Why Discussing New Business Models That Work Is A Good Idea

from the not-a-responsibility,-but-helpful dept

Jack Zeal has a really interesting post over on Rick Falkvinge's InfoPolicy site, in which he argues that it's not "our" job to "fix" the broken business model of those who rely on copyright. He talks about having yet another discussion with the typical copyright system supporter, in which they make one of those "but without copyright..." arguments, and he starts pointing out alternative business models. However, he's come to believe that strategy is pointless because, effectively, it's not our job to fix your broken business model. And, to some extent, he's right. It's not our job to do so, but as someone who's been taking part in these discussions for a very long time, and who has spent an awful lot of time and effort highlighting successful new business model opportunities, I still think it's incredibly helpful and useful. I'll explain why by responding to each of Jack's points. To be clear, I don't think Jack's argument is a bad one, and I can understand the frustration, but I still think our focus is more productive long run.

If we propose specifics, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the “but what about A or B? Those couldn’t work with business model C!” It’s an unending cat-and-mouse game. The classic example is the old “How to finance a blockbuster-caliber movie?” trope. Nobody ever considers that maybe the current system is the reason movies have to cost that much, do they?

So? That's always true. People can always bring up a "what if?" and it's easy to then point out that there are similar "what ifs?" with the current system. To be honest, I've often found the "what if" discussions useful in thinking through even more new business model ideas, which is kind of cool.

If we offer generalities, like “Merchandise and sell experiences instead of commodities”, they tend to be shot down in snarky sound-bites, like “So bands will have to sell T-shirts instead of records?”

There are always going to be some people who misunderstand or (more likely) misrepresent your arguments. The "sell lots of t-shirts" trope is so common we used to sell an actual t-shirt that said "looooooooots of t-shirts" on it. And it was a decent seller! Point being: you'll never convince everyone -- especially those who have no interest in being convinced. But, having been at this for a long time, I can assure you that for every person misrepresenting such arguments, there are many others who are recognizing the truth of the opportunities opening up around them. I can't even begin to tell you how many content creators contact me talking about how they used to believe the old party line on copyright (or, more commonly, that they believed there was no hope for making money these days), but that they ended up becoming inspired by reading through some of the many examples of business models that worked.

It keeps the conversation on the content industry’s terms. They can be the “victims” needing a “rescue” strategy. It’s sure a great shift of attention from the rest of society being denied access to information and the natural rights to communicate and share

I'm not sure about this at all. In talking to and working with numerous content creators working through business model challenges, I just don't see this. The discussions about business models are never about "rescuing" anyone -- just straight up brainstorming about cool things that can be done.

It’s needlessly speculative. Indeed, it reminds me a lot of the earliest “home computer” books dumped out by the thousands in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors spent hours arguing that we’d all be managing recipies or doing computer-driven teaching, and then VisiCalc happened and people forgot all about recipe-management. No doubt it will be the same. Someone finds the “killer model” for post-monopoly revenue generation, but it’s probably not gonna happen until there’s no other choice but to find one. And much like the cuddly toy in the caption image, some of the suggested models aren’t gonna fly in the real world.

Well, to be clear, we've always said that there isn't a magic bullet business model that works for everyone -- and that the "new business model" involves experimenting with a number of opportunities, much of which depends on the content creator themselves, their audience and the relationship between the two.

So, for us, the highlighting of new business models serves a number of different purposes. First off, it's just plain helpful to lots of artists. And that seems like a good thing. Second, it debunks the claim that copyright is the only business model, which seems to be an implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption by many, unfortunately. Third, doing so quite often inspires others to try more cool new things themselves. And that can only be a good thing. Much of this is about experimenting and recognizing that there isn't just one way to do things any more. That can be scary and a big challenge for many artists, but it also means that there's tremendous opportunity.

Finally, whether or not it's "our job" to highlight alternative business models, if you don't, none of the claims above go away. People will still attack and complain that there are no business models that work without copyright. A decade ago (after about five years of highlighting problems with the system) I finally started focusing more regularly on highlighting positive examples, and on the whole the experience has been much more beneficial than negative. It's resulted in a lot more interesting conversations with content creators from super stars to kids just starting out -- often leading to cool new experiments and more opportunities. It's also resulted in some really interesting conversations with execs from the legacy industry really looking to help adapt to the changing market. If I was just talking about the problems of copyright, none of that would likely have happened.

A friend of mine who is a successful CEO had a rule at his company, which was that no one was allowed to highlight a problem without also at least tossing out a possible solution, even if it was just to kick off brainstorming. That might be extreme, but it seems like a handy tool. If you're only complaining, it's easier for people to write you off. If you're also highlighting possible solutions, there's a lot of benefit. Also, frankly, it's often a lot of fun to talk about cool things that people are doing.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, discussions

Facebook Apparently Won't Let Users Talk About Facebook's Lawsuit With Power.com

from the how-do-you-like-your-free-speech dept

Yet another reminder of why relying on Facebook for conversations or discussions is highly problematic. We've noted in the past that Facebook doesn't allow any links to The Pirate Bay, even if the links are perfectly legal. But it appears to also be blocking mentions of its ongoing lawsuit with Power.com, which we were discussing just last week. Eric Goldman's blog also had a blog post about the ruling (well worth reading, by the way). Goldman regularly mentions his blog posts on Twitter and has his Twitter account set to automatically post his updates to his Facebook account as well. He noticed, oddly, that the tweet about the Power.com case somehow did not make it to his Facebook account, and tried to post it manually... and was blocked. Apparently, Facebook ridiculously overaggressive "spam filters" block any and all mentions of Power.com.

After a little more experimentation, I discovered that every instance of the character string "power.com" is blocked in Facebook. Therefore, every time I put "power.com" into my status reports or in comments to those status reports--even if it's the only content in the post/comment--I get the "blocked content" message. However, it's easily avoided; I can post "power . com" (notice the spaces before and after the period) just fine. Basically, Facebook is using a very dumb word filter.

While Facebook didn't respond to Goldman's initial claim that this content was flagged in error, he reached out to press contacts there, who tried to defend the blanket "dumb word filter ban," by saying that Power.com had done some spammy abusive things with user accounts. While that may be true, that's no reason to block any and all mentions of Power.com especially when the company is currently involved in an important lawsuit with Facebook. Even if there are legitimate reasons for the "dumb word filter," it makes Facebook look petty and as if it's trying to deny all discussion of the important legal issues involved in the lawsuit.

Goldman points out that one aspect of the Power.com lawsuit is that the company is claiming Facebook is violating antitrust law. Given that, it seems like it might not look good for Facebook to (clumsily) block all conversations about Power.com. That would appear to play directly into Power.com's claims of anti-competitive behavior.

Filed Under: discussions, social networks, spam
Companies: facebook, power.com

The Difference Between Reporting And Discussion

from the this-is-a-discussion dept

On a daily basis we tend to get a couple comments here or there from people who insist that I shouldn't have written a certain post. Some of them are from the small group of folks who make sure to complain about every post here (what a life they must lead). Others are from people who like some of the stuff I write, but get upset if I venture into a particular topic area. A common refrain on some of them are that I shouldn't comment at all on certain topics because I'm not an expert in those topics or because they don't fit into the categorization of what those people think this site is about. I have to admit, I've always found these comments slightly amusing and slightly perplexing. As I've said before, I view the posts on this site as a part of a larger conversation, not as any sort of "reporting" or journalism. When you have a conversation with friends/colleagues/strangers, you will almost always express an opinion on something perhaps without "fact checking" every last bit of it. And from that you learn.

Fred Wilson did a great blog post recently, where he discussed the same basic concept, pointing out how people complain whenever he dips into politics or healthcare -- outside of his official realms of expertise. But he points out that it's his blog and he sees no reason not to speak his mind:

I am not an expert in everything I write about. But that is not going to stop me from speaking my mind about things other than venture capital and web startups. It might annoy or piss some people off. It could even hurt our business because those people are less likely to do business with me or our firm.

But I've made the decision to put myself out there, speak my mind publicly, and say what I think. And I am going to continue to do it.

There are plenty of regular readers of this blog who don't agree with me on most of my political views. People like Andy Swan, JLM, Dave in Hackensack, Steve Kane and many others. But they've never suggested that I shouldn't speak my mind. They leave comments arguing that I'm wrong. And you know what? They've opened my mind to other viewpoints and I have to say that I am more open minded about their views than had they not taken the time to articulate them sensibly and articulately.

If you really think I am full of s**t, let me know in the comments, but please don't suggest that I don't have the right to speak my mind. We live in an open society where everyone has this right.

And that's exactly how I feel as well. I really enjoy the discussions held on this blog, and hope to actually expand them in the near future. At the same time that people complain about some of the topics I pick, others complain that we're sometimes too narrowly focused on certain other topics. We've been discussing how to balance all of this, and I'm hopeful that we have some useful solutions coming up that will allow the topics under discussion here to expand, while still being engaging. But, no, not all of them will fit into what some people think this site has to be about -- and most of them will be an effort at further discussion, rather than what people decide is "reporting." But, just as we suggest that companies adapt to changing times, so too, do we hope to adapt and grow as well -- all with the goal of adding more value (and not taking away value). We're always looking to connect with fans, and we'd love to get your thoughts in the comments here on how best to cultivate more discussions.

Filed Under: discussions, journalism, reporting