You Can’t Make Abundancy Scarce

I’m sick and tired of the mind-fuck that the ‘old media’ types try to pull on us. Charging for content, just because you decide it’s valuable is asinine. We’ve got a choice: charge for a great user experience, or charge for fantastic content.

Published April 2, 2009

Written by Joey

Photography introduced me to the 'new media' evolution. I currently do community management at Meraki in San Francisco, but this blog is about journalism, some UX design, and the occasional rant. more →

@joeybaker | joey@byjoeybaker.com

Sharing

My brother sent me an email tonight after he heard, Peter Fader speak. Fader is a professor at Wharton School of business at UPenn “doing datamining – they call it marketing.” Apparently, my brother found this talk inspiring, ending his first email in our resulting exchange with:

…he made some damn good points about the subscription model. b2c already is doing ok (campfire, github, etc.), it’s time for consumers to pony up. His bottom line: if facebook decided to charge you $10/month, you’d pay it. No questions asked.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, or know me, or have listened to some of the top minds in this ‘new media’ business, you’ll be pretty easily pick out how totally my brother has drunk the kool-aid of the bass-akwards mind fuck that the ‘old media’ folks try to sell you.

First there was the stone age

Deep breath. Let’s try to break this down: We are now in the information age. Where once the pinacle of technology was an iron sword, the new tech is information. Our economy is based on the trade of Intellectual Property. Yet paradoxically, the internet has made information practically infinite. Attempting to make money by controlling the amount of information is therefore doomed to fail. Put another way: controlling the scarcity of something that isn’t scarce can’t work.

History is not a good guide here: The internet is a fundamental shift from anything we’ve experienced before. It’s as revolutionary as the printing press and as radical as the written word. It’s both asynchronous and instant two-way communication. There are however, fundamental laws. We just don’t know them all yet. The idea that you can delay, or should delay the transition to an internet based economy is just stupid. We’re here. Welcome to the future.

We depend on competition in our economy [fundamental law], which means that the first person to figure this out is going to make a boat load of money. Delaying will guarantee you’re not that person.

There are two camps out there: folks (who seem to be similar to Fader), who think that there is some way that we can charge users for content just because we’ve always done it (we haven’t). And folks (like myself), who are convinced that the internet is such a fundamental shift to the economy and information management, that charging for basic content is just asinine.

Napster

During our exchange, my brother offered this tidbit from Fader’s speach.

He was also an expert witness for Napster in ’03: “If the music industry had the option of turning back the clock, they’d just make Napster charge folks $15/month for crappy mp3′s and roll in the dough.”

That got me going. The music industry is a classic case-in point of the shear stupidity of trying to charge for content. But, on top of that, he has the gaul to suggest that charging for shitty service is a winning business model!? I’ll take that challenge on!

People used to pay for CDs. They did this because it was a) the only way to get music, and b) fairly cost effective. Then then the internet came. It allowed a) instant access to any music you wanted – no going to a store, b) only the music you wanted, you didn’t need all the other crappy tracks you’d never listen to, c) your music on your terms – making a mix tape was simple, d) way-the-fuck more cost effective because it was free, e) permanency that scratched or lost CDs didn’t offer. Even if you lost your harddrive, you could just go re-download what you wanted; if you didn’t have it all backed up on your iPod anyway. Summary: the web was a better user experience, and it was free.

What did the RIAA try to do? Tried to make abundancy scarce. Yeah… that worke

What the RIAA should have done, instead of suing all of the people that were saying, “we like your product so much, that we want to share it with everyone we know,” is figure out away to manage that abundance. If they had come up with a user friendly way that ensured high quality music that was easy to find (the two flaws of Napster) they could charge for that.

…oh wait, I just described iTunes – which is insanely successful on that model.

UI or Content. You can charge for one. (Journos need not apply)

The lesson: controlling access to content behind a paywall is not user friendly. In a world where users can be picky about … everything, it’s critical that you treat them right. This means both high quality content and a good UI to back it up. You need a minimum level of both, and then you can charge for one of the other.

iTunes put a great UI on the music downloading scene. Because of that, they can charge for access to content. Newspapers have neither a great UI or unique content. Fundamentally, journalism isn’t about creating unique information, it’s about compiling pre-existing information. This is a value-add that is important, but not so important that people will pay for it without a great UI attached.

Furthermore, “information wants to be free.” Or, the essential duty fulfilled by journalism dooms it to the realm of the necessary. The same realm of data that will find a way out to “be free.”

The only way that I can see out for journalism: have an amazing UI. Technology that is just becoming practical like geo-enabled data, the semantic web, crowdsourcing, rapid application development, unified user profiles, and machine readable data will enable journalists to present their craft in a user friendly, engaging, and informative way. We can charge for a great user experience. We can’t charge for information that they can get for free elsewhere.

Editor’s note: The above post is a rant, and should be taken with a grain of salt or a rum and coke. The author did.

Oh, and yes, I’m my own editor (probably not a good thing). :)

Update: Jay Rosen has come pretty close to listing the fundamental laws of ‘new media.’

Hehe

Oy, it's sheer, not shear. Try and guess who this is. I'll give you a hint. Not from Syracuse.
http://twitter.com/joeybaker/statuses/1436766275 joeybaker (Joey Baker)

New blog post: You can’t make abundancy scarce http://byjoeybaker.com/2009/04/02/you-can%e2%80%99t-make-abundancy-scarce/
http://www.facebook.com/people/Kapil-Tundwal/500091684 Kapil Tundwal

You dont answer one simple question. How can somebody be motivated to produce high quality content when consumers dont want to pay for it.

You make an argument that if such a content could be delivered via “amazing UI” then people will pay. In a way isnt this what newspapers did? Collect all important information, lay it out on a page nicely with all beautiful typography and seamless colors and home deliver it?
http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

@Kapil – you bet that's what print newspapers did. And you paid them for that great UI (you've never paid a newspaper for its content unless you've bought an ad.) But, now we have the internet. People's expectations of a great UI have changed. We don't want yesterday's news in print anymore, we want our information instant, searchable, and where we want it.

As to your simple question: I haven't attempted to answer the moral problem that industry faces in this post, but I'd suggest that you're looking at the problem the wrong way. It's not at people don't want our content. They want and need it more than ever thanks to the information age.

Paying journalists is still very possible: we just need to look for that a new UI.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=48102424 facebook-48102424

Nice post Joey. I think that your emphasis on the user's experience is well put. When I think of many of the companies that have done so well in the past years (Apple, Google, Flickr, etc.) they all have one thing in common: they made it easy and enjoyable to interact with their product. How can Flickr get away with charging $25 for a Pro account? Because they make it so easy to upload and interact with photos that you know you're going to want to add more and more. If a news site were able to create that kind of interaction I have no doubt that they'd be able to charge a subscription. Here's hoping. :)
http://strange.corante.com/2009/04/03/links-for-2009-04-03 Strange Attractor » Blog Archive » links for 2009-04-03

[...] You can’t make abundancy scarce | byJoeyBaker Kevin: Jeff Jarvis referred to this as the 'heavy metal' rendition of Clay Shirky's post on the death of newspapers. Syracuse University communications photography and political science student Joey Baker has some pretty blunt comments for newspaper journalists. Charging for 'basic content' is just asinine. (And I'd say that most journalists are rather expansive in their definition of exclusive content.) He believes that news sites could actually use a great user experience or great UI to differentiate in a market where the content is rarely that different. Discuss. (tags: businessmodels economics journalism userexperience UI) [...]
Ben

How can somebody be motivated to produce high quality content when consumers dont want to pay for it? Let's see. Wikipedia found a way. YouTube found a way. A zillion blogs found a way. It turns out that money is not the best motivation to produce high quality content after all. Just google Jayson Blair.

As for newspapers' “amazing UI”, search meant rummaging through a pile of old issues. Links didn't exist. User comments were limited to a few letters to the editor. Updates were limited to once a day. And your fingers got dirty.

Joey Baker is right. “The idea that you can delay, or should delay the transition to an internet based economy is just stupid. We’re here. Welcome to the future.” Yes, welcome.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Benjamin-Donguk-Lukoff/1054481290 Benjamin Donguk Lukoff

Time is money, money is time. Money may not necessarily be *motivation* but it buys people the time to do good work. I was one of those people producing high quality content for Wikipedia for free. I helped build out the pages on Seattle, the Puget Sound area, Washington, and the Pacific Northwest. That's because I had the free time. I haven't had that free time for a while now. If I were paid (note that I'm NOT suggesting Wikipedia go down this path), I'd be able to allocate more time, and be able to do more, and better, work. As it is now, I contribute sporadically and I'd bet the quality of my work has gone down somewhat.

I have a pretty decent blog on Seattle history. I think it would be a lot better if I had more time for it. If I could make more money on it, I *would* spend more time on it.

I think we may be in trouble if we leave the production of content to those who have an insane amount of free time or simply don't need to sleep.
Tex Lovera

I think both “camps” here are partly correct.

People need to monetize the process somehow. We can't all just work “for free” in this society.

But the old method is gone. For good.

So, the question to answer is the “how” in my “somehow”. And, right now, I don't see one person coming up with that answer.

It's going to be answered a million times by a million different people. It will still be “the invisible hand” pushing things, but it will move electronically at the speed of the net.
http://byjoeybaker.com Joey Baker

You're right. We don't have a great answer for 'but, how do I make money?' But, the only way to figure it out is to try. There is no magic switch that we can flip to start making money overnight.

The key is to experiment. We have to find the various methods that are needed to make money. The only way to do that is to play. It's not like the answer's just gonna drop into our lap :)
http://byjoeybaker.com/2009/07/11/dear-bill-keller/ Dear Bill Keller | byJoeyBaker

[...] Take the time to re-learn and re-think everything you thought you knew. ‘New media’ is a bit counter-intuitive. Take the time to think about the new rules of the road. And, perhaps consider a hiatus from giving [...]
http://www.blogsuc.cl/2009/07/11/espacios-logicos-para-nuestras-historias/ Espacios lógicos para nuestras historias | Blogs UC

[...] por lo que cualquier intento de ponerle trabas o peajes a la información puntual no tener futuro, decía Joey Baker, un blogger muy comentado, “controlar la escasez de algo que no es escaso no puede funcionar”, por eso es iluminador como [...]
http://www.campuswham.com/ The Wham

I think one book that should be read by all of you is “For God, Country & Coca-Cola”.

There is a lot to be learned of the history of the print industry, and how it was initially propped by manufacturers such as Coca-cola. Amazing read if you can find the book.

Great UI and content doesn't correlate with money all the time. It is pretty much luck and long-term industrial partnerships and perceptions that shapes the good companies from the bad. Myspace had a horrible UI for many years; before Facebook, it was the most popular site on the net.

Craigslist UI could be confused with UNIX Pine email software; its simplicity is amazing, but the complexity is non-existent.

I think the real issue here is how to initially control the revenue structure in balance with the UI. The initial control, such as ads on the side, or paying for content, or forced control, is key for media companies to get their revenue back.

The RIAA wasn't wrong in their quest to consolidate the abundance; where they failed is controlling the whole music structure. If the RIAA started enacting copying rules that book publishers had in place for many years, but simultaneously set up content-rich hubs online, then they would've won.

Even though they lost, their imprint on the media industry in terms of abundance is great. Google's video/audio imprinting technology probably wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the lawsuits or danger of people sharing content illegally. The fall of Oink, the perils of Piratebay, and the loss of population in Soulseek, and the gain of marketers/hackers/media agents in surveying torrents shows that although slow and full of mistakes, the big wigs did gain a lot of ground in the 21st century.

Newspapers have lost because their models don't work ( as well ) with the internet. But with Google's partnerships, and their technology, the UI might come from Google in a revenue-sharing plan. If this ever happens with even 3-4 big newspaper companies, god forbid, then traditional media could bring in the reins on abundance.

Always look at today's news, with APs new guidelines on word use for their articles, to Facebook's removing links from specific sites. If all of these things come together, content will be re-controlled by the big media centers again.

From that point, who knows what will happen. One thing I do know, the free ride will come to an end in the next few years
http://www.campuswham.com/ The Wham

I think one book that should be read by all of you is “For God, Country & Coca-Cola”.

There is a lot to be learned of the history of the print industry, and how it was initially propped by manufacturers such as Coca-cola. Amazing read if you can find the book.

Great UI and content doesn't correlate with money all the time. It is pretty much luck and long-term industrial partnerships and perceptions that shapes the good companies from the bad. Myspace had a horrible UI for many years; before Facebook, it was the most popular site on the net.

Craigslist UI could be confused with UNIX Pine email software; its simplicity is amazing, but the complexity is non-existent.

I think the real issue here is how to initially control the revenue structure in balance with the UI. The initial control, such as ads on the side, or paying for content, or forced control, is key for media companies to get their revenue back.

The RIAA wasn't wrong in their quest to consolidate the abundance; where they failed is controlling the whole music structure. If the RIAA started enacting copying rules that book publishers had in place for many years, but simultaneously set up content-rich hubs online, then they would've won.

Even though they lost, their imprint on the media industry in terms of abundance is great. Google's video/audio imprinting technology probably wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the lawsuits or danger of people sharing content illegally. The fall of Oink, the perils of Piratebay, and the loss of population in Soulseek, and the gain of marketers/hackers/media agents in surveying torrents shows that although slow and full of mistakes, the big wigs did gain a lot of ground in the 21st century.

Newspapers have lost because their models don't work ( as well ) with the internet. But with Google's partnerships, and their technology, the UI might come from Google in a revenue-sharing plan. If this ever happens with even 3-4 big newspaper companies, god forbid, then traditional media could bring in the reins on abundance.

Always look at today's news, with APs new guidelines on word use for their articles, to Facebook's removing links from specific sites. If all of these things come together, content will be re-controlled by the big media centers again.

From that point, who knows what will happen. One thing I do know, the free ride will come to an end in the next few years
http://byjoeybaker.com/2009/04/28/an-economist-approach-to-the-newspaper-industry/ An Economist Approach to the Newspaper Industry

[...] brother is the guy who got me inspired/angry enough to write You Can’t Make Abundancy Scarce. Phill Baker (who has no online profile to link to), who studies economics and engineering at [...]