Why Propping Up Old Business Models Is Bad For The Economy And Bad For Innovation
from the too-big-to-fail? dept
Certainly a common enough theme around these parts is the effort of old companies with legacy business models to do everything in their power (often through regulatory capture and other political tricks) to retain their market position by regulating in a specific way. This means regulations that empower legacy firms specifically, or by outlawing and/or limiting disruptive upstarts. All too often, these firms succeed in convincing politicians (and even the press and some portion of the public) that their own potential failures mean the failure of a larger industry as a whole. And yet, that's almost never the case. In fact, the protectionism often does the exact opposite of that, in that it prevents the necessary innovations from flourishing, thereby limiting an industry and, at times, making it uncompetitive with other industries in other countries.A recent Planet Money episode discussed this in talking to economist Tim Harford about his new book, Adapt, which talks about how important failure is for economic growth and innovation. This should intuitively make sense for many regular Techdirt readers, since we make this point, in a different manner, quite frequently.
In the Planet Money episode, they do a "walking tour of failure in New York," looking at things like the Gutenberg bible, which many credit with kicking off a revolution in printing, but was a giant commercial failure for Johannes Gutenberg, who put up the money for it, but couldn't find the buyers (yes, for the first printed edition of the best selling book of all time). Elsewhere, they talk about the failure of Woolworth, which had been an early retail innovator, being one of the first retailers to realize that putting goods out where customers could see them and touch them, rather than cramming it all behind a counter, was a good idea. But, eventually, others out-innovated Woolworth as well. In many ways, this reminds me of the book Copycats by Oded Shenkar, which we spoke about last year and which had plenty of similar stories.
Some of the discussion also reminded me of our discussion on the series of economic studies that have shown that people changing jobs is often a key indicator of economic growth because it helps the spread of ideas and innovations faster across the economy. While that might not seem to directly impact the question of "failure," Harford mentions the research of economist Randall Morck, who found that (and I'm paraphrasing from Harford's brief summary of Morck's work) in places where there is greater turnover of big companies failing and upstarts taking their place, there is greater economic growth. I have to admit being unaware of Morck's work previously, but now have it on my list to dig in and check it out. I can definitely see a connection here.
Big companies often get stagnant, focusing less on innovation and more on protecting a market. In the Clayton Christensen world of the Innovator's Dilemma, they focus on incremental innovations and market protectionism. And, as Andy Kessler noted in his most recent book, the innovators, who get around those things and unleash value, are often derided as thieves and criminals for undermining established business models. But what comes out of those upstart efforts is, generally, much better for the consumer. And, on top of that, the collapse of those big firms often allows many of the folks, who did have good ideas and knowledge within those firms, to spread out and to join the more innovative upstarts, which will actually implement and execute on those good ideas, rather than be stymied by bosses who don't want to undercut the old business models.
This is why we should always be wary of efforts by politicians to protect jobs, companies, industries and business models. These efforts may come from a reasonable place -- in the belief that it's for the best to "protect" such a large company. But history has shown over and over again the value of creative destruction and disruptive innovation. While it may take down old legacy players, what rises in its place is almost always better for everyone.
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: business models, creative destruction, failure, innovation, regulation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Masnick refuses to accept that the landscape has changed since he started this blog, and he doesn't know how to proceed except by flailing away at the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The landscape has changed but Masnick hasn't.
Tell me, how is the RIAA doing since the upheaval of CD bundling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It also wastes enormous amounts of taxpayers money clogging up the justice system and distracting law enforcement away from their proper job. If it is "successful" then its only effect will be to empower (for profit) piracy by making it more valuable - just as the war on drugs has made the fortune of the drug dealers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact that you do it instead of actually address the substance of the issues, speaks volumes about the wrongness of your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Coypright Creationists
Or trademarked it, or something.
So I demand a payment of 0% royalties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Coypright Creationists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The farmers instinctively want to cull the badgers - because they think "something must be done". Unfortunately for them several good scientific studies have shown that badger culling is actually counter productive (because the surviving badgers spread out to fill the gaps - carrying the disease with them). They just disregard this evidence and carry on bleating the same mantra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also there is quite a strong parallel with Dawkins style naive atheists too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thats not fair. A person can disbelieve Darwin and still support a stance on copyright that is not maximalist. That being said this topic is not about scientific theory into how we came to be but copyright. Let's keep it on topic. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Survival of the fittest vs. artificially propping up a failed business model.
Failure of bad business models happens naturally, just like failure of bad life models happens in nature.
Let them fail if they can't adapt. Don't punish those of us who accept evolution just because you believe in the (failed) status quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
1. Bible printing
2. Woolworths
But what THIS CENTURY ? what TODAY ? (oh, thats right, you cannot think of ANY, that is why you need 500+ year old examples !!!!..... LOL
looking at things like the Gutenberg bible, which many credit with kicking off a revolution in printing
It was the FIRST MAJOR BOOK PRINTED WITH A "MOVABLE TYPE PRINTING PRESS"
Not THE (original) PRINTING PRESS that revolutionised book publishing.
It was also in the Year 1450, that was SOME TIME AGO..
You have to go back THAT FAR FOR EXAMPLES !!!!!
Gee, no wonder your credability is slipping !
marking the start of the "Gutenberg Revolution" and the age of the printed book. Widely praised for its high aesthetic and artistic qualities,[1] the book has an iconic status. It is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, Germany, in the 1450s. Only twenty-one complete copies survive, and they are considered by many sources to be the most valuable books in the world, even though a complete copy has not been sold since 1978.
Note that, "the most valuable books in the world"
and the "Gutenberg Revolution"
Most of the great artists of our time, never made alot of money from their works while they were alive, so by your logic their work is pointless and valueless.
So next time someone gives you a Picasso you will just throw it away, after all that painter never made any money while he was alive !!
Big companies often get stagnant, focusing less on innovation and more on protecting a market.
Like Ummmmm... what ???? or Who ?
you mention Woolworths and Gutenberg bible, then WHAT ELSE.
Woolworths is/was a 'big company' that relied on innovation to compete in the market ?
You gotta you be living on another planet Mike, they are a big company, they make their profit from SELLING THINGS, from selling products that OTHER COMPANIES MAKE.
Woolworths does not 'innovate' products, they might try 'new' things (new to you) like their method of product display.
But that is hardly what I would call innovation in the market place.
Innovation for companies like Woolworths would be to introduce new product ranges, to introduce microwave ovens when they were first invented.
And I am very sure those companies do exactly that, otherwise they would NOT SELL ANYTHING.
What other "big innovation companies" get stagnant, sure some do, but MOST do not.
Novell, was a 'big innovation' company, as is Microsoft and Racal, plessey, McDonnald Douglas.
They do not appear to be 'stagnent' that there is little in the way of 'small players' taking over their business due to stagnation.
There is usually a bevy of small companies trying as hard as possible to EMULATE what the likes of Microsoft is doing, to try to 'ride the bandwagon' of their success.
But few if any are making significant inroads using the innovations of a big company against the very company that provided those innovations.
Everyone knows who was first, and they will always trust the group that actually came up with the idea, and was the first to provide that idea for people to use.
That is why lots of groups try to copy what microsoft has done and is doing, but few of them can do it to the same level of quality and functionality.
And in the business world there is no prizes for second.
You would understand that Mike, if you had any clue about 'the busiess world' and how things actually happen in the REAL world.
(but not how they happen in 'mikes world').
So Gutenberg Bible and Woolworths, are your focal points for this entire argument !!!..
WOW, that is enough to convice me !
But you might want to give a few more (recent and pertanent) examples to support your rant.
Please ?
economic studies that have shown that people changing jobs is often a key indicator of economic growth
What do those studies say about people LOSING their jobs and economic growth?
Or those changing their jobs, to one that is paying less than their previous job ?
Or those no longer working in development, but who are now working flipping burgers ?
Why dont you address those issues Mike ?? too hard ? or dont they support your 'view'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
And Novell hasn't been innovative in almost a decade. Same with MS. And as for other revolutionary examples - how about this thing we're posting on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
You said, "Everyone knows who was first, and they will always trust the group that actually came up with the idea, and was the first to provide that idea for people to use."
That's a really good point, thanks for clearing that up, and Mike really should address it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
Woolworth was in the market of selling things, not producing things. Hence they innovated in the market of selling things.
You want more recent examples. Try Sony. They used to be a major innovator of consumer electronics. These days they just pump out mostly crap products with their trademarks printed on them. They aren't going to last long.
Look at Yahoo!, they used to be innovators in the search and portal business. They stopped innovating and started becoming irrelevant.
Look at Palm. They used to be the market leader in handheld computing. They stopped innovating and pumping out the same old stuff, while the market moved on. Where are they now?
I could go on, but I'd be wasting too much time feeding the trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
I thought it was the CAPS LOCK key that increased intelligence.
Learn something new every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
Gee, no wonder your credability is slipping !
Your argument is that the examples are old?
Not that there is anything wrong with them?
Actually the reason for using old examples is that with an old example we can see how everything worked out subsequently. New examples are less useful because there is the risk that they could be undermined by future events.
So old examples are better than new ones. Your point is a complete failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who is propping up old business models, who needs too ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
five posts and we have:
someone obviously fishing for flames.
a useless shill who seems to have some intelligence but no ability to apply it to anything but being an arse.
a test post.
a joke which has been done so often it's less joke and more standing meme.
this thread's off to a spectacular start, i must say.
either way, i found it interesting.
also, i'd suggest that people take a look at 'The Economy of Cities' by Jane Jacobs if they've not already. nicely explains the processes behind why the whole 'creative destruction' bit works... and why supposedly 'efficiant' cities are a great way to run the place into the ground in short order. among other things. doesn't even have anything to do with IP law, but if you accept that patents etc stifle inovation artificailly, and then read that book it becomes apparant just how much of a disaster that can be in the mid to long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Propping Up Old Business Models
Hawkeye
Housing Affordability Forum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Propping Up Old Business Models
there's also an entrenched line of thinking in economics than when reality doesn't match the model, reality is doing it wrong.
these are not helpful.
(go have a look at the book 'Economyths'. it's quite interesting. can't remember the author's name off the top of my head though.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Propping Up Old Business Models
This is the true common thread between copyright maximalists, patent trolls and property speculators. It is old - just like murder, theft and all the other sins - but it will be constantly re-invented as technology advances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Propping Up Old Business Models
Copyright supporters, patent holders, and real estate traders embody this ideal immensely. They take extreme offense to anyone that threatens their ticket to easy and ever-lasting income that doesn't require the input of more labor. I wish I could perform my labor once and demand the income I feel I supposedly deserve like these leeches do!
Wow, what if everyone was entitled to do that? Everyone can do a minimal amount of labor and do nothing while they rake in the money! What would happen? Nobody would be doing anything and the whole thing would collapse on itself. It would encourage people to do as little as possible while still reaping the benefits.
It's sad how these people think they are special because they can't sell their art as a physical product because it's easy to copy and share. So, they demand the government make laws to enable it and take away rights from everyone else. I'd call it genius but, as we can all see, it's not working anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we were looking at a better business model wiping out an old model, you might have something. But what we have now is illegal activity decimating industries without a real replacement model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When people want to BUY your product in a modern convenient form; NOT selling it to them at a reasonable price is a plan for failure. So instead, change the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
indeed. laws also never change. that's why women can't vote and we still have slavery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Laws are never wrong.
/sarc"
Awesome.
Stand still while I repeatedly kick you in the balls.
Permanent Win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did somebody invent a way from magically stopping people to behave like people? Can we use it to eliminate stupid people first? Please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no new business model here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let me guess, you are on the board of directors of a large media industry corporation, right?
Because that mantra is what is killing gatekeeper industries, not piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tons of new business models.
Greedy pirates still don't want to pay artists for entertaining them.
You people have no argument. None.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
iTunes - frenemy to the industry
Qrocity - Sony's bass-ackwards view of music when they can't get security right
Rhapsody - subscription only service
icloud - decent music service but still limited
"You people have no argument. None."
So tell me. Why is it taking so long for Spotify to work in the US when it's made so much money for industry in Europe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
itunes- awesome service used by millions
Qrocity AND Mog AND Spotify AND Rhapsody- the new reality used by millions.
iCloud- one of the final nails in the pirates hope to destroy labels and musicians.
Like I said, you people have no argument.
Freetard is freetarded.
Every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
iTunes - Still stands as a frenemy to the Big Four. Makes them money but the labels still complain about how they're not making enough.
Qrocity - Proprietary service for the Sony PS3
Mog - Limited by AT&T's plans and service. Unless you have unlimited streaming, it's pointless to use it.
Rhapsody - Subscription service that isn't as prevalent nowadays. Used by millions, but still not as large as the former Napster.
iCloud - Labels bitching about licensing.
Spotify - Still not in the US
"Like I said, you people have no argument."
No, you just never research into what exactly the problems are. Then try to make some argument that it's all doing well. So, again, I ask. Why is it taking so long for Spotify to come to the US?
Or do we go into Round 3 where I pull up articles for every last problem of each service and how it's gimped for the US market?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why would the US need spotify?
We have MOG.
And qriocity and pandora and napster, etc etc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't even hear about MOG myself and wouldn't use it for my phone simply because of the streaming issues with AT&T currently.
Spotify, I would use and share with, because I don't believe in a subscription service. Allowing the record labels to pick and choose what services are legal or illegal based on various features continues to keep the services limited in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Tons of new business models.
Greedy pirates still don't want to pay artists for entertaining them.
iTunes charges around $1 a song - and gives ~10c to the artist.
Rumvi charges 15c a song and still pays the artist something.
Therefore iTunes is ripping off either the artist or the consumer at least 75c a song.
That is the common pattern with the major labels since forever. Greed at the expense of both customer and artist.
If the major labels had offered their catalogues at Rumvi prices (or even at Rumvi plus an extra 10c for the artist) then piracy would never have taken off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People want the freedom to do with their music as they please and nothing is going to stop them. You best just learn to accept that and build a business around it. Oh, I forget! Label execs aren't creative, otherwise they'd be making the music rather than selling it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation
I will say, to me the greatest threat is big business (or "defensive" IP, especially patents - where the real purpose is not to "protect an invention" or "promote progress", it is to make litigation so expensive that, whether an invention is involved or not, it is too expensive to fight!
I am personally (after working with defensive patenting until I became too repulsed to continue) believe most defensive patents DO NOT include an invention!
But, small entity IP (especially patenting) doesn't work, even though litigation is cheap, and inventions (and if you work with me, execution) are involved, don't work because small entities don't have much money!
There is also a tendency for small entities to want to do things "the way the big boys do" - so, to cut their own throats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]