much they don't want to be pirated and how easy it is to find them ;D
there is a maximum fine of 50 dollars on my wired internet also. i easily reach the max fine monthly even without piracy.
the downloader isn't the only guy paying for data. web hosts cost money too. storage costs money. upstream costs money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bandwidth is close enough to free.
Insignificant costs -- too small to charge for.
Hosting costs money, but little enough that enormous numbers of people buy it for sheer vanity. Again close enough to free for most analytical purposes, unless the art you're generating is multi-terabyte in size.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what about street performers?
Why don't you use buskers and street performers as examples? I know a great guitarist in DC, Mark, who has been a busker for the last 20 years. This is one of his main sources of income. He sets up on a street corner, opens his guitar case, and plays because he enjoys playing music. He does some studio work, but playing his music and interacting with people on the street listening to his music is what he enjoys. This is somewhat of a give it away and pray method, but in a sense it's also selling the scarcity of his performances and he's utilizing the scarce time his audience has to enjoy his music.
People have been making a living by giving music away for free for a long time. It's not a new concept so it's a shame everyone thinks they have some right to a guarantee that they can make a living the way they dictate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economy of goods
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing Free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Services = Free Money
Take away the control of fed there by ending free money money supply to this micro minority community and all "free" websites like google, facebook will fold up in 18 months.
Google, facebook are collecting way too much information about users and when you give someone a stick they will hit you and then other people will join together and hit them back history will continue as ususal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free is good
1. Marketing- Gave away a free e-book on the intricacy's of sports card collecting. Learning SEO, which has gotten me listed in bing/google/yahoo top ten searches for some key words. All of this marketing if done yourself can cost you nothing.
-- my point is Artists need to learn how to market themselves. And that's the point I think Mike is making. Learn how to market and your profits will be better.
-- How? create a website (domain-$12/year, Host-$30-$50/month) Have contests for fans, chances to win merchandise,concert tickets etc.
-- With new small recording studios I've seen that charge small fee's(like here, local casino has one and for as little as a few hundred dollars you can use it for i think 1-2 hours)
-- Yes big studios offer more and market for you but they also take much of your money,
-- Do it yourself, Promote yourself, Release your content(music) as you see fit. Maybe 1 song free to everyone from your new album, downloadable from your site.
-- You will never get rid of Piracy its the same argument for gun control, gun laws only harm legal gun owners cause you can't keep criminals from getting guns and you can't keep people from pirating content as long as the content is out there somewhere, its a battle that can't be one so
YOU MUST ADAPT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I appreciate that most DRM related stuff is to do with entertainment, but I'd have expected to see more discussion about how the business model affects other industries as it's not solely applicable to any one type of business. Krissy McCollogh (Jun 20th, 2010 @ 11:12pm, post 129) made some excellent points about the fashion industry and how something similar works there, but it seems to have been ignored.
Anything digital is expressly designed to be freely copied. If the good you produce is distributed in a digital format, you can either try to place obstacles in the path of that copying (which will cost you money and (historically) will only work for a short time) or you can use that to your advantage. Mr. Masnick is trying to point out some of the ways you can take advantage of it in general terms. I don't think it's really fair to ask him to come up with an all-inclusive New Musicians Business Plan as some of the comments seem to be asking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Example
Whatever his reasoning, print copies sell out immediately when they hit the shelves. When a new run is scheduled, advance orders snap up the run and the few books that actually make it to a book shelf disappear within hours. I have a copy simply because, in 2012, I happened across a bookstore employee putting three copies on the shelf. I took a copy for me; the others were gone before I left the store.
For those interested in reading this book, Project Gutenberg now has it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Example
Whatever his reasoning, the result is that print copies sell out immediately when they hit the shelves. New runs are promptly snapped up by advance orders. I have my copy simply because I found a bookstore employee putting three copies on the shelf in 2012. I took my copy. The other two were gone before I left the store.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the improvements in the last year alone by tinkers is amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Economics of Free
I will reference the article as a resource on the subject.
Cheers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opening a new coffee house? Free coffee for everyone the first day. New PC ban (internet cafe)? n-minutes of internet access for free the first day. Business that carry on that tradition generally do quite well. Businesses that don't, well, I never really did find any as the only ones I'd heard about had gone out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]