rss feedShow me no money: Billions want free content, suitable for autonomous collectives
The idea of receiving something for free has been around for centuries. Certainly, I like the idea – and I’m not just talking about the free hug movement.
I mean: Who doesn’t like receiving something – say a new car or clothing - for free?
But the notion seems more fitting for an autonomous collective (especially one depicted by the British comedy group, Monty Python), where a group of people has agreed to provide labor and services for everyone’s well being with the exchange of money lower on the priority list.
You know, that whole theory versus reality continuum.
But the idea of giving away a good or service can baffle in a free market because there are costs to be covered, people to be paid, money that needs to be circulated.
I’m sure there are days when many of us wish our banks would just tell us: We’d like to give you your mortgage for no cost because, well, homes want to be free (and so do homeowners).
And, as mainstream journalists and others have witnessed in recent years, the notion of free has boomed in stature, at least in the news, entertainment, sporting and information arenas – thanks to low market barriers to creating online content and the explosion of popular social networking sites.
Nearly anyone with Internet access can enter the online world – which is a boon for free expression, art and creativity.
But a Nielsen study recently reported that 85 percent of people surveyed around the world believe that online content should remain free.
The study’s results of giving away content at no direct charge to the end user underscores the rallying cry and reality of many hackers and others seeking online work for no or low cost: That “information wants to be free.”
As John Tierney wrote in The New York Times last month, that idea is being questioned by some who once backed it.
In numeric terms, and extrapolating a figure based on this Nielsen study, how many people around the globe support free online content?
Try about 5.8 billion people, based on an estimate of the world’s population and the 27,000 people surveyed in 52 countries.
One question that needs to be asked is: How can content producers provide online information for no charge at all?
How can they cover their expenses, even their most basic ones? By other means, such as adding Google advertising code to their sites? Or selling actual merchandise or books?
I don’t know if there’s enough advertising to go around to support all those who need support for their online efforts.
I suppose if people who provide online content for free received their university educations, housing and food at no cost, it would be fair for them, with no wage or salary involved, to produce words, video, photos and sound for Internet users.
If we examine history, we see that some organized societies are able to provide relatively free information – but they do not endorse the free market as the United States does.
Try state-run governments – ones that endorse socialism – as ones that can provide information to its people. I remember learning that subscriptions to the Chinese state-run newspaper, the People’s Daily, once were required for offices and factories in the world’s most populous country.
That still may be the case.
Granted, not everyone read that paper and might have opted for articles in other publications that were livelier. But information was being provided for free – thanks to financial support of the Chinese government.
The French news agency, AFP, has received government money from the French government.
I know the idea of news agencies that receive government money is controversial in the United States, given the birth of the republic and the Constitutional underpinnings that the founding fathers wanted.
Then again, I’ve heard of reports noting that around 40,000 journalists have lost jobs in the United States in recent years, including this dispatch from UNITY.
Now, you might be asking one simple question: How can I – the operator of TofuWatch.com - give information and photographs away for free on a commercial-free blog?
Great question!
Well, writing on a regular basis about topics that interest me keeps me engaged and connected to the outside world. It pushes me to think anew, observe and question - or at least try to do so.
I’m willing to make this tradeoff.
Certainly, covering my costs remains important. But the work done on a commercial-free blog is different than the work that would be done at a full-time job.
If not, what would be the difference between a salaried-job and one providing free labor?
Not much, really.
And what I do for this blog is much different than what I did as a traditional journalist.
Also, as the Nielsen study revealed, people showed a low willingness to pay for blogs.
Instead, they were more inclined to pay for theatrical movies, music and games. Perhaps, I should shift my online skills to these areas.
My sense, though, is that specialized blogs, such as TechFlash and TechCrunch, which deal with market intelligence and analysis – which can be “actionable” as federal officials like saying – can fetch money in the free market.
Bloomberg, the news service, realizes that traders and analysts are willing to pay for the financial and economic content that its army of journalists produces daily.
Now, is this idea of free online information sustainable?
In the short term, the online information pool is large enough – given that people are willing to type up their thoughts (say about tofu) for no charge to either participate in free expression or the promotion of an idea, product or company.
From a consumer’s perspective, I have thought about the idea of a new “American price” – meaning anything lower than before – that might emerge as the country leaves The Great Recession.
And the idea of free – as noted in The New Yorker last year – is a hot topic.
Let’s consider it this way: What other goods and services can be lumped into the “free” category?
Should we start having citizen-chefs begin making delicious food at home, then show up at restaurants and give the edibles away for no cost but with business cards?
I’ve noticed that many people are passionate about public education to the point where they believe they have the best ideas for teachers and principals to follow in classrooms.
Should we have citizen-teachers or citizen-principals – instead of the professionals – offer their services for weeks at a time to help children learn?
Citizen-pilots certainly could keep some airline flight costs down but insurance might increase.
I realize that some in the computer, technology and online worlds have embraced open code and sharing in a manner that is remarkable and reminiscent of information sharing in academia.
I like this idea but these people likely have other ways to support this free sharing of research and knowledge.
But the long term sustainability of giving online content away for free becomes much more problematic.
That also depends on what you want: There will be enough people with Internet access to produce content to post and for it to be consumed.
But the production of quality words, images, art and graphics requires skills, time and expertise – all of which need ample amounts of money to support people and technology.
In other words, the demand for free content will remain high.
But the supply of quality information – if that’s what you seek – will evaporate.
And there is an old adage to keep in mind: You get what you pay for.
There is the thought, though, that if some type of payment is required to access online work, online users will just jump to a site that requires no money but has similar or identical information.
We’ve seen how pay walls have fared in the past. Yes, large, mainstream media companies again are considering the pay model.
That model, though, puts greater pressure on those producing the free content – and when you’re doing it for no cost, there is no long-term incentive to do so on a regular basis for decades.
The tricky thing about this Nielsen survey with the 85 percent number is that it could be argued as a purely democratic response from an adequate sample of the world’s population.
If that’s the case – and countries, such as the United States, believe that democratic results should govern direction – then, people essentially are supporting something roiling and restructuring the mainstream news industry.
In other words, if people around the world are voting with their online clicks for free information and opinion, is fact-driven reportage becoming economically irrelevant and unsupportable, though the news can often be helpful?
Or does the public, in general, already hold the view that mainstream journalists – and I once was one of them – bend facts, chase the sensational and misinterpret that they’re only a washing machine that is permanently stuck on spin cycle?
I have heard people describe journalists in this manner.
Or it is possible that online content creators take other jobs – similar to actors – to cover expenses but, in their free time, create stunning words, reportage and images for Internet consumers.
I don’t know where the idea of free will head in the coming years.
The tradeoff could be this: People want free content but the market for reported pieces by professionals shrinks. People either accept this market change and rely on fewer traditional news outlets.
The pool of free online information might be large because so many people are producing content.
But the pool of fact-driven, first-hand observed information by a group of professionals who can bring a sense of history about a place to online news becomes smaller.
And if people really never were regular consumers of traditional news – say, they were just enamored with opinion on cable stations or busy with daily life - then, they probably never realize what they’re missing and therefore have no need for mainstream journalism.
Or the pendulum could swing back.
After an absence of news and information outlets that try to honestly help a community improve through regular reportage and investigations of public life, people might be willing to open their wallets in a big way.
On this issue, I’m still waiting to see what unfolds.
On a positive note, I’m happy that my former colleagues at InvestigateWest, an independent journalism group, recently received a grant of $100,000 to support their work.
UPDATE: The Online Journalism Review has this piece about the pros and cons of citizen journalists – or citizen communicators, as some are calling them – and their involvement with mainstream news organizations.
