Esther Dyson on the Value of Attention

Christian Ahlert writes "OpenBusiness talked to Esther Dyson about how business models are adapting to an internet environment that champions openness. Esther's upcoming PC Forum focuses on how users are transforming the internet and placing new demands on businesses. From Open Source to Open Content, new forms of organization, production and distribution are emerging. But how can these ventures produce a revenue and sustain themselves? For how long can we give content away for free?"

AttentionMonger

[Doc Ruby]

What has Esther Dyson ever done, other than be born Freeman Dyson [wikipedia.org]'s daughter and screw up ICANN [google.com]? I guess that resume does make her an expert on the value of attention.

Free == Money

[XMilkProject]

Giving things away for free, in my experience, typically pays you back pretty quickly. And in more ways than just adding points to the great Karma tally in the sky.

If you make an open source project that gets any sort of attention, you typically find yourself bombarded with job offers and requests for consulting work, which can easily turn into a consulting company, etc, etc.

Just becuase you give away something for free doesn't mean people want to use it for free, they often will pay a good fee for support, customization, etc.

Content is king.

[BigZaphod]

But not the content that's being given away... That content brings in the users/viewers. The content that makes the money is the meta-content. It's the communities that develop and the loyalties that are created around the free content which bring value to the advertising and site-themed t-shirts and coffee mugs. Take slashdot, for instance.. the real value of slashdot is more in the comments and the community that develops here for each new story than it is in the story itself - at least for those of you reading this comment right now. We could find out the news from tons of places - but the real reason to come here is either habit or for the entertainment found in reading and posting comments. People are valuable and we're seeing a relfection of that happen on the web.

For how long can we give content away for free?

[MarkusQ]

For how long can we give content away for free?

I hate this question. You might as well ask "For how long can we afford to have sex without charging each other?" or "For how long can we make idle chit chat with random strangers without getting their billing information first?"

Or how about "How long can the sun shine without protection of its intellectual property?"

I'm as capitalistic as the next guy, but capitalism is a specific mechanism to resolve a certain specific class of problems in an efficient manner. It is not some universal mandate, and there's no reason to suspect that it imposes any sorts of limits on conduct that isn't covered by the model.

--MarkusQ

P.S. Please respond with your credit card numbers so I can bill you for spouting off. I've gotta eat, you know.

good for most

[goldfita]

Freedom and openness is good for almost everyone except maybe the middlemen (publishers, RIAA, etc.). The web has flourished under the free content paradigm. Could you imagine if you had to pay for everything (email, search, maps, news, and so on)? Who could afford it?

Many businesses have proven they can make money this way. Others may still have to prove themselves. But it works! There are many ways to generate cash flow - ad revenues, consulting, sale of related items. I think if you offer a service of value to people or valuable content, you can find a way to earn money.

State funding makes it free!!!

[maynard]

ED: "One of the key questions, however, is sustainability. If some content creation depends on patronage or philanthropy how can sustainability be achieved? Many of the models we see are such short-term focused and this is what needs to be tackled. In particular philanthropic giving in this area needs to think harder about sustainability."

[...]

ED: "Yes, I agree, but this might point to an old fashioned concept: state funding. In particular in areas of such strategic and social importance as education in a country like South Africa. I don't think the Internet is a good medium for education, though it is a good tool. Education is a process; it's not content. Even though involving the internet to produce and disseminate content sharply reduces costs, there is still the need for quality assurance and costs of maintaining such a service. And in many regards state funding might the most appropriate way for achieving that such a service can be maintained at low costs."

I don't have a problem with state funding per se, but I fail to see how a state funded project could in any way be deemed: FREE. Perhaps free speech, but certainly not free beer.

Remember, Dyson is the same person who

[WillAffleckUW]

thinks outsourcing is good for America.

Sometimes, you have loony people.

Sometimes, you have intelligent people.

Sometimes, and far worse, you have intelligent people who can't understand consequences of loony ideas but are very good at pushing out enough frak that noone understands they're really loony people.

Sadly, Dyson's in the third category.

Definition of eBusiness

[TrueJim]

This is a good point. A friend of mine says that you know you've done "eBusiness" not just when you've put stuff online, but when you've changed who has the power. For example, before online car shopping, car dealers had all the power: they knew how much any specific new or used car was really worth on the market, but as a consumer you had no easy way to come up with that same information. eBusiness changed that: consumers now have that same power. Currently we can see that eBusiness is finally "happening" in the movies and music business, not because movies and music are available online, but because power is shifting away from the "middle men".

Maybe a similar argument applies to "open content". For any particular medium of expression, we can tell when "open content" has finally "happened" not by when stuff becomes available online, but by when "who has the power" has shifted.

Re:Keep giving it away 'til you go BUST!

[Kazoo the Clown]

What some people apparently don't realize is that the new internet distribution channels remove old restrictions on the supply of intellectual content. The big moneyed interests garnered an inflated share in the past based primarily on control over supply. So we're seeing their futile attempt to artificially restrict the supply, that restriction being the actual source of their wealth. Problem is, the various DRM methods don't really give you control over the independent supply, only of your own, unless you can force all content to have to have it and make it prohibitively expensive to supply it-- which ultimately, isn't going to happen. In the old days, independents just didn't have much access to the market. But now, the rules of supply and demand get to operate unencumbered. The big businesses who survived in the past because they controlled the supply are losing out because in fact, there is far more supply than there is demand.

The independent content producer who previously couldn't connect with their market because the big factories controlled the channel, can now choose to give away content for free or for very low cost until they find a better paying channel or gain enough exposure for the small amounts to add up. The rule operating here is if you can't find someone who will pay you for it, give it away, which has two effects-- it can get you exposure, AND it presents downward price-pressure on the mainstream competition. It works to bring them down to your level which in a free market (free to compete, not free as in beer), is the way it should be.

Actually, I do...

[gillbates]

From the article:

You don't go there because the beer tastes different than from in the bar next door, but because of the people who are there...

Actually, I do choose the bar based on the quality of the brew. I'm not about to drink some American Mega-Swill just so I can have a chat with the local drunks.

But, given the writing, it is clear the author thinks us just a bunch of drunken idiots anyway. Anyone who thinks everything worthwhile can be - or has to be - bought has nothing worth anything.

Sharing v.s. Ecconomy. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Here's a clue:

Guess what? It's NOT sustainable. The economy is a top-heavy joke which does not respect Mamma Nature, and as a result, has no choice but to fail spectacularly. --And while it is the engine of greed and control which is speeding this destruction along, some of the unraveling is partly due to the fact that communities have come together to share stuff openly for, oooh, F*R*E*E.

Sure, when the economy crashes, we won't be able to buy things with dollars. (Or rather, with plastic credit/debit cards.) We won't be able to pay rent or buy gas for our cars or go to the grocery store. Horrors! We'll all be broke and the whole world will look like it's crashing down, and it will be.

But. . . When the dust settles, if you want to eat or have somewhere to live, you'll only manage it if you have strong ties to your community. People will have to learn how to take care of each other without the 'aid' of being plugged into the economy. The economy is doomed regardless of how many copies of GIMP are given away. There are larger forces at work than open sourcers and video pirates. But while those larger forces will crumble and fall without their artificial money structure, the communities which learned how to share will survive and thrive.

Interesting, no?

-FL