New Year's Message: From Pessimism To Optimism... And The Power Of Innovation

from the love-the-possibilities,-upset-at-the-roadblocks dept

A couple months back, I had a really fascinating experience. I had two meetings in a row, each with incredibly successful content creators -- people who have embraced new business models and new technologies to amazing results, both creatively and monetarily. We were discussing the state of the entertainment industry today, as well as additional strategies for navigating what's coming next. What I found amusing, however, was how at some point, in the middle of each of those meetings, the person I was talking to sat back, laughed, and said "you're such an optimist about these things!" I was amused, since both of these individuals had already shown an ability to thrive in these new, often unchartered waters, but they still weren't completely convinced of their own success.

But the part that really struck me, was that immediately following these two meetings, I went to check on Techdirt, and was reading a series of comments about how reading Techdirt each day was making people more and more pessimistic -- what with new, more draconian copyright laws, domain name seizures, free speech violations and the like happening. And the juxtaposition of the two things struck me as odd. Yet, it seems to happen quite frequently. Just a week after those meetings, I was at the Monaco Media Forum, and I thought how nice it was that the opening of the event was entirely focused on optimism and all of the new opportunities that innovation has opened up for the media landscape. Having attended so many entertainment industry/media/policy/etc. events where most of the focus is on "the problems" or "the threats," I found that really refreshing. I mentioned on Twitter how cool it was that the conference was opening on such an optimistic note, rather than the pessimistic openings of other events. And the very first response I got back was: "look who's talking!"

And so, it seems, there's this odd dichotomy, where many people reading the site seem to feel that I'm angry or pessimistic in general, when the truth is quite the opposite (though, apparently, that only becomes clear to some people when they talk to me in person). For my last post of the year for the past two years, I've taken up similar subjects. In 2008, I wrote, On Staying Happy..., about how it was a myth that I was somehow filled with rage and angry about the world. There's so much wonderful going on, and it was excitement about all of that which keeps me happy. Last year, I expanded on that subject, in writing about Creativity, Innovation and Happiness, noting all the amazing achievements and progress made in 2009.

Once again, this year, I feel quite the same way. But I've been thinking a lot about the juxtaposition between those who think I'm extremely optimistic, and those who insist I'm extremely pessimistic -- and I think the best explanation I have goes back to a post I did in April, in which I explained how much I love seeing progress, and if I'm upset about anything, it's only about the roadblocks that get in the way of progress. I talked about the famous Louis CK video "Everything's Amazing & Nobody's Happy" where he discusses all of these amazing technological advances -- mobile phones, internet on airplanes, flying in airplanes itself -- and how people bitch and complain about it when those things don't work. Similarly, in that post, I compared two articles -- one complaining about the state of mobile phones today, and the other pointing out just how amazing it is that we have mobile phones today which are basically amazingly powerful computers in your pocket.

The point I was trying to make was that I definitely see both sides of that argument. I'm amazed every single day by some of the amazing things out there. And yet, at the same time, I'm frustrated by anything that gets in the way of making it even better. So, I'm super optimistic about innovation, and all of the possibilities out there. And I believe, quite strongly, that you cannot stop innovation -- but you absolutely can hinder it. So any "anger" that people feel, which may give them a sense of frustration and pessimism is my frustration about the roadblocks and barriers and hurdles that people throw in the way of this innovation -- either due to a misunderstanding of innovation, or through laziness and an unwillingness to change to take advantage of those new opportunities.

So, don't take the stories on Techdirt of negative things that are happening as reasons to be sad or pessimistic. Just look at them as highlighting the temporary roadblocks to innovation that need to be cleared out of the way. The faster those roadblocks are cleared, the sooner we increase that pace of innovation and there will be even more to be happy, excited and optimistic about. There will always be new roadblocks, but innovation cannot and will not be stopped.

Yes, it's frustrating to see roadblocks, corruption, monopolies and other efforts designed to hinder such innovation. It's frustrating because we know they're not necessary, and serve only to slow our own opportunities to experience great innovations. But, remain optimistic that as those roadblocks are cleared away, there will continue to be so much more that's wonderful to be optimistic about. Once again, a huge thank you to everyone who makes up the Techdirt community. While there may have been frustrating stories along the way, look at how far we've come. It's been a great year for the community as well, as it's grown significantly in the last twelve months, with many wonderful and thoughtful new participants that have made the experience of managing this site that much more exciting and fun. In the past year, I also believe we've had many more insightful and enlightening discussions, which I look forward to continuing in the new year. We've also got some goodies that we've been working on which will be coming during the year, so stay tuned...

Filed Under: innovation, optimism, pessimism

Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?

from the please-explain dept

A few months back a columnist for the Guardian, Helienne Lindvall wrote a laughably confused argument claiming that people who explained how "free" was an important element of a business model should not be trusted because they also made money. That made no sense, and lots of people explained why. She also got an awful lot of the basic facts wrong.

Lindvall is back, and rather than admitting her mistakes, she tries again, but comes across as even more confused and factually-challenged. The majority of the piece is about setting up more strawmen to knock over, with the two key ones being (1) that supporters of embracing new business models are "defeatist" because they suggest that file sharing cannot be stopped and (2) that while record labels may have ripped off musicians in the past, the companies ripping off musicians today are the "web 2.0" companies that are making money on content -- such as Google, Flickr and others.

Neither argument makes much sense when held up to any scrutiny. Lindvall seems to make the same mistake she made in her first piece (for which, I do not believe she has yet apologized). She takes a tiny part of an argument that someone has made, and pretends it's the entire argument. Just like she claimed that those who embrace free as a part of their business model are somehow being hypocritical in making money elsewhere, she now claims that people's entire argument is based on a tiny sliver of their argument, and ignores the important part.

The problem with her first strawman is that people aren't saying be "defeatist," and just accept that file sharing is file sharing and give up. They're saying that if file sharing isn't going away, and (here's the part she misses) you can use that to your advantage to make more money, why bother worrying about file sharing as being some sort of evil? The second strawman is a bit more nefarious, but goes back to the fallacy that web 2.0 sites are some sort of digital sharecropping, with the users "giving up everything," and the content creators getting nothing. That, of course, is hogwash. The reason people use these services is that they get something in return. What people like Lindvall forget or ignore is that in the days before YouTube, if you wanted to post your own video, you had to (a) buy expensive media serving software from the likes of Real Networks (b) install the crappy software and maintain it (c) host the files yourself, costing you server space (d) stream or download the files yourself, costing bandwidth. Then YouTube came along and made all of that both easy and free -- and you still want to complain that they're ripping you off? Seriously?

Fine: let's make a deal. For any project that Helienne Lindvall is involved in, she cannot make use of these tools which offer free services. Instead, she must set up the technology on her own server, and host and pay for all of it herself. Otherwise, she's just supporting the digital sharecroppers, right?

There are a few other whoppers in the article as well, such as this one:

Doctorow pointed out that numerous authors give away their work, while earning good money on the lecture circuit. I don't doubt that this model works for some authors, but there are fundamental differences between books and music.

Producing a record -- as opposed to writing most books -- tends to be a team effort involving a producer (sometimes several of them) and songwriters who are not part of the act, studio engineers and a whole host of people who don't earn money from merchandise and touring -- people who no one would pay to make personal appearances.

I love the "but we're different!" argument, because it comes up in every industry. I was just in Hollywood, where I explained how musicians were actually making use of these models and someone got upset and said "but we're the movie industry, and we're different!" Earlier this year, I met with a publisher, who also was looking at these models, and again exclaimed that "but book publishing is different!" Everyone wants to believe they're different, but everyone faces the same basic economics. Also, I'd imagine that my friends in the publishing industry would be pretty upset with Lindvall's false claim that a book is not a team effort. You have publishers and editors and agents, all of whom often take on quite similar roles to producers and songwriters and engineers.

That said, the really ridiculous part of her complaint here is that the same people she complains don't earn money from merchandise or touring also don't earn money from record sale royalties for the most part. There are some exceptions, but most of them are paid a flat-fee for their work, and that doesn't change either way under the new models, so her complaint here doesn't make sense. If a content creator can make money giving away some works for free, they can still afford to pay the fees for those who help out. The entire argument that an engineer "doesn't tour" is specious. The engineer doesn't make money from CD sales either.

Finally. Lindvall must be the first person to describe Jaron Lanier as an optimist, since he came out with his incredibly pessimistic book about how the internet was destroying everything good and holy in the world.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, helienne lindvall, optimism

Progress And Innovation Cannot Be Stopped -- Merely Hindered

from the frustration-and-optimism dept

A few years ago, after receiving an email from someone who was "upset" by all the "bad news" on Techdirt, I wrote up a post for New Year's on reasons to stay happy, pointing out that while we highlight all sorts of annoying stuff going on in the world, we shouldn't lose sight of the larger view: of all the wonderful, amazing and innovative stuff that is happening despite ridiculous efforts to protect old business models and hinder innovation. It really is amazing when you look back at how much the world has changed in just such a short time, and it's to be celebrated. Yes, there are lots of posts on Techdirt about ridiculous efforts to hold back innovation, and we discuss them and complain about them, because in true Louis CK fashion, we always want things to be even better. It's that drive -- that compulsion to improve things that propels the world forward.

Just recently, I received a similar email to the one that led me to writing that post, from a reader named Craig. I wrote back and pointed him to that original post on staying happy, but have been thinking about the issue a bit more, after another reader, Mark B alerted us to a book review in the NY Times about the new book by Matt Ridley called The Rational Optimist. I haven't read it yet, but from the NY Times' review, it sounds like it fits nicely into the world view that we take around here, and should mix nicely with some of my favorite books.

One of my favorite books on economics, which I've recommended in the past, is David Warsh's absolutely fantastic book, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations, which among other things, gives you a highly readable and entertaining history of economic thought from Adam Smith up to just about a decade ago, with a key focus on the economics of information. There are some points in the book where I think Warsh defers to Paul Romer's vision too much (and misses a key mistake in Romer's work...), but overall it's an absolutely fantastic work.

One of the key points it makes, in a rather humorous fashion, is how incredibly wrong the doomsayers of economic history always seem to be -- mainly because they were confused about the economics of information, and how that plays into economic growth. While most people know the hilariously wrong predictions of Malthus, Warsh's book also covers the lovely story of William Stanley Jevons, the 19th century economist:

More than ever, it seemed apparent that scarcity sooner or later was going to bring all economic growth to a halt. Jevons gained fame in England in the 1860s by explaining how the looming exhaustion of British coal mines would probably mean the end of improvements in wealth and power. (Oil was discovered in Pennsylvania four years later.) And after Jevons died, in 1882, his study was discovered to be filled from top to bottom with stacks of scrap paper. Soon enough England would be running out of paper too. He didn't want to be caught without.

One of the great parts of the book is its discussion of William Nordhaus' wonderful research into the history of lighting and productivity, which is pretty interesting if you geek out on economics stuff.

Anyway, I'm reminded of all this because it looks like Ridley's book also keys in on Nordhaus' work, and makes similar points about economic growth and progress. Ridley, rather ambitiously, appears to try to look back at the history of innovation, and finds that governments tend to get in the way more than anything. Innovation tends to come from more open markets and more ability to engage in free trade, without restrictions and protectionism:

Rulers like to take credit for the advances during their reigns, and scientists like to see their theories as the source of technological progress. But Dr. Ridley argues that they've both got it backward: traders' wealth builds empires, and entrepreneurial tinkerers are more likely to inspire scientists than vice versa. From Stone Age seashells to the steam engine to the personal computer, innovation has mostly been a bottom-up process.

And the key to all of this? As we've been discussing for years, Ridley claims it's the rapid combination and sharing of ideas:

"The modern world is a history of ideas meeting, mixing, mating and mutating," Dr. Ridley writes. "And the reason that economic growth has accelerated so in the past two centuries is down to the fact that ideas have been mixing more than ever before."

And the only thing that gets in the way of that? Bad gov't policy designed to "protect" where it is not needed:

Our progress is unsustainable, he argues, only if we stifle innovation and trade, the way China and other empires did in the past. Is that possible? Well, European countries are already banning technologies based on the precautionary principle requiring advance proof that they're risk-free. Americans are turning more protectionist and advocating byzantine restrictions like carbon tariffs. Globalization is denounced by affluent Westerners preaching a return to self-sufficiency.

But, he finds that innovation is likely to route around these kinds of restrictions in the long run, because the process of innovation cannot be stopped in the long run, merely slowed down:

But with new hubs of innovation emerging elsewhere, and with ideas spreading faster than ever on the Internet, Dr. Ridley expects bottom-up innovators to prevail. His prediction for the rest of the century: "Prosperity spreads, technology progresses, poverty declines, disease retreats, fecundity falls, happiness increases, violence atrophies, freedom grows, knowledge flourishes, the environment improves and wilderness expands."

Seem crazily optimistic? Perhaps, but I probably fall into that same camp as well. I agree that, in the long run, innovation does prevail, and it's worth being happy and optimistic. If so many of the stories on Techdirt often feel negative or frustrated over the actions of certain industries or politicians, it's mainly because their actions and the (un?)intended consequences of those actions only serve to get in the way -- temporarily, but sometimes significantly -- of that innovation, progress and prosperity from happening. So be frustrated and annoyed at what's happening, but recognize that overall progress is not stopped, it's just slower than it could be.

Filed Under: future, innovation, optimism

Nordic Music Week: Optimism Galore And Found Songs

from the good-times dept

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Nordic Music Week event held in Stavanger, Norway. It was a smaller event, mainly involving those involved in the music industry in the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland), with a heavy emphasis on independent musicians, as there were no major label representatives there. As such, the event was quite different than most of the typical music industry events I go to. There was very little fretting and worrying about "piracy" and such, and most of the discussions were quite forward looking and forward thinking. In fact, I'd say much of the event was downright optimistic about where the music industry was heading. While there were many great discussions (and I liked the fact that much of the event was focused around open table discussions, rather than just presentations), one of the most interesting presentations was by Òlafur Arnalds, an Icelandic musician, who started his presentation off by saying he disagreed with me and my presentation (which had been an updated variation on my NARM presentation), and had adjusted his presentation to be a response of sorts to mine. Except it wasn't. His presentation was yet another great example of a musician who understood exactly what works in the industry, even as he thought he disagreed with me. We later chatted briefly about it, and realized we're actually very much in agreement about where we stand on the industry. The confusion came about because he is really focused on the music, and felt that my presentation focused too much on the money aspect.

And, indeed, my presentation did focus somewhat on how to make money, but that's because if I just focus on the music, people complain that no one will make money and then no one will make music. But, of course, that's ridiculous. None of these models work particularly well if you don't make great music. And Òlafur Arnalds makes great music -- and once we started talking, even he admitted that in order to do what he does, he needs (and wants) to make a living (which he does). And his actual presentation was about how to do just that. It was all about how he closely connected with his fans and gave them a reason to buy (even if he didn't like to think that way). Instead, he noted that he needed to come up with a good story to go with the music, that would help attract his fans, better connect them to him while also giving them a reason to support him monetarily.

So, with that idea (having a story behind the music) as his basis, he came up with a great project called 'Found Songs', where he would write, record and release a new song every single day for seven straight days. He did it all out of his bedroom. His fans then stepped up and created artwork for each song, and in some cases, amazing videos, such as this one below, which is truly beautiful, and within days had thousands upon thousands of views: You can watch the videos, look at the artwork people created for the songs and even download all the songs for free as mp3s. But, there's also a store where you can buy the beautifully packaged vinyl or CD versions of the album, and some higher quality digital downloads. In other words, it was yet another perfect example of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy (and, yes, it involved great music as well -- which is, in fact, key). The importance of having a good story to go along with things, as we've seen with other projects, is a particularly good point. And, again, it shows how an infinite good (a good story) can increase the value of a scarce good (the products you're selling). He also showed how his own fanbase increased massively after doing this project -- much more so than when he was out opening for Sigur Rós. So, in the end, we absolutely agreed, and I found out about some more great music and yet another great story and example to go along with all the others.

Beyond that, I met a bunch of fascinating people doing very interesting and unique things in the music industry in the Nordic region. All of the Nordic countries are working hard to help enable their bands to adapt to a changing music environment, and there are definitely some very creative indie labels, artists and managers who are thinking through and implementing some great ideas that left me quite enthusiastic for what comes next. I also got a chance to meet Moto Boy, who took part in our CwF+RtB experiment, and see him perform live (which was fantastic). Overall, a very encouraging trip.

Filed Under: moto boy, music, nordic music, norway, olafur arnalds, optimism

Last Chance For The Old Recording Industry... But Plenty Of Excitement In The New Music Industry

from the time-to-be-optimistic dept

I spent Monday at the wonderful SanFran MusicTech Summit and I have to admit that I came away quite optimistic. You may recall earlier this year that my takeaway from MidemNet was how optimistic people were becoming -- but how much the old school industry folks then took that optimism and twisted it into something bad (saying things like "we have to stop treating our fans as criminals, but we need to stomp out piracy at any cost!"). In contrast, I have to say that after the SF MusicTech event, I'm back to the optimistic viewpoint, though I recognize there's still plenty of shaking out to occur.

Terry McBride, whose insights always are worth thinking deeply about, made a comment that this was "the last chance for the music industry" to stop screwing things up and pissing off customers, and that it was time to get it right: meaning stop treating customers as criminals, stop focusing on the sale of things that people don't want to pay for and stop worrying about copyright (he even agreed with David Bowie's comment that copyright was over). I agree with much of what McBride said, with one exception: this isn't the last chance for the music industry. The music industry is doing great -- with more music than ever before being produced and available to fans, and more musicians than ever before being able to connect directly with fans and put in place a business model that works for them, instead of getting worked over by a major label with a dreadful contract. Instead, I'd argue that it's the major labels who have one more chance... and even that may be iffy given how badly they've screwed some stuff up in the past decade.

But much of the rest of the event showed why there's so much reason for optimism. There are so many different startups entering the space these days that it's honestly difficult to keep track of them. And while the market is certainly confusing, we'll start to see some clear leaders shake out of the pack in the next few years. But, combine it all and these startups provide all of the tools that any musician today needs to record, perform, build a fan base, manage a fan base, tour, manage a tour, connect with fans, communicate with fans, transact with fans, promote, distribute, analyze and share. Basically, absolutely everything that you used to need a record label for is showing up from a hodge podge of startups. They don't all necessarily work well or work together, but that'll change over time. On top of this, there are additional tools that let you do things that simply weren't possible before, such as providing better, more detailed recommendation systems and analytics. Among the cool or compelling companies I saw or spoke with at the event were Band Metrics, Topspin, Bandize, 100000Fans, Instinctiv, Jamendo, Drop.io, thesixtyone... and those were just the ones that I'm remembering off the top of my head. There were at least two dozen other interesting startups as well.

Again, this doesn't mean there's no room for a label anymore -- but the role of that label changes. Some bands won't need labels at all, and will be able to manage everything themselves using these tools and services. Others will rely on label reps to help piece all of the different services together, so they can focus on the music. But the routes around the old system are growing at a phenomenal rate. On top of that, there were some major label representatives who actually seem to recognize all of this, even if not all of their colleagues agree.

So while I am still nervous about what the old guard and its lobbyists will do to laws around the globe, the next generation is clearly growing up from below. It's quite messy right now, but it's coming. Fast.

Filed Under: music industry, optimism, recording industry, startups
Companies: 100000fans, band metrics, bandize, drop.io, instinctiv, jamendo, thesixtyone, topspin

Recording Industry, Once Again, Stomps Out Optimism

from the it's-what-they-do-best dept

My initial summary of my trip to the Midem music industry event in January was that it was about turning "optimism into denial." There was a tremendous sense of optimism from all sorts of upstarts: musicians and companies who were really innovating and creating wonderful success stories over and over again. And then... the old school industry guys showed up. They spoke about the optimism and the success stories... and said a few things that made it sound like the got it. They talked about ending this "war" with consumers, and focusing on solutions that worked. But, then the clouds would descend, and they'd immediately start angrily saying that even with these great new business models and innovations, "we need to stomp out piracy." In doing so, they demonstrated how severely they missed the point -- and it's now showing in their actions. We've been seeing more braindead maneuvers over the last month with highly questionable lawsuits, and licensing decisions that only serve to piss off users.

It seems that my initial read is (unfortunately) the same conclusion others are coming to as well. Two of the "industry insiders" I got to meet at the event -- who both came down on the "optimistic" side at the event have each written up blog posts for the MidemNet blog, complaining about the very same thing. That initial sense of optimism that was seen at the event has pretty much gone away -- crushed by dumb moves within the industry. Ted Cohen, who helped moderate much of the event, diplomatically points out that for all the talk of collaboration at the event, the chaos isn't over, and he wonders when we'll actually get down to business. Meanwhile, Bruce Houghton (of the excellent Hypebot blog) more specifically fears that all the talk of a more collaborative approach was nothing more than talk -- and there is no intention to really collaborate.

This is a pretty big problem -- and I obviously won't speak for either Bruce or Ted, who I'm pretty sure would disagree with this assessment -- but, it won't change until the old system and the old structures and the "old guard" are finally pushed out. There are tons of success stories -- but those are in spite of the industry, not because of it. It's time to wipe out the house of cards that the industry has built in terms of Rube Goldbergian copyright licensing schemes, and start fresh. There are business models that work great for everyone -- but the current system is designed to allow bystanders and middlemen to profit at the expense of the musicians and the public. Get rid of the old system, and everyone but those middlemen will benefit.

Filed Under: bruce houghton, business models, collaboration, midem, music, optimism, ted cohen

Some Much Needed Optimism In The Journalism World

from the look-at-the-opportunities dept

There have been a large number of "downer" stories recently on the newspaper business -- which has certainly been struggling. But there are a few stories coming out that highlights how, like any challenge, for some this really represents a big opportunities. First, there's a post by Steve Outing, where he talks about an (as yet unnamed) group of recently laid off journalists from a major newspaper who are actually using their severance packages to start an online competitor. Who knows if it will succeed (and, I'd worry that just bringing in old newspaper guys alone won't be enough), but it is interesting that they're basically using the severance packages to bootstrap the new organization.

Next up, courtesy of Mathew Ingram is a discussion on why the current crisis in newspapers should lead to better journalism. This goes against the hand-wringing of many in the industry right now who seem to think that as newspapers go under -- so does journalism. That, of course, makes the huge mistake in assuming that journalism only comes from newspapers. The discussion includes a long list of things that will get better once the old structures go away, and new opportunities are embraced. You should read the whole thing, but it includes a recognition that the online world will likely create more respect for the audience, more reporters & more reporting, better reporting since the audience is more involved in the process and more ways to tell a story. That all sounds good.

And finally, for those of you still clinging to the idea that physical newspapers are the preferred medium, Ken Paulson recently gave a speech, where he outlined an alternate reality where the newspaper was invented after the internet. The point was to highlight the "advantages" that a newspaper provides to the internet. I'm not so sure that the advantages are really all that compelling in most cases, but it does show that perhaps the newspapers bemoaning the supposed death of print should be a bit more focused on providing more value, rather than complaining about the internet.

Filed Under: newspapers, optimism

On Staying Happy

from the happy-new-year dept

A few weeks ago, we got an email sent to the feedback box that asked how we can possibly stay upbeat. I have to apologize because I can't find the email anymore -- so I don't remember who sent it -- but he pointed out that while he really enjoyed reading Techdirt and liked what we had to say, the stories about corporate cluelessness, political corruption and short-sighted thinking were so consistently frustrating and depressing that there were times he considered giving up on reading Techdirt -- if just to keep himself from banging his head against the wall. He wanted to know how we possibly stayed upbeat, and kept positive enough to avoid giving ourselves heart attacks. I didn't get a chance to email him back, but wanted to address the question here as my final post of 2008.

Techdirt has been going strong since 1997, so it's not like we're new to covering these sorts of things. But, in the end, I personally stay extremely happy and optimistic because I see how far we've come -- and I recognize the inevitable outcome of most of these debates. Yes, we point out plenty of bad stuff, but it's not about complaining about how terrible things are -- but about trying to help open some eyes to the possibilities of moving forward, adapting and embracing new technological possibilities. And, while there are some extremely loud and public holdouts, every day we're seeing examples of it working. We see the inevitable results of technological change in enabling new and powerful business models that greatly expand markets, provide consumers with much more than before, and enable new innovations that you might never have thought were possible before.

The internet is a phenomenal communications tool that very few people had even heard of not so long ago. The world wide web only came into being slightly more than fifteen years ago. The ability to go online and find just about anything you need in seconds is a brand new phenomenon. The fact that you can talk to people, easily, in far away places -- make new connections, share stories, exchange ideas, debate, argue and connect, well beyond your local community -- is all simply amazing. Beyond online communications, the internet has provided new and amazing tools for business, commerce, entertainment and information that were nearly impossible to imagine by all but the most visionary people just a few decades ago.

How can you not be optimistic and excited when you look back at how far we've come in such a short time, and think about how much further we can go?

Yes, we're in the midst of a brutal financial mess -- but that won't stop innovation. Yes, incumbent forces, with short-sighted plans and a desire to hold back the tides are annoying and disruptive (not in a good way) in the short run. But even they are finding they can't hold back progress. Robert Friedel has a wonderful book called A Culture of Improvement that details how we, as a society, are constantly looking to improve on what we already have. We add ideas and ingenuity to old concepts and build something better -- not because of the desire to grab some "intellectual property," but because of the desire to improve our own lot, to build a better tool that we want to use. Incumbent short-sighted players have been able to hinder and harm progress, but they can't keep it down completely. That culture of improvement can't be stopped entirely.

There is, of course, plenty to be vigilant about, of course. Bad and corrupt political moves can seriously stunt economic improvement, but history has shown that such periods are often short-lived, as the need for continued economic growth and advancement is impossible to stomp out completely -- and as it seeps out through the cracks, legacy businesses crumble, and outdated political rules and short-sighted policies are pushed to the side. Yes, more come along, often as the innovators of yesterday seek to stop the innovators of tomorrow, but the march of innovation hasn't been stopped yet.

So, yes, we rant and rage against short-sighted policies, and efforts that hinder and delay the inevitable, but we're excited and optimistic and happy about what we see as the eventual possibilities from that advancement and innovation. Any "anger" or "unhappiness" we might display is more frustration at ourselves for not being able to clearly paint a picture -- for those seeking to hold back progress -- of just what opportunities moving forward provides.

As we move into 2009, there are plenty of things to be worried about, but look around at what progress has brought to us already, and look at the trends and the obvious direction in which technology is taking us -- there's so much to look forward to, it's hard to let any depression seep into the discussion at all. Happy New Year to all of the many readers of Techdirt, whether you agree with us or disagree with us, and we look forward to seeing what great new things come about in the new year and beyond.

Filed Under: happiness, optimism

Dueling Headlines On The Online Ad Market: Half-Full Or Half-Empty

from the depends-on-who-you-read dept

I just saw a bunch of headlines fly by and the contrast in them seemed worth noting. Here are just a few, with a brief intro based on whether it's a glass half-full headline or a glass half-empty headline:

• Good News!: U.S. Online Advertising Up 15.2%
• Bad News!: US Online Ad Growth Slows in 2008's First Half
• Good News!: Online ad revenue strong first half of 2008: What about the second half?
• Bad News!: As we fill tanks, growth in Net ads slows
• Good News!: Search-ad revenues grow amid market malaise
• Bad News!: Online Ad Growth Declines in First Half 2008
• Good News!: Internet marketing sees "incredible" spending increase

The most accurate may be from the AFP, who notes: Internet advertising revenue up but slowing, and the LA Times: Internet advertising grows slightly, but analysts worry about the future. Basically, the numbers are still up but at a slower pace than in the past. How you interpret that, apparently, depends on whether you're fundamentally an optimist or a pessimist. It seems pretty clear that there's still plenty of money heading into the online advertising world -- and it was going to plateau at some point. You can't keep up ridiculous growth levels at all times, especially when the broader economy runs into trouble. Plus, the fact that a healthy percentage of online advertising was tied to the mortgage/loan/financial services industry -- you'd have to expect some slowing of growth. No matter what you believe the future holds for the online ad market, you have to admit the juxtaposition of headlines is rather amusing.

Perhaps much more interesting, however, is this analysis of what happened to the advertising market during the Great Depression. It found that while some companies shied away from advertising, the ones that did well focused in on more effective advertising, which worked wonders. So the advertising market itself didn't collapse, it just got more focused, and those who used it wisely ended up doing quite well.

Filed Under: online advertising, optimism, pessimism

It's Not Internet Pessimists vs. Internet Optimists; It's Simply Reality

from the the-market-is-changing dept

Adam Thierer has tried to categorize a bunch of different book authors and internet "thinkers" into one of two camps: internet optimists and internet pessimists. I'm somewhat surprised to be included among the optimists for a few reasons -- not the least of which is that I'm surprised to see my name included with a lot of folks who are a lot more prestigious. I don't belong in such a group.

That said, I'm a bit torn about the overall chart. I am optimistic about what new technologies and innovation allow, but I hardly think of myself as an idealist -- and tend to agree with Adam that things like wikis don't solve everything, and that we haven't reached a post-capitalist world where traditional means of production are passe. However, perhaps I'm misreading some of the other "optimists" on the list, but I don't think anyone really believes that either. As I've pointed out in the past, none of what we talk about here is about any fundamental change or shift in economics. It's the same old economics that has applied for ages. It's just trying to explain how changes in technology impact those economics.

So, I agree that it's silly to think that peer production completely replaces professional production means, but that's another extreme scenario that I don't think very many are actually pitching. Instead, the point that they're making is that peer production models will also enter the market, meaning that traditional business models will face some competition. It doesn't mean that one wins out entirely over the other, just that it may force some models of production to adjust to the reality of the market. I don't necessarily think that's an optimistic viewpoint -- it's just a realistic explanation of what's happening. While some pessimists may not like it, they're basically just whining for a different world that doesn't exist any more, and don't like the fact that they can't continue to live in that world.

I also disagree that the "optimists" don't believe in property rights, as Thierer implies. I'm a huge believer in property rights. My point is simply that "property" needs to be applied properly -- meaning not to infinite goods, where it doesn't make much sense. So while I can see where Adam is going with this chart, I'm not sure the characterizations really fit.

Filed Under: authors, internet, optimism, pessimism