The Idea: Innovative companies are learning that giving something away free can be good for both the top and bottom line. Unscrupulous companies are abusing it. Oligopolies are wringing their hands and calling it theft, and the end of the world. Is this trend inevitable, and how can we make it work to everyone’s benefit?
The price trend in almost everything, except for oil and other non-renewables, is downward. In some cases this is a good thing: Open Source development of software, and the free exchange of information over the Internet, for example. In some cases it’s not so good: The Wal-Mart Dilemma for example, which trades off low prices for poor quality, third world slavery and loss of Western jobs. In some cases whether it’s good or bad depends on where you sit — File-sharing, for example, which allows new artists to get low-cost exposure or markets, and which hurts both the price-gouging recording industry oligopoly and independent artists who count on modest-price CD and MP3 sales to make a living. Conventional wisdom is that if you lower the price you have to make up the loss by either cutting costs (by squeezing suppliers and employees a la Wal-Mart) or drastically increasing volume, a la Amazon. But what happens when the price goes to zero — How do you make money then? The answer is by being innovative, and recognizing that the supply/demand curve is inexorable, and, except when distorted by government subsidy, failure to absorb full external costs, or oligopolistic price-fixing, the price will find its own level. And increasingly that level is zero, reflecting both the lower value that consumers put on most of the mass-produced junk that we’re inundated with, and the lower buying power that consumers have been left with thanks to corporatist exploitation and cowardly lack of government regulation. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. How can responsible, innovative companies give stuff away free, and still make a living? Some new ways are being invented all the time, but here, classified by consumer receptivity, are some of these techniques: 1. Thumbs Down — disreputable methods, some bordering on fraud:
2. So-So — methods that work sometimes, sometimes not:
3. Ingenious — methods that work:
4. You Tell Me — new methods not yet proven:
What am I missing? What other innovative or devious ways are companies using to give people something for nothing, and still make a living? Is this the wave of the future? Think of the essentials of life: food, clothing, energy and shelter. How could we give people a comfortable level of all three, for free, in a way that would allow the producers of these things a reasonable income? And if we did, would people get lazy and stop working? Would this necessarily be a bad thing? Or would they be inspired by a personal moral code to invest some time and energy to give something back, free, in return? |
Navigation
Collapsniks
Albert Bates (US)
Andrew Nikiforuk (CA)
Brutus (US)
Carolyn Baker (US)*
Catherine Ingram (US)
Chris Hedges (US)
Dahr Jamail (US)
Dean Spillane-Walker (US)*
Derrick Jensen (US)
Dougald & Paul (IE/SE)*
Erik Michaels (US)
Gail Tverberg (US)
Guy McPherson (US)
Honest Sorcerer
Janaia & Robin (US)*
Jem Bendell (UK)
Mari Werner
Michael Dowd (US)*
Nate Hagens (US)
Paul Heft (US)*
Post Carbon Inst. (US)
Resilience (US)
Richard Heinberg (US)
Robert Jensen (US)
Roy Scranton (US)
Sam Mitchell (US)
Tim Morgan (UK)
Tim Watkins (UK)
Umair Haque (UK)
William Rees (CA)
XrayMike (AU)
Radical Non-Duality
Tony Parsons
Jim Newman
Tim Cliss
Andreas Müller
Kenneth Madden
Emerson Lim
Nancy Neithercut
Rosemarijn Roes
Frank McCaughey
Clare Cherikoff
Ere Parek, Izzy Cloke, Zabi AmaniEssential Reading
Archive by Category
My Bio, Contact Info, Signature Posts
About the Author (2023)
My Circles
E-mail me
--- My Best 200 Posts, 2003-22 by category, from newest to oldest ---
Collapse Watch:
Hope — On the Balance of Probabilities
The Caste War for the Dregs
Recuperation, Accommodation, Resilience
How Do We Teach the Critical Skills
Collapse Not Apocalypse
Effective Activism
'Making Sense of the World' Reading List
Notes From the Rising Dark
What is Exponential Decay
Collapse: Slowly Then Suddenly
Slouching Towards Bethlehem
Making Sense of Who We Are
What Would Net-Zero Emissions Look Like?
Post Collapse with Michael Dowd (video)
Why Economic Collapse Will Precede Climate Collapse
Being Adaptable: A Reminder List
A Culture of Fear
What Will It Take?
A Future Without Us
Dean Walker Interview (video)
The Mushroom at the End of the World
What Would It Take To Live Sustainably?
The New Political Map (Poster)
Beyond Belief
Complexity and Collapse
Requiem for a Species
Civilization Disease
What a Desolated Earth Looks Like
If We Had a Better Story...
Giving Up on Environmentalism
The Hard Part is Finding People Who Care
Going Vegan
The Dark & Gathering Sameness of the World
The End of Philosophy
A Short History of Progress
The Boiling Frog
Our Culture / Ourselves:
A CoVid-19 Recap
What It Means to be Human
A Culture Built on Wrong Models
Understanding Conservatives
Our Unique Capacity for Hatred
Not Meant to Govern Each Other
The Humanist Trap
Credulous
Amazing What People Get Used To
My Reluctant Misanthropy
The Dawn of Everything
Species Shame
Why Misinformation Doesn't Work
The Lab-Leak Hypothesis
The Right to Die
CoVid-19: Go for Zero
Pollard's Laws
On Caste
The Process of Self-Organization
The Tragic Spread of Misinformation
A Better Way to Work
The Needs of the Moment
Ask Yourself This
What to Believe Now?
Rogue Primate
Conversation & Silence
The Language of Our Eyes
True Story
May I Ask a Question?
Cultural Acedia: When We Can No Longer Care
Useless Advice
Several Short Sentences About Learning
Why I Don't Want to Hear Your Story
A Harvest of Myths
The Qualities of a Great Story
The Trouble With Stories
A Model of Identity & Community
Not Ready to Do What's Needed
A Culture of Dependence
So What's Next
Ten Things to Do When You're Feeling Hopeless
No Use to the World Broken
Living in Another World
Does Language Restrict What We Can Think?
The Value of Conversation Manifesto Nobody Knows Anything
If I Only Had 37 Days
The Only Life We Know
A Long Way Down
No Noble Savages
Figments of Reality
Too Far Ahead
Learning From Nature
The Rogue Animal
How the World Really Works:
Making Sense of Scents
An Age of Wonder
The Truth About Ukraine
Navigating Complexity
The Supply Chain Problem
The Promise of Dialogue
Too Dumb to Take Care of Ourselves
Extinction Capitalism
Homeless
Republicans Slide Into Fascism
All the Things I Was Wrong About
Several Short Sentences About Sharks
How Change Happens
What's the Best Possible Outcome?
The Perpetual Growth Machine
We Make Zero
How Long We've Been Around (graphic)
If You Wanted to Sabotage the Elections
Collective Intelligence & Complexity
Ten Things I Wish I'd Learned Earlier
The Problem With Systems
Against Hope (Video)
The Admission of Necessary Ignorance
Several Short Sentences About Jellyfish
Loren Eiseley, in Verse
A Synopsis of 'Finding the Sweet Spot'
Learning from Indigenous Cultures
The Gift Economy
The Job of the Media
The Wal-Mart Dilemma
The Illusion of the Separate Self, and Free Will:
No Free Will, No Freedom
The Other Side of 'No Me'
This Body Takes Me For a Walk
The Only One Who Really Knew Me
No Free Will — Fightin' Words
The Paradox of the Self
A Radical Non-Duality FAQ
What We Think We Know
Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark Bark
Healing From Ourselves
The Entanglement Hypothesis
Nothing Needs to Happen
Nothing to Say About This
What I Wanted to Believe
A Continuous Reassemblage of Meaning
No Choice But to Misbehave
What's Apparently Happening
A Different Kind of Animal
Happy Now?
This Creature
Did Early Humans Have Selves?
Nothing On Offer Here
Even Simpler and More Hopeless Than That
Glimpses
How Our Bodies Sense the World
Fragments
What Happens in Vagus
We Have No Choice
Never Comfortable in the Skin of Self
Letting Go of the Story of Me
All There Is, Is This
A Theory of No Mind
Creative Works:
Mindful Wanderings (Reflections) (Archive)
A Prayer to No One
Frogs' Hollow (Short Story)
We Do What We Do (Poem)
Negative Assertions (Poem)
Reminder (Short Story)
A Canadian Sorry (Satire)
Under No Illusions (Short Story)
The Ever-Stranger (Poem)
The Fortune Teller (Short Story)
Non-Duality Dude (Play)
Your Self: An Owner's Manual (Satire)
All the Things I Thought I Knew (Short Story)
On the Shoulders of Giants (Short Story)
Improv (Poem)
Calling the Cage Freedom (Short Story)
Rune (Poem)
Only This (Poem)
The Other Extinction (Short Story)
Invisible (Poem)
Disruption (Short Story)
A Thought-Less Experiment (Poem)
Speaking Grosbeak (Short Story)
The Only Way There (Short Story)
The Wild Man (Short Story)
Flywheel (Short Story)
The Opposite of Presence (Satire)
How to Make Love Last (Poem)
The Horses' Bodies (Poem)
Enough (Lament)
Distracted (Short Story)
Worse, Still (Poem)
Conjurer (Satire)
A Conversation (Short Story)
Farewell to Albion (Poem)
My Other Sites
Don’t forget the increasingly popular use of your customers as advertising agents. Cheap t-shirts splattered with your logo, promotional use of your company’s name on donated sports or computer equipment, and the most pernicious strain of all: giving free or cut-rate soda to schools in return for exclusive access to students’ captive gullets and a promise that your largesse will be loudly trumpeted.
Apparently Walmart prices aren’t all that low: http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/3/7/17936/90375
Dave:You’re totally off-base in your characterization of shareware and you do a big disservice to the hundreds (thousands?) of small software developers who use this model to distribute their software. What you’re describing is more accurately called “donation-ware”.Shareware is *not* pay what you want or think the software is worth. Shareware is generally a model that provides a trial period during which you can freely evaluate a fully functional software application. When the evaluation period is over you either can longer use the software or critical features are disabled and it reverts to the core functionality of a free version.The company I work for has used this model for 10 years to distribute our software applications and we in no way have achieved the success we enjoy by guilt-tripping anyone. I’d really appreciate it if you would adjust your post to be more accurate.FWIW, I also take minor issue with your treatment of Seth Godin’s Free Prize concept. In his book and blog posts on the subject, Seth provides many examples of the free prize being something other than a tangible premium. Sometimes it’s an unexpected and welcome “extra mile” effort by a company or individual to make a remarkable experience.I love your writing and you are a constant source of inspiration. This time I feel that you need to check a couple of your facts a little more carefully. The post is spot on aside from these two points.
What you are missing is the pure form of your argument: Give it away for free and expect nothing in return. Are you truly giving something away if you are expecting a return? Giving and investing are two different things. For instance, Dave obviously spends a lot of time and care on this very blog. The reader is asked for nothing in return. Yet I will bet you that Dave’s birth-to-death life experience has been enhanced in many ways on the physical, emotional and spiritual planes in both direct and obscure ways. I wonder if we all have an inner communist that can identify those who have from those who need. On a societal level, we often think of those who need taking from those who have in negative terms. Our old people want all of our money. Medicare recipients want to live free off the system. But we still feel and identify situations when those who have set out what they’ve got to those who need, freely, on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. And on a deep level we react positively to those people. But you could never put that in a spreadsheet or one of those fancy organizational charts.. :)
David: Excellent points, especially the bribes paid (free stuff given) to agents to secure lucrative contracts with end-customers. James Surowiecki has written about this, and fortunately the NY Atty-Gen has been prosecuting these con artists.Syzygy: Great link, thanks. Marc: Sorry you took offense, but I think the problem here is the ambiguous definition of shareware. I’m using the Wikipedia definition which is “Typically shareware software is obtained free of charge by downloading, thus allowing one to try out the program ahead of time. A shareware program is accompanied by a request for payment, and often payment is required per the terms of the license past a set period of time (although some consider this requirement to cause the software to be not shareware but a demo)…When features of the software are disabled for non-payment this is known as crippleware”. What you are describing, by this definition, is not shareware (where payment is on the ‘honour system’), but what Wikipedia calls a demo version or crippleware (which I less cruelly call “limited time free trials” products). So no, your software doesn’t lay a guilt trip on people, it’s just annoying to people who try it and decide it isn’t worth buying. I respect your right to market your product this way but millions of computers are littered with the carcasses of software whose ‘critical features are disabled’, and I personally don’t think this is a very effective or creative way to market software. As for Seth’s concept, I say in my post “If [the free prize] is genuinely valuable and not hyped, it’s a good deal.” I don’t see how that’s different from what you’re saying. The fact I warn about the possibility of abuse of this (e.g. useless features for which the buyer ends up effectively paying, like 80% of the features in today’s cellphones) does not detract from the fact that Seth is right in identifying this technique as an excellent way, when it’s done properly, to improve the user experience at no cost to either producer or customer.
I suppose you’re including open-source software (or anything) in your “ingenious/methods that work” category, though it’s actually a little different. The product itself is free – the “support” and/or addons are either do-it-yourself or paid. And this is a very viable business model, though not quite what you described.As for shareware, I’m going to side a bit closer to Marc. I subscribe to a dozen or so paper magazines (so retro, I know). My study is littered with the carcasses of past issues, and it’s annoying to have to stack them up again when the cats knock them over, until I’m motivated enough to get rid of them. But….the value I received from them makes it worthwhile to dispose of them – it’s still a net gain.For me, shareware has worked the same way. Over the last 20+ years I’ve downloaded and installed thousands of programs, many of which I tried and didn’t use. In the early 90’s I probably downloaded or installed close to 30 HTML editors, for example. I use one of them, still, even though I’ve tried a bunch of others since.What shareware has allowed me to do (besides watching the download indicator for a really long time)was to compare the features in a variety of tools that produced the same result, and discover a) which features I really wanted; b) which tools actually included the features I wanted, rather than relying on reviews and or marketing datasheets; and c) which interface was most productive for me personally. It’s also allowed me to grab a tool for a one-off job when it was economically far more productive to get the tool, use it, and uninstall it than to use the wrong tool or do the process manually.The “annoyance” of trying a product that doesn’t work is more properly akin to the “annoyance” of an experiment that doesn’t work. The educational value of shareware is substantial and a tangible benefit to the person who knows how to use it for learning. For that reason alone, I’d disagree with your point there.
what I think you are missing from the analysis – which by the way is excellent in its breadth and depth – is that a lot of what we enjoy as free or cheap is the result of us using nature’s energy-packed gift of oil, instead of muscle or animal power. (One gallon of gas gives the equivalent of 600 hours of work).To even think “free” may be a sidetrack. For one thing as oil prices rise, and they must do as exploration is finding less and less, what we take to be eternal “cheap and easy” truths – large sale farming, Wal-Marts, jumping in the car to go anywhere etc, will not be available to us. In fact, economy as we know it will start to unravel without oil.The other side-tracking element of the argument is what exactly is money? Many are questioning the role of the current currency system in the post-oil world.For an idea of the money-less society see http://porena.blogspot.comFor more about oil try http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ and for money try http://www.reinventingmoney.com/
Andrius Kulikauskas and David Ellison-Bey wrote this.
Here was a very innovative proposal that I think can work very wellhttp://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/index.htmlWe introduce the Street Performer Protocol, an electronic-commerce mechanism to facilitate the private financing of public works. Using this protocol, people would place donations in escrow, to be released to an author in the event that the promised work be put in the public domain. This protocol has the potential to fund alternative or “marginal” works.In this paper, we consider a very simple and common approach to funding the production of public goods such as advertisement-free radio and television stations and impromptu music performances in public places. The artist offers to continue producing their freely-available creations so long as they keep getting enough money in donations to make it worth their while to do so. We discuss social, financial, and technical arrangements that can make this approach work fairly well, though we don’t believe it will ever provide a complete solution to the problem of paying creators for their creations. We primarily discuss the way a specific instantiation of this idea, called the “Street Performer Protocol,” might work.
I have one more, but I don’t know if I can articulate it. Good examples are service clubs (Lions, Rotary, Masons &c) and to some extent, some of the “Free Software” (eg GPL) projects.it goes like this: You give for free, expecting nothing in return directly, but you do keep in touch. The ‘free’ thing also requires co-operation and collaboration and this builds a network of people who now know something about each other, they know details extraneous to the product simply by virtue of having worked together for a long period of time.Then, what goes around, comes around. Having helped before, when you need help, you’re not embarrased to hint, and because you now have a network of contacts and an inventory of their special qualities, you can step outside the ‘official’ market-channel network to contact them directly, and they, of course, can also contact you.This is the mechanism I see most often in the “Sourceforge” sort of Free Software, even if the software itself does not work very well or the project is not managed very well, the act of collaboration introduces people, forges relationships, and I have personally experience and seen other cases where those personal relationships have developed into business relationships.Unfortuntely, I’m no Seth Godin, so I don’t have a sexy name for this effect, but considering the method has been in use since the days of the Acropolis and likely long before, I suppose it doesn’t really need a sexy name :)
Dave, if and when you visit the washington, dc area, drop me an email and come visit and I’ll give you a free dinner.
Thanks, everyone, for the additional ‘free’ ideas, and the comments about when ‘free’ really isn’t. Something just rubs me the wrong way about methods that require reliance on human ‘charity’ — which always seems to imply that you are giving someone more than what they offer really provides in value. And perhaps blogs are another example of giving something away ‘free’ — what I have received in return for this ‘gift’ is enormously valuable to me, far more valuable than anything I received from a customer or employer. And Mike, thanks for the invite, which I will take you up on if I’m there.
Hi –This discussion is rather pedestrian. It seems people are trapped in some naive 20th century, transaction-oriented time warp. The exploitative tone is unsettling
Just a note about the Get your premiums back if you don’t use the policy. Having spent 10 years in the insurance business I know that this is not new. You actually pay a premium price for what they call “return of premiums”. I believe what you heard was an add for Critical Illness insurance that is running in the Toronto Market right now. The insurance company actuaries are experts at calculating how much money they must collect from policy holders in order to pay out expected claims based on the instances of heart attack, stroke, cancer, etc. If you buy the “return of premiums” option, generally, there is a stipulation that you must keep the policy in force for a minimum period of time (usually 10 years) before you qualify for return of premiums. They also know that many people will ‘lapse’ their policies before 10 years and the insurance company has paid no claims and gets to keep all that money. Every premium dollar they collect is pooled and invested and any claims are paid out of this pool. Their is no real magic here and it is all legit and very affordable.