Wired Editor Chris Anderson spoke at Google’s D.C. office this morning about his book Free, which hit the bookstores today and is not free. He is allowing a free “download” of the book on Scribd but apparently won’t let you print it out, so have fun reading it on your computer screen.

My feelings on his new book and the theories he is repurposing are well-documented so I won’t repeat them here. Let me try to focus on the positives from today’s event.

* He acknowledged a criticism I have made more of Anderson than any other, namely that “I have a bad habit of Grand Unified Theories… I tend to be a little sweeping” in pronouncements. In The Long Tail and in his new book, he takes isolated examples that are true on their face and presents them as the vanguard of an entirely new economy. This is of course silly and easy to criticize, as Malcolm Gladwell and others have done. But Anderson knows a bit about building an audience. It’s not easy to land a book publishing contract; he has done so twice. It is not easy to have a book become a bestseller, as his first one was and this one very well may become. Of course, to attract the attention of a major publisher and to get people to pay for your book, it seems you have to be a bit outrageous. Look at any policy book out there (not just on IP) and you’ll see that. Anderson, despite advocating “free,” is trying to sell books. Nothing wrong with that.

* He also acknowledged, when an audience member suggested more musical acts follow the Radiohead model of giving away while also selling premium works and access (part of Anderson’s “Freemium” model that has been around as long as there has been commerce), that Radiohead’s success was driven in part by the attention their somewhat novel approach brought them, and also because “they are Radiohead.” A band that had not built the following (through conventional marketing and distribution) that Radiohead had built would not have had the same success. Unfortunately, Anderson then seemed to become sweeping again, embracing the Radiohead model for all creative works.

* Anderson also acknowledged, indirectly, that alternative avenues for profit are not as obvious in other creative industries as they are in music, but didn’t elaborate. This is unfortunate. He also avoided a question about infrastructure as a fixed cost that must be addressed in pricing — he was asked in a web-submitted question about that criticism from Gladwell — and it would have been nice to hear him address that. He did repeat the argument about marginal cost of distribution being near zero driving price to zero, but we all know that doesn’t take into account fixed costs nor does it apply to goods that are not purely substitutable. Screws are purely substitutable — few would only buy a certain brand of tool — but screwdrivers can be distinguished by consumers, and compete against power screwdrivers and drills with screwdriver bits, and even Swiss Army knives. A CD is not a DVD is not a video game is not a book, and Anderson’s book is not an Andrew Keen book is not a Danielle Steel book is not a Tim Russert book.

* Anderson gave some decent examples of entrepreneurial approaches to combining giveaways with payments, and giving most away and charging for a little bit. He didn’t provide a lot of numbers, and some of his conclusions seemed suspect (as a parent whose kids went through a Club Penguin phase, I refuse to believe 95% of Club Penguin users never bought any “goods” while a member, and the moderator noted his kids wanted to buy things on the site almost instantaneously), but perhaps his book has more numbers, and perhaps they are reliable. (I add that caveat because in his discussion he admitted that he repeatedly, but accidentally, plagiarized Wikipedia, a site that admits upfront they make no claims to accuracy, only to providing a vehicle to approach accuracy.)

Again, I liked some of his business model examples, but it was telling that he largely gave software examples — web services, iTunes or Facebook apps — and never addressed how creative works producers (rather than unlicensed or even licensed distributors) might adopt a “freemium” model. There are certainly freemium models out there with creative works, often with individual creators but also with corporately produced and distributed works. If you include ad-supported models in there, then they have been and continue to be pervasive. So to that extent what he writes isn’t new. What I would hope is that since he claims to be seeing a “free” future, he could give us a little more insight on how creators could better embrace “free.”

I don’t think he can do that, however. He was also honest at the end of his presentation. He said that despite his working with a book publisher and a major magazine company, he strives to give all of his writings away. He said he does that with the hope that he later is rewarded for that. He then said he has “absolutely no idea” in what form, or in what quantity, that reward would come. So he has a philosophy and he’s running with it, hoping it works. It’s kind of a “pay it forward” business model. I believe in karma, and I believe in generosity. I’m not sure how much a shareholder would embrace that as a business model, and I’m pretty sure a banker wouldn’t give a creator a loan based on that philosophy.

Share this:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pm by Patrick Ross and is filed under copyright opponents, creators, economy, internet, market forces. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.