The myth of “free”
February 3rd, 2009 |
“We have built a country-sized economy online where the default price is zero — nothing, nada, zip,” writes Chris Anderson in The Economics of Giving it Away in the February 2 Wall Street Journal.
Semantics are very important here. Anderson chooses his words (I should say “word,” because “Free” is the title of his upcoming book) carefully. The price of nearly everything online is “free,” but not the cost. Anderson calls this “the business model.” People who love cheesy buzzwords call this “monetization.” I call it “a fundamental misunderstanding of how things work.”
Anderson has done a great job identifying the most sweeping change in the free enterprise system in the past 100 years, the price which people are willing to pay for certain things, but has missed a key element. This idea that “digital goods” are free is an absolute myth. As my journalism prof said, “There’s no free lunch, only a few stale peanuts on the bar.*” What we have seen is not an evolution to “free,” but rather one in which the true costs of using many services are not as apparent as they used to be.
For example, even though you don’t pay to use Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, LinkedIn, etc., there is actually an exchange of services (use of the social network) for an easily determined cash value. Users of so-called free Web 2.0 services are making a tacit exchange when they sign up for a particular service, create a profile, build a network of friends, and contribute to the user base of that service. The user base is the chief capital asset of any social network or site, with a discreet dollar value per user. You have exchanged your valuable time and your friendships/relationships in exchange for use of the service. And if you’re at work, your employer is subsidizing that cost.
Anderson encourages entrepreneurs to innovate with new “business models” which, in some cases, involve charging for “digital goods.”
It’s interesting that Anderson mentions in his first paragraph that online music is free. While some emerging/independent artists are offering free music downloads, the music “industry,” both publishers like Sony Music and Philips Music Group, and distributors like iTunes and Amazon, have not gone “free.” Technology has made it so easy to perfectly duplicate music, that huge numbers of people have unilaterally decided music ought to be free and are downloading and “sharing” it without paying for it. There’s a big difference, however, between free and stolen.
Anderson is right, for the most part, that people are unwilling to pay up front for access to content and services, choosing instead to allow providers to extract cost/value through other less obvious means.
As John Yemma, the editor of The Christian Science Monitor, told NPR’s Terry Gross, free online news is “the only model that’s out there. I don’t think there’s an alternative… we’d have to go back in the time machine to try to change this, but the expectation online is that news is free, and that expectation won’t be altered.”
Indeed, we have seen massive changes to how information and communications are delivered and to what and how people are willing to pay for them. But it’s disingenuous to think that any of this is free. Nothing is free. Only the method of payment has changed.
* I have not given attribution for this quote because I found no reference to the “peanuts” version in my research and although some believe it was first said by economist Milton Friedman, there is much evidence that the quote is considerably older.
This post also appears on my Intridea blog.
| Sphere This |



Tags: 


Interesting Joel, good food for thought. You are right, it is not free, there are many costs involved/at stake.
Comment by Leah McChesney — February 3, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Anderson’s theories (or potentially disingenuous use of language) have been thoroughly debunked by Anita Elberse of Harvard Business Review and others, at least in the purported general applicability of the “phenomenon”.
http://hbr.harvardbusiness.org/2008/07/should-you-invest-in-the-long-tail/ar/1
Very notoriously commented elsewhere:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195151/
Anderson replied from the pages of Wired
http://www.longtail.com/the_long_tail/2008/06/excellent-hbr-p.html
But he really didn’t address some of the important points Elberse made.
Comment by vruz — February 4, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
B2B Publishers have been using this model for over 100 years now. You don’t have to pay for a magazine like IndustryWeek or DesignNews, you just have to give up some personal employment information, buying influence and an email address. For this you’re give a 60/40 split on advertising & editorial and you’re info is sold to the highest (and lowest) bidder. Free but not free.
Comment by LaMacchia — February 4, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
[...] out of the economic downturn it’s the realization that the “free” (don’t get me started on free) business model is not sustainable and actually hurts [...]
Pingback by socialized » Why paid Twitter is good for all — February 10, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Everyone knows that there isn’t anything for “free.” There is cost for everything. You may think you are signing up for something for free but in reality you are giving away your information.
A classic example of this was at the North American International Auto Show when they had the Army as a sponsor. They were having a sweepstakes to win an 3 Gig Ipod. No one thinks about this but when you sign your name on the dotted line to try and win that Ipod you are giving your information to the Army to try and recruit you for the rest of your life.
So nothing is free.
Comment by Jamie Favreau — February 16, 2009 @ 3:45 pm