With the publication of Chris Anderson’s new book “Free,” the
discussion about the role of free, today and in the future has
expanded. Articles from Malcom Gladwell in New Yorker, and Seth Godin
discuss the various merits and challenges of Free. Is Free inevitable? Is Free the beginning of the end? Let me answer the question.
First of all, what we are experiencing right now is “Better Than
Free.” The videos on YouTube, magazine articles, newspapers reports,
anything that used to be analog that now is digital have a perceived
value that is based on their legacy delivery. We value all those TV
shows on Hulu highly because we assign a value to what we pay for cable
or satellite.
We assign a high perceived value to newspaper and
magazine reports based on the years we spent paying for them. Anything
that we paid for as recently as last year, that we now get free, of
course we assign a value of more than free. That makes it worth the
effort to find it for free. Because the effort is worth your time. You
are getting something for nothing, who doesn’t want that ?
Of course, that is a challenge for those industries. Not only do they
face the challenge of their former customers wanting their content for
nothing, but they have the problem that their costs are based upon
their ability to sell their content.
Therein lies the problem for the free movement. The subsidies of
pro-content producers from the newspaper and magazine industries will
disappear as those businesses contract significantly. What happens then?
You get the music industry. Anyone can create any song for no cost,
and they do. The problem of course is getting your music to stand out
among the millions of songs available at any given moment. It’s
expensive. Very, very expensive. (If it weren’t for groupies, would the
number of musical artists contract 90%?)
The future of content outside of the music industry is exactly what
you are now seeing inside the music industry. The music industry uses
what they have learned from more than 10 years of competing with free.
First they cut the size of their organizations to the bone, keeping
just those they hope and pray will know best how to guide them through
the world of free.
Those survivors have learned or are learning how to identify the
music and artists that best fit the new world of free. They learn how
to work with the artists and those willing to pay for music in some
form, whether CD, Download, Licensing or in concert, and do their best
to maximize the return on their investment. They use free as a weapon.
They use free as an asset. They use it anywhere they can leverage it
into something more. Something hopefully profitable.
What the music industry realizes is that they have to offer
quite a bit of music for free. What they have learned however, is that
they don’t have to allow it to be freely distributed. They can
and do control where it’s delivered. You can have it for free, if that’s
how you want it, but you have to come get it where we want you to get
it. On our Web sites. On Web sites we co-produce with YouTube or Hulu or
whomever. If you want it for free, you have to go through the exhausting
effort of clicking to our Web site and giving us something in value in
return. It may be your attention. It may be your interest. It may be a
referral or your email address. We give you something free, you give us
something that costs you nothing.
The music is often free, but it is NEVER freely distributed.
The TV and Movie business are realizing this is the case. Hence TV
Anywhere. They will give you access to content for free if you are
already a customer of their distributors. And before you IT ALL HAS TO
BE FREE BIGOTS EXPLODE, even Google requires you have internet access
of some kind, which costs you in subscription fees , taxes or coffee.
Newspapers are catching flack for saying there should be copyrights
on their news reports and the summaries. They are right. Their work,
their ability to control it. They should have the right to control
where it appears. If, as Chris Anderson and others suggest, there will
be plenty of content creators and the quality of the work is sufficient
for consumers of that content, then there will be plenty of open source
content and it shouldnt matter what the newspapers request for
protection. The market will decide.
Newspapers are also catching flack for saying they dont want their
content openly distributed. On this point, they are correct again. They
should have complete control over where it is distributed. They should
have the ability to choose where it is offered for free.
Not only should they have this control, taking back this control is
the exact right business move. Im not saying it will save newspapers or
magazines, it wont. But it will make their website offerings stronger
in the long run. If I’m them, I take the risk that the “printed” content
business follows the path of the music industry.
In other words, you take on the role of identifying the best in
breed for your business and use your resources to help those talented
people figure out how to make money for themselves and for you. You
provide your resources and knowledge to make them smarter and then you
go and compete against the masses.
In the long run, printed content producers should have a brand, and
use their institutional knowledge, their core competencies and ability
to procure, improve and market to maximize the value of their brands
and the perceived value of their content. Whether its on a central
website, a co produced website, in print or on a hologram in the
evening sky, I should go to the NY Times because they have demonstrated
to me that they have the very best articles on the subjects I am
looking for. That they are the best source for breaking news about the
topics I care about. THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE I DON’T HAVE THE CHOICE OF
GETTING IT ANYWHERE ELSE BUT WHERE THEY DICTATE. If they cant make
their content stand out from the open source masses and convince enough
people to transact with them in a way that makes them money they don’t
deserve to exist.
They should distribute their content for Free where they believe it
maximizes return, but should do everything possible to keep it from
being distributed Freely.
(Image source: masternewmedi.org)
