Chris Anderson, in his article "Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business", voices that "The Web has become the land of the free." Once an item hits the internet it is a ticking time bomb until its value becomes zero aka free. How does this happen? Well, musicians for example have used this fact to earn money by giving away a sample of their music for free. It's only a matter of time before their music is distributed on the internet for free anyway so why not embrace it and make the best of it. With this attitude in mind they can give away music free online to build up a fan base to better sell out their concerts and sell merchandise therefore earning a profit. He also talks about the distinctions between cheap and free and how these words can make a world of difference to the consumer. People are far more accepting to something free even if the product offered is sold for only 1 cent. Anderson also quotes Stewart Brand saying "Information wants to be free. Information also wants to be expensive.." The fact that consumers want information to be free and producers obviously don't want it to be free is a constant battle especially with how technology has transformed the ability for information to be free.
Now that Anderson has voiced how information wants to be free and therefore it has become a free resource, Malcolm Gladwell, states that information cannot want anything. Information cannot think but people or in his example Amazon can and they are the ones who fight to make information free. Although these two authors differ slightly about what "information" wants, both agree about the incredible amount of power the word free holds. I think that if Anderson discussed his six forms of "free" to Gladwell and Gladwell expressed his thoughts on how free can actually cost you a fortune then they could have a well rounded and healthy argument. They both have valid points and could benefit from embracing the other's perspective.
Both writers, though one negatively and one positively, address the effects of free information/merchandise in our technology driven society. Together they are addressing the same topic but seeing the outcomes differently but still agreeing the the word free itself is powerful. Whether is has good effects such as the Gillette reference or bad in the YouTube one about losing billions of dollars. I think we should be questioning how our world is changing with the ability to mass distribute more for free such as music. Music can be shared incredibly easily now and though it's not right it's happening and musicians should recognize that and learn from it using it to their advantage. Build a large fan base and then you are set to sell out more concerts and sell more merchandise to people who might not have given your music a chance if they had not had the ability to sample it for free.
Posts
Good point here: "Malcolm Gladwell states that information cannot want anything." But, what I like best about this post is where you note that both authors recognize the importance of free as a powerful concept in our culture. Obviously, the contrast between the Gillette example and the YouTube example reveals where the authors diverge. Your post makes me think it would be interesting to hear the authors debate their arguments in person. Your final point about music ties back to Gladwell's emphasis on the fact that digital information can't be treated like a physical thing... Anderson really wants to just apply the same principles across all industries, but Gladwell keeps reminding him, especially with the example of the Myozyme drug, that information is not the same as "stuff."
ReplyDelete