That Mythical 'Information Wants To Be Free' Crowd

from the help-us-out-here dept

Jay Rosen is doing a brilliant job highlighting the rather silly trend among folks who think they're "debunking" the economics of free to build up complete strawmen often identified as "the information wants to be free crowd." However, as Rosen notes, none of those critics ever links to anyone in particular or defines who they're arguing against or what it is they actually said. There's a good reason for that, of course. Usually those folks are arguing against a myth. They don't want to argue against the actual economics or what folks who understand where free fits into the wider economic landscape are actually saying. They want to throw up a punching bag (usually something along the lines of "everything must be free!") which they can knock down without anyone punching back. But that's not because they're right, but because they're arguing against a myth. No one claims everything (even information) must be free. Most (and in this group I include folks like Kevin Kelly, Chris Anderson, Stewart Brand and others) are simply pointing to the basic economic forces on information. If you don't understand what those forces are, then you will be overwhelmed by them. But simply claiming that any one in that group is saying that everything must be free is flat out wrong.

Filed Under: chris anderson, economics, free, kevin kelly, stewart brand, strawmen

Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

I guess it's natural to lash out at technologies and companies that undermine a business model built up on artificial barriers and scarcity, but it won't do much good in terms of actually adapting. But it's kind of amusing when it's done at the same time that someone is embracing those new technologies as they undermine other business models at the same time. Taylor Davidson points us to a photographer bashing the idea that microstock sites like iStockPhoto help "create new markets." It's actually been really depressing to see so many photographers react so poorly to new technologies, and this case is no exception. In the ranting post, he compares microstock sites to pollution in China and drug dealing. All the rant really screams out is "I'm so set in my ways that I can't compete or adapt my business model."

However, the really amusing part is highlighted by an anonymous commenter on the site who mocks the photographer for whining about how microstock sites are undercutting his old business model at the same time that he's advertising his own books and services online, rather than advertising in newspapers and phone books. As the commenter notes:

If everyone is supposed to stop posting their photos and selling to istock, how about photographers stop using the Web and advertise in phone books and newspapers so those jobs aren't lost? And maybe you can go back to using film instead of digital so that film manufacturers aren't put out of business? Sounds like to me you're all for taking advantage of technology except when others doing it hurts your bottom line.

And that's really a key point. Technology changes markets, and the more you look, the more you realize that it almost always enlarges the overall market for those who take advantage of it. Yes, there's more competition in the photographer market, and the model for stock photography has changed. But the nice thing about the microstock market is that it has opened new markets. A lot more people can and do buy stock photos than did in the past. If I can't find a decent Creative Commons/public domain photo for presentations, I'll go in search of one I can license from a microstock photo site in a second, because it'll just cost $1 or so. So I actually end up spending a fair amount on stock photos in the course of a regular year. Compare that to the situation seven years ago when we were working on a revamp of our corporate website. We went in search of a photo to use, and the licensing deals we saw wanted about $1,000 for just one year of usage. That meant we spent nothing, because that just doesn't make sense.

So, yes, the economics are changing, but if you're smart, you can take advantage of it. It may mean moving beyond just the stock photo market, or using such photographs (or even giving away works for free) to build up reputation for freelance or custom assignments. Most photographers I know never made much money from stock photos anyway, finding much more value in commissioned work. And recently, I've been hearing of success stories from some really good photographers who have used their existing work, given away for free, as strong advertising to get more (and more lucrative) commissions.

In the end, it really comes down to how you deal with it. Do you whine and stomp your feet and compare the new world to pollution? Or do you figure out how to adapt? Economic progress doesn't care in the slightest how much you liked how things used to be.

Filed Under: economics, markets, microstock, photography

Mainstream Press Waking Up To The News That Musicians Are Making More Money

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

I believe that we were the first publication to report on the study released by PRS in the UK, way back in July, indicating that overall music revenue was up, even as the sale of recorded music was dropping. It showed how live revenue was making up a good part of the difference, and other aspects of the business were making up more than the rest. While we've pointed to that study numerous times in the meantime, we've been quite surprised that no mainstream press picked up on this seemingly remarkable news -- as it went against the prevailing favored narrative (as pushed by the RIAA) that the music industry was in trouble. Especially when combined with the recent Harvard study by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf, that also showed that revenue in the overall music ecosystem was significantly higher today than in the past, it really was quite amazing that the press (and politicians) continued to spread the lie that the music industry was in some sort of trouble. It's not. It's only the business of selling plastic discs that's in trouble.

The good news is that the mainstream press seems to finally be waking up to this. As a bunch of you sent in, the Times Online in the UK has published a nice study highlighting the PRS numbers, complete with some very nice charts, showing that musicians themselves are making more than ever. The other interesting part: for all the talk about how recorded music sales losses are hurting artists, the chart proves the point we've made over and over again: musicians see such a tiny part of recorded music sales that this has had almost no impact on their revenue at all. The amount of money musicians make from recorded revenue has remained just about constant.
Source: Times Online Labs blog

It's great that the press is finally starting to dig into this -- and the Times Online even admits that perhaps it should not have let Lily Allen claim in its own pages how much "harm" was being done to artists due to file sharing, because the numbers simply don't support it (of course, we pointed this out when the whole Allen mess was going on...).

Now, some people have raised some concerns over the numbers -- specifically, there have been some claims that the "live" numbers are distorted due to so-called "heritage" acts and legacy acts, who have been around forever and still pack large stadiums with increasingly higher ticket prices. And, indeed, that almost certainly has some impact on the numbers. It would be nice to see a similar report that starts to break out some of the details -- and we've been talking to a few people who are trying to dig deeper into the amount of "live" and "alternative" revenue streams to better understand where the money is going. Hopefully we'll have more complete data soon, but the initial things I've seen suggest that the original point remains true. Artists across the entire spectrum of the industry are making more in live revenues than they have in the past -- and, in part, the increase in live revenue is due to file sharing. In talking to different musicians, we've been hearing plenty of stories about how they're strategically pushing free versions of their songs on local audiences before embarking on tours or even individual shows -- and they're seeing larger turnouts than in the past because of it.

Hopefully, with more mainstream publications finally picking up on this, both the press and politicians will begin to recognize that the only real "crisis" in the music industry is for those who have stupidly relied on selling plastic discs for way too long. There are plenty of revenue opportunities for musicians, and because of that (in combination with better and cheaper tools for music creation), the actual music industry is thriving at levels never seen before.

Filed Under: economics, music, studies, uk

Information Should Not Be Free... Says InfoWorld Columnist That You Can Read For Free

from the just-saying dept

Doug sent over a link to an angry screed by columnist Bill Snyder that bashes anyone who thinks anything should be offered for free. Want to read it? Go ahead, because it's free at InfoWorld.

And, of course, that's the problem with Snyder's analysis. It doesn't take into account the wider business model. The reason that Snyder's article is available for free is because InfoWorld has decided that it has a better chance of monetizing that content by offering it for free and selling advertising. It's other option would be to charge people directly to read Snyder's economically confused analysis -- but then no one might pay. So which makes more sense? According to Snyder, the latter.

Snyder also takes on the scourge of free WiFi, that pretty quickly showed that paid WiFi is a niche market, only working where you have limited and captive audiences (and even it is under greater and greater competitive threats). Unfortunately, his economic analysis is misguided:

News and Wi-Fi service are commodities, just like cars, housing, and food are commodities. Labor and raw materials, as well as the capital to buy them, are the essential ingredients of most any good or service we might care to own or consume. No money, no commodity -- that's a basic economic principle that the digital revolution has done nothing to change.

Sounds good, but it's wrong. Very wrong. Yes, they're commodities, but the defining rule of a commodity is that it is priced on the marginal cost, not the fixed costs. And yet, Synder suddenly thinks that while that applies to cars, housing and food... it goes away in the digital world? The only person really claiming that the economics has changed is Snyder, in insisting that digital products do not adhere to the same laws of supply and demand.

Snyder seems positively confused that free is a part of a larger business model:

I don't write for free, my editors don't edit for free, and I'll bet your IT hands don't run networks or produce code for free.

And yet, your content is available for free. Funny how that works. Why does it work? Because it makes good business sense. But, to Snyder, when this is pointed out, he gets confused and thinks that it proves his point:

I know, I know -- some of you are going to bring up open source.

Sorry, that proves my point. Open source has grown in influence and quality in the last few years as business models in the community have evolved. Not too long ago, any open source company that dared post a paid or paid-support enterprise version of its software would be pilloried. But not any more. The recession has put many excellent technologists out of work, but there would be even fewer employed if open source companies were afraid to make a profit, then plow it back into development projects and expanded infrastructure.

Just ask the open source millionaires at MySQL if they think everything they produce should be free.

Snyder figured out the wrong thing. Yes, getting paid is important, but the question is what you get paid for, and he's asking people to charge for the parts of a business that make the most sense being free -- and doesn't explain why he gets to decide what should be free and what shouldn't. The answer, really, is that none of us decides: basic economics tells us. If you have a competitive product with no marginal cost, it's going to eventually get driven to free. Whether you like it or not. And then you shouldn't whine about the evils of "free." You should instead figure out ways to use that to your advantage.

Filed Under: bill snyder, economics, free, information

Is WIPO Taking An Evidence-Based Approach To IP Enforcement?

from the finally dept

While the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is often seen as being inherently in favor of stronger intellectual property rights, every so often, the organization shows itself open to more reasonable approaches. A few years back, for example, it questioned the evidence on patents, and had trouble finding any real evidence that stronger patents resulted in greater innovation. Now, via Slashdot, we hear about a discussion at WIPO concerning "enforcement" issues where a number of papers were presented that pushed back on excessive pro-IP positions. These included a paper by WIPO Chief Economist, Carsten Fink, which calls out many of the previous studies on "losses" due to counterfeiting and piracy, and notes how misguided many of them are. While I think Fink uses some outdated and since disproved economic theory in his paper, overall it's nice to see at least some acknowledgment of moving more towards evidence based policy setting, rather than the maximalist's default "more is better" position.

Filed Under: copyright, economics, evidence-based, intellectual property, wipo

WSJ Editor: Those Who Believe Content Should Be Free Are Neanderthals

from the that,-or-people-who-understand-economics dept

Danny Sullivan has an excellent analysis of some of the more ridiculous statements from WSJ managing editor, Robert Thompson, trashing pretty much everything online. Most of Sullivan's analysis focuses on how ridiculous it is for Thompson to claim that Google makes news readers "promiscuous," so I won't address that again (though, you really should read Sullivan's writeup). Instead, I wanted to focus in one little bit that Sullivan mentions, but doesn't explore too much (other than to mention how insulting it is). Thompson declares that there are "three types of people" online, starting with:

There are the net neanderthals who think everything should be free all the time.

Pretty scary that someone who's the managing editor of the most well known and well-respected business newspaper out there thinks this, huh? First off, I don't know anyone who thinks "everything should be free all the time." People are more than willing to pay for scarce goods of value. Where they fundamentally have issues is with being charged for content that can be made free at no additional cost. And that's not "neanderthal" thinking, it's good old classic economics -- the kind we thought the WSJ supported.

And, of course, this also shows Thompson fundamentally not understanding the debate. For many, many years there's been plenty of "free content" in the terms of "free to the consumer" but which is supported in other ways. As Sullivan points out, News Corp., which owns the WSJ, also owns Fox -- which delivers free content, over the air, to consumers, but supported by advertising. Is that a Neanderthal opinion?

It really makes you wonder what they're thinking over at the WSJ or what sort of business smarts they have when they both consider Google to be a problem and think that basic economics on content pricing is "Neanderthal." It should call into question their thinking on other business topics as well. And, remember, this is the same company that is lashing out at "aggregators" like Google News, at the very same time that it's offering its own aggregator as well. If Thompson thinks Google News makes people promiscuous, why does his own site offer something similar?

Filed Under: content, economics, free, robert thompson

Trying To Explain The Economics Of Abundance In Two Minutes Or Less With A Whiteboard

from the well,-it's-something... dept

UPS recently asked us to create a series of three videos, where we try to explain some of the stuff we talk about here on Techdirt in under two minutes, using a white board. You can check out the first video here, where I attempt to give a quick visual explanation of the economics of abundance. It's a complicated topic -- so narrowing it down to less than a minute obviously involves simplifying some of the concepts greatly, but it should kick off a fun discussion. There are two more videos that will come out in the next few weeks. And... since we've been having this big disclosure discussion lately, yes, UPS sponsored these videos (as is clearly noted in the video itself), though we had free reign in creating the scripts. As you'll see, I think it's pretty clear that nothing in the videos is any different than what I normally say, and none of it is somehow "influenced" by UPS.

Filed Under: economics, economics of abundance

Three Economic Nobel Laureates In A Row Recognizing Power Of Infinite Goods

from the this-is-a-good-thing... dept

With the Nobel Prize in Economics being awarded to Elinor Ostrom (as well as Oliver Williamson) this year, plenty of people are noting that Ostrom's seminal work has to do with how the concept of "the tragedy of the commons" isn't really true in many cases, and how that "commons" can often self-regulate itself. And, Ostrom definitely recognizes how this applies to the "commons" that is the public domain. I didn't want to comment right away on this. While I've read Ostrom's work in the past, I wanted to revisit some of it, to refresh myself on it.

But what comes out in reading through her work is that she recognizes that government intervention -- such as with monopoly rights -- really doesn't make sense in many situations of "public goods." In a recent discussion on this site, people pointed to the concept of a "public good" as something that needs government intervention -- and I noted that more recent economic analysis showed that wasn't true at all. Ostrom's work is much of what kicked off that line of analysis (Coase deserves credit as well...). Her key finding was that in commons situations, the players can often work out perfectly reasonable solutions on their own, that don't involve regulatory efforts to put up fences or restrictions. The idea that a commons will automatically get overrun simply isn't true in practice. And that's exactly what we've seen in areas where there isn't intellectual property protections. The supposed fear of a "tragedy of the commons" never seems to show up. Instead, the markets adjust.

What struck me as really interesting, however, is that this is the second time in three years that the Nobel committee has awarded someone whose research highlights this point. In 2007, the award went to Eric Maskin, who has done work showing why patents can often be harmful (his focus was on software) -- again, suggesting that government intervention can be harmful in cases of "public goods." And, while it's less tied to the reasons why he got his Nobel or his core areas of research, last year's award winner, Paul Krugman, has recently come around to recognizing that "infinite goods" or public goods aren't a problem, but a potential opportunity as a market shifts.

It's nice to see the Nobel committee helping to get these ideas out there -- and highlighting the research that debunks the old wisdom that the answer to any public good is to create a gov't regulated monopoly system, rather than letting the market work out a solution on its own.

Filed Under: commons, economics, elinor ostrom, eric maskin, nobel prize, public goods, tragedy of the commons

Still Debating The Cost Of Ebooks

from the marginal-cost-people... dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about why it didn't make sense that ebooks were often so expensive given that the marginal cost of an ebook is much, much, much lower than a physical book. ChurchHatesTucker points us to a recent argument against that claim by Andrew Wheeler:

Creating an individual ebook format -- one of the current suite of them -- costs roughly as much as creating a print-on-paper edition; the costs of the actual paper and ink are vanishingly small in this equation. Some ebook formats, such as the currently fashionable one, have a baroque process of creation that involves multiple transformations and iterations of quality control, which drives up costs further. And the cost per unit is massively higher for ebooks than for printed books -- infinitely so in some cases, since there are plenty of ebook editions that have never sold a single copy.

Now, the issue here, of course, is a fundamental misunderstanding the difference between total cost (or average cost) and marginal cost. This happens a lot -- especially among non-economists. But it misses the point. Total cost is important in figuring out an overall business model, because obviously you want to be able to make more than it cost overall, but it's a terrible way of picking a price. That's because the driving force in pricing is the marginal cost. Meanwhile, CHT also points us to a good rebuttal to Wheeler from Paul Raven, where Raven basically says that Wheeler is doing things wrong:

I'm not going to refute the claim that ebooks currently cost a lot of money to make. I am, however, going to say that they shouldn't cost a lot of money to make, that they don't have to, and that the longer they do, the smaller the chances of them ever becoming a viable industry in their own right...

He goes on to note that part of the problem is with the publishers themselves, and their inability to come to terms on a standard (and open) format.

But there are other problems in the ebook publishing world as well -- where it appears that some publishers are less focused on figuring out how to use the technology to improve the experience for readers, and more about how to screw them over. Charlotte Payan-Salcedo discusses her her recent attempt to buy some ebooks, where she discovers that the ebooks she bought require special software to read, including DRM that limits where the books can be read... and then discovers that the books "expire" after 180 days. She doesn't say it, but I'm guessing these are actually textbooks (both from the price -- $180 for two ebooks) and from the claim that they expire. When textbook companies first started offering ebooks, many of them were designed to "expire" after the course was over. I hadn't looked at the etextbook market in a while, and had sorta expected (hoped?) this silly concept was gone -- but apparently not. It looks like in this case, the publishers have figured out how to provide none of the benefits of ebooks, but added all sorts of additional negatives.

Filed Under: cost, ebooks, economics

Why Fining People Can Actually Increase That Activity... An Economics Lesson

from the fascinating! dept

I was recently having a discussion with a friend where I pointed out one of the biggest mistakes that people make in trying to understand economics is to assume, incorrectly, that "marginal benefit" or "marginal cost" means money. And, yes, this is actually a mistake that many economists themselves make -- and, in part, it's because the marginal benefit is often measured in monetary terms. So, people seem to think that if there isn't a monetary component it doesn't count. This makes for silly statements like "economics doesn't properly understand how people act." Almost every time that's said, when you look at the details, it's wrong. It's just that people assume that because someone does something for a non-monetary reason, economics can't account for it. That's simply not true. If people do things for a non-monetary reason, it's because they're receiving marginal benefits in some other manner, whether it's attention, pride, happiness, joy or "just because I want to." Those are all marginal benefits.

In fact, Clive Thompson points us to a study that highlights this in a really strong way. It's a series of studies that show that when people overestimate the monetary benefits (or costs) and underestimate the nonmonetary ones, they often set up really bad incentives.

For example, they've found that fewer people give blood when they're paid for it. For someone who thinks only in terms of the monetary benefits, this would make no sense. Why would giving people money lead to less of the activity. But the reasoning is that the real marginal benefit that people get from giving blood is the belief that they're doing good in the world and helping to save lives. Getting paid for it, actually hinders that feeling, by making the whole thing feel like a transaction. And the money paid is apparently a lot less than the decreased "good feelings" from the marginal benefit.

On the flip side, other experiments showed that fining people over certain actions (such as picking up their kids from daycare too late), actually increased the number of tardy parents. Again, if you think of this solely in monetary terms, this makes no sense. It now costs more, monetarily, to be late to pick up a kid. But, in making it a monetary transaction, it removed non-monetary costs -- such as the "guilt" of being late. As the article notes:

The fine seems to have reduced their ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as simply a commodity they could purchase.

This is really fascinating stuff that is important for people to understand in setting up any sort of incentive structure. Money -- either on the cost or benefit side -- is not the only incentive. And thinking that it is often leads to miscalculating a series of other, potentially more important, costs and benefits. That doesn't mean that economics is wrong. It can handle all of that. The problem is when people assume that it's only the direct monetary costs and benefits that go into the equation. It is, unfortunately, a common problem, and leads to all sorts of confused thinking both about business models, but also about the economics profession itself.

Filed Under: economics, fines, incentives, marginal benefit, money