Why Discussing New Business Models That Work Is A Good Idea

from the not-a-responsibility,-but-helpful dept

If we propose specifics, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the “but what about A or B? Those couldn’t work with business model C!” It’s an unending cat-and-mouse game. The classic example is the old “How to finance a blockbuster-caliber movie?” trope. Nobody ever considers that maybe the current system is the reason movies have to cost that much, do they?

If we offer generalities, like “Merchandise and sell experiences instead of commodities”, they tend to be shot down in snarky sound-bites, like “So bands will have to sell T-shirts instead of records?”

It keeps the conversation on the content industry’s terms. They can be the “victims” needing a “rescue” strategy. It’s sure a great shift of attention from the rest of society being denied access to information and the natural rights to communicate and share

It’s needlessly speculative. Indeed, it reminds me a lot of the earliest “home computer” books dumped out by the thousands in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The authors spent hours arguing that we’d all be managing recipies or doing computer-driven teaching, and then VisiCalc happened and people forgot all about recipe-management. No doubt it will be the same. Someone finds the “killer model” for post-monopoly revenue generation, but it’s probably not gonna happen until there’s no other choice but to find one. And much like the cuddly toy in the caption image, some of the suggested models aren’t gonna fly in the real world.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Jack Zeal has a really interesting post over on Rick Falkvinge's InfoPolicy site, in which he argues that it's not "our" job to "fix" the broken business model of those who rely on copyright . He talks about havingdiscussion with the typical copyright system supporter, in which they make one of those "but without copyright..." arguments, and he starts pointing out alternative business models. However, he's come to believe that strategy is pointless because, effectively, it's not our job to fix your broken business model. And, to some extent, he's right. It'sourto do so, but as someone who's been taking part in these discussions for a very long time, and who has spent an awful lot of time and effort highlighting successful new business model opportunities, I still think it'shelpful and useful. I'll explain why by responding to each of Jack's points. To be clear, I don't think Jack's argument is a bad one, and I can understand the frustration, but I still think our focus is more productive long run.So? That's always true. People can always bring up a "what if?" and it's easy to then point out that there are similar "what ifs?" with the current system. To be honest, I've often found the "what if" discussions useful in thinking through evennew business model ideas, which is kind of cool.There are always going to be some people who misunderstand or (more likely) misrepresent your arguments. The "sell lots of t-shirts" trope is so common we used to sell an actual t-shirt that said "looooooooots of t-shirts" on it. And it was a decent seller! Point being: you'll never convince everyone -- especially those who have no interest in being convinced. But, having been at this for a long time, I can assure you that for every person misrepresenting such arguments, there are many others who are recognizing the truth of the opportunities opening up around them. I can't even begin to tell you how many content creators contact me talking about how theyto believe the old party line on copyright (or, more commonly, that they believed there was no hope for making money these days), but that they ended up becomingby reading through some of the many examples of business models that worked.I'm not sure about this at all. In talking to and working with numerous content creators working through business model challenges, I just don't see this. The discussions about business models are never about "rescuing" anyone -- just straight up brainstorming about cool things that can be done.Well, to be clear, we've always said that there isn't a magic bullet business model that works for everyone -- and that the "new business model" involves experimenting with a number of opportunities, much of which depends on the content creator themselves, their audience and the relationship between the two.So, for us, the highlighting of new business models serves a number of different purposes. First off, it'sto lots of artists. And that seems like a good thing. Second, it debunks the claim that copyright is thebusiness model, which seems to be an implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumption by many, unfortunately. Third, doing so quite oftenothers tothemselves. And that can only be a good thing. Much of this is about experimenting and recognizing that there isn't just one way to do things any more. That can be scary and a big challenge for many artists, but it also means that there's tremendous opportunity.Finally, whether or not it's "our job" to highlight alternative business models, if you don't, none of the claims above go away. People will still attack and complain that there are no business models that work without copyright. A decade ago (after about five years of highlighting problems with the system) I finally started focusing more regularly on highlighting positive examples, and on the whole the experience has been much more beneficial than negative. It's resulted in a lot more interesting conversations with content creators from super stars to kids just starting out -- often leading to cool new experiments and more opportunities. It's also resulted in some really interesting conversations with execs from the legacy industry really looking to help adapt to the changing market. If I was just talking about the problems of copyright, none of that would likely have happened.A friend of mine who is a successful CEO had a rule at his company, which was that no one was allowed to highlight a problem withoutat least tossing out a possible solution, even if it was just to kick off brainstorming. That might be extreme, but it seems like a handy tool. If you're only complaining, it's easier for people to write you off. If you're also highlighting possible solutions, there's a lot of benefit. Also, frankly, it's often a lot of fun to talk about cool things that people are doing.

Filed Under: business models, copyright, discussions