Quote of the Day
I’m always surprised by how often we assume that the information we need is only a click away on the Internet. Perhaps I shouldn’t be, since this seems true enough when what we want to know is something like how many cities in Utah have a larger population than a sold-out LaVell Edwards Stadium (the answer is nine, see 1 & 2). But of all people, those of us in business and economics should realize that if someone can charge you money for something they’re not likely to give it to you for free.
To this point I came across an apt quote yesterday, from Thomas Mann at the Library of Congress:
“The belief that ‘everything’ will be freely available to everyone on the Internet, from anywhere, at anytime, is based on unworkable Marxist assumptions about human nature.”
Mann makes a strong argument that as long as copyright exists information will be for sale (3). I’d add that as long as tools and processes are developed that add value to information, access to those technologies will also be for sale. But I do think Mann underestimates the ingenuity of market forces. Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail, makes the case in his latest book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price (4), that money can be made by giving things away. After all, Google has no trouble turning a profit without charging people to use its search engine.
Will this hold true to the point where ‘everything’ will become freely available on the Internet? Probably not. If there’s one thing that’s certain in business it’s that there will never be only one business model. As much as the phenomenon of “Free” has put unprecedented amounts of information at our fingertips, there’s even more that’s available for a price, and as Mann points out, short of a worldwide disavowal of intellectual property, there always will be.
Common wisdom has it that information wants to be free, but common sense dictates that people want to get paid.
Entries
October 30th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Over time I think most information will be free online. The fact that a site like SCRIBD is able to get VC money and even exists shows how weak copyright laws are today. Because of the internet we have tons of info at our fingertips (a good thing) but also a major weakening of copyright enforcement (a bad thing).
Where the paid info comes in is how the data is delivered. Look at Bloomberg. I can get quotes on stocks, economic information, and a ton of similar info for free online. What I cant get is all of this, and really a ton more, in one place along with tools to make it useful. Mayor Mike does not make the money he makes due to giving a hack job of a service. Instead they deliver the cleanest data in the most useful formats along with the most useful tools in one package. By listening to their audience they are able to charge $2,000 a month for a terminal and we are all happy (well willing at least) to pay for it. I love that BYU has 2 of them as they are, or at least should be every business and econ students best friend.
So yeah general wikipedia type info will be free and will get freer (yeah not a word but I like it) while specialized info, or at least info delivered in a more usable format will be sold to a willing audience.
Sorry about the rant
October 30th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
It used to be that finding information was the problem. Now finding too much information is more likely the problem. Having a trusted source (like Bloomberg) that adds value through its compilation and access tools is a good solution to this problem. And like most solutions, it costs money.
And not only does the tool cost money, but the proprietary information too. Until recently I’ve been able to pull Bloomberg Law reports off the Internet for free. Now they’re only available through the terminal.
Some companies will give away their proprietary information as a loss-leader, but many will continue to sell it. Try getting an analyst report off Yahoo! Finance for example.
Still, it’s amazing what is available for free, and what free tools are also becoming available. Wolfram Alpha may be the coolest thing since sliced bread, but it’s still no Bloomberg.