Content "Freedom"

Jaffe tweeted a request for thoughts and comments for his next podcast via Twitter the other day. The topic:  "Content Wants To Be Free." (Inspired by Chip Griffin's recent and quite articulate post.)

Is this much ado about nothing? I agree with Jeff Jarvis’ observation that content already is free, so let’s concentrate on finding other means of extracting compensation or adding value. Of course, to what degree any piece of content is “free” depends on your resources, technical abilities and stamina. But it seems to me that there are two issues Griffin didn’t discuss that affect the “freedom” of content.

1) Time
2) The Content Itself

Movies, recordings, books—they all become free at some point. Just visit the library. Or ask a friend. Be patient, someday it will be yours. But if you want to experience them upon their release, you’re probably going to pay for the pleasure. We pay for timely access to content. The more “connected” you are, the less time you have to wait, naturally.

And then there’s the content of the content. For a variety of reasons, I’ve been trained to value motion pictures, CDs and literature bound in fancy volumes. So I’m accustomed to paying for these kinds of content. Yet I don’t see any reason to shell out cold cash for news reporting, insightful marketing blogs and podcasts or videos of The Police. That content is free. (But I should note that I did join the Police Tour fanclub for access to both earlier ticket sales and rehearsal videos. And because the first album I bought with my own cash was Regatta De Blanc.)

Perhaps content truly is free. What we’re really paying for is access, ease-of-use and transportability.

Comments

[Chip Griffin]

I appreciate your contribution to this topic. Your argument is well-considered. Here's my response.

My argument was that not all payments are financial in nature. In other words, you may not fork over cash, but there is a cost for content that consumers must "pay." In some cases, it may be waiting (time) as you point out. But certainly the old adage that time is money applies. For instance, I know someone who won't pay to get Peter Gammons' column on ESPN.com. But he religiously Googles each week to find someone who has posted it, or most of it, online. Clearly, that costs time. In that person's mind, less than the $4 per month in subscription fees, but nevertheless something (and I would argue that's an erroneous calculation).

Your argument about the content of the content definitely has merit. But it merely helps decide what you value and how much and in what form you are willing to pay. What you value is different from what I may value. But the content is still not free ... you are willing to pay cash for some, time for others, and other forms of "payment" for still more.