The Role Of Abundance In Innovation

from the it-increases-it... dept

A few weeks back, Dennis wrote about a recent Malcolm Gladwell article in the New Yorker about innovation, but I was just shown another article from the same issue, by Adam Gropnik, which may be even more interesting. Gopnik points to evidence challenging the idea that "necessity is the mother of invention," by noting that more innovation seems to occur in times of abundance, rather than times of hardship. The idea is that in times of hardship you're just focused on getting through the day. You don't have time to experiment and try to improve things -- you make do with what you have. It's in times of plenty that people finally have time to mess around and experiment, invent and then innovate.

This makes a lot of sense... and certainly fits with plenty of other things we've seen in recent research. Innovation tends to occur not because of one brilliant idea from one brilliant individual -- but as an ongoing process, with lots of folks tossing different ideas at the wall, and seeing what sticks. Invention is the beginning process, but then people innovate around various inventions to improve it and make it acceptable to the market. In fact, this is why we tend to think that the long run impact of investment bubbles isn't usually bad. Historically, the impact of bubbles has actually been quite good, and it's for exactly these reasons. Within the bubble there is tremendous abundance, and that allows for many different ideas to get tested incredibly quickly. The bad ones fail, but plenty of good ideas (and infrastructure) stick around. It's bad if you get caught up in the investment bubble, but it's good for the overall economy in the long run.

This also should (again) get people to rethink some issues surrounding patents. If it's that abundance and experimenting that leads to all that innovation, aren't we holding back that innovation by enforcing artificial scarcity, and allowing one company to entirely block others from doing the necessary experiments? In Chris Anderson's latest book, he builds on Carver Mead's idea about transistors becoming so abundant that it makes sense to "waste" them. This makes a tremendous amount of sense if you start to follow through the economic implications of "wasting" goods that are effectively infinite. When "wasted," they create new opportunities where none existed before. The innovation that comes out of abundance comes from such "waste." It comes from the ability to invent and tinker and experiment and see what sticks -- and you can't do that when you have massive scarcities -- real or artificial. So why is it that our innovation policy is still focused on enforcing scarcities when that's the exact opposite of what's needed to encourage innovation?

43 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Scarcity Is A Bad Thing, So Why Would You Want To Artificially Add Scarcity?

from the think-this-through dept

If there were no such thing as scarcity in the world, there wouldn't be a need for property rights, because there would be no borders to worry about. The entire reason why we worry about property and ownership and borders and allocation is because these things are scarce and we're concerned about the most efficient way to split up those scarce resources, without having too many arguments over who controls what scarce bit. If there were no scarcity, everyone could have whatever they wanted, and there would be no reason to worry about the rest. That's why I've never quite understood the rush to create artificial scarcity, as in the scarcity created by intellectual property laws.

It's a situation where you have the opposite of scarcity. You have abundance, such that there need not be any argument over ownership, because everyone can have what they want... and suddenly people want to take away the good thing (abundance!) and replace it with limits and a situation that is worse for everyone. Why would you ever do that, unless you either don't understand economics or you dislike mankind and would prefer that the world have fewer resources and more arguments over ownership.

Apparently, some others feel the same way. Derek Reed points to an amusing quote in a post by Tycho over at Penny Arcade concerning Sony's Playstation Home:

"Chief among these bizarre maneuvers is the idea that, when manufacturing their flimsy dystopia, they actually ported the pernicious notion of scarcity from our world into their digital one. This is like having the ability to shape being from non-being at the subatomic level, and the first thing you decide to make is AIDS."

While an extreme quote, he's making an important point. If you are creating a new world, where unfortunate and damaging resource limitations of other worlds wouldn't be necessary, why would you arbitrarily add those limitations back in? Why would you arbitrarily shrink the resource pool?

85 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And What If Tangible Goods Become More Abundant?

from the a-thought-experiment dept

Over the years, I've written plenty about the economics of infinite vs. scarce goods. Too often (and I do this on occasion as well) people default into thinking of "tangible" goods as being the scarce ones, and digital goods or information goods as being the infinite ones. But the definitions can certainly expand beyond that -- and there's also the possibility that material, tangible goods could one day lose much of their scarcity. Economist Arnold Kling, riffing on a post by Will Wilkinson about why energy isn't really scarce points out that, if energy isn't scarce, matter isn't scarce either.

In theory, as you solve "the energy problem" and figure out how to create energy cheaply, then you can make any material you want as it's needed cheaply as well. Then you're in a bit of the Star Trek replicator universe where even tangible products become much more abundant. We're still a ways off from that point, but it's worth thinking about as a thought experiment (especially as 3D printer technology improves rapidly). Indeed, Chris Anderson is also thinking along these lines, noting that technology is likely to solve both of the big "shortage" problems we're facing these days: energy and food -- if only government regulations would let them.

For those who think that copyright holders should try to artificially maintain scarcity, this may be a scary situation. After all, then the same "problem" facing copyright holders, will also face makers of tangible goods. But the truth is even if you switch tangible goods from scarce to abundant, it doesn't mean that you run out of scarcities to sell. Music is more abundant thanks to digital technologies, and there are still plenty of scarcities to sell for the music industry. There are always scarcities -- it's just that they're no longer tangible goods. Instead, business models will start to revolve around those non-tangible scarcities as well, such as time, attention and reputation. But these changes could create a rather radical shift in how economies function. So, even if it's pretty far out, it's worth considering the possibilities already.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Musician Talks About Success In Getting Fans To Pay For The Album Before Its Created

from the another-good-example dept

Whenever we talk about business models involving giving away "infinite" goods and charging for "scarce" goods, one of the points that we try to emphasize (though it doesn't always come across) is that some of the best business models are ones where you get paid for the creation of content, rather than copies of existing content. When it comes to music, we've suggested a variety of options, and pointed to stories like Jill Sobule and Maria Schneider, who have set up models where fans chip in to pay for the production of the album itself -- and, in return get lots of extras back in return (including access to the musician, early releases, credits, etc.).

Mathew Ingram points us to a blog post by Mark Kelly, the keyboard player with the band Marillion, who have actually been using just such a method of producing their albums for almost a decade:

In 1999 we released our final contracted album for Castle Records and, in anticipation of the way we planned to do business in the future, called it Marillion.com. We had already collected the email addresses of more than 20,000 fans through free CDs, downloads, etc. and by asking these fans to order and pay for the upcoming CD in advance, we were able to finance the writing and recording.

We maximised the profit from the pre-order by cutting out the record companies, distributors and retailers, manufacturing and shipping direct. We also released the album in the shops through an independent distributor to reach the fans not on the internet.

We released three more albums between 2001 and 2007 using this business model and despite continuing falls in CD sales worldwide we have managed to shield ourselves from the worst by continuing to build our database of email addresses, currently more than 65,000, and by offering special edition pre-order CDs with 128-page hardcover books containing beautiful artwork.

I'm sure many people still download our music illegally but the real hardcore fans want the special editions and are willing to pay £25 or more for them.

This is another fantastic example of the business model in action: focusing on connecting with your true fans, focusing on selling scarce goods (remember, the creation of content is a scarcity -- existing content is not) and giving people a real reason to buy (such as "special edition pre-order CDs with 128-page hardcover books containing beautiful artwork").

Unfortunately, after describing this great business model, Kelly veers off on a tangent that doesn't seem to fit with the point he makes in the first half. Even though his band has figured out how to profit without having to worry about "piracy," he seems to support the idea that ISPs should be responsible for file sharing, and he doesn't seem to recognize how promoting file sharing himself would help create more fans to add to that 65,000-strong email list. But, still, even though the end of the post doesn't quite match with the first half, it's great to see another band find success with this sort of business model.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Security-As-A-Feature And The Economics of Abundance

from the a-feature-not-a-product dept

The always insightful Bruce Schneier has a new piece out arguing that the stand-alone security industry is doomed, as security increasingly becomes a feature of other products, rather than a product in its own right. He points out that hardly anybody wants to buy a "security product." They want to buy useful products -- operating systems, databases, web servers, whatever -- and take for granted that the developers of those products have designed it to be secure out of the box. Schneier points out that consolidation in the security industry has not taken the form of large security firms buying small security firms, but of non-security-focused software firms buying security firms to help bolster the security and reputation of their products. This may indicate that developers of other software products are recognizing that better security is one of the key features customers are demanding in their products.

If you'll excuse me for jumping on a Techdirt hobby-horse here, this is another example of the economics of abundance at work. Security products are increasingly becoming commodities. Obviously the software ones -- anti-virus tools, software firewalls, intrusion detection systems -- have a marginal cost of zero, and even many of the hardware devices are built on commodity parts that get cheaper every month. What hasn't gotten cheaper is the expertise required to put the bewildering array of security tools together into a coherent system that's customized for a firm's particular business. Indeed, as security products have gotten more numerous and more complex, it has actually gotten harder to keep track of them all and know which security tools are the best ones to use in any given situation.

And crucially, this isn't something you can outsource to a third party. I've written before (in the context of e-voting) that encryption isn't magic pixie dust that automatically makes a system more secure. The same point applies to security more generally. Having the best firewall in the world won't do you any good if it's not configured properly, or if your network hasn't been designed with security in mind. And because every large organization has different security needs, every organization needs a slightly different security setup.

This creates a huge opening for companies who understand that customers are not looking to buy a security software product, but a suite of software that they can count on to be secure without worrying about the details. We've pointed out that this is essentially the business Red Hat is in: not selling software but selling the expertise of its employees with respect to the software. Security is a big part of that. "Security software" is an infinite good, and the market for it will get increasingly crowded in the future. On the other hand, the expertise needed to build complex software systems securely is as scarce as ever, and such expertise is one of the key ways that software companies can distinguish themselves from the competition.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can Someone Teach The New Malthusians About Infinite Goods?

from the well-here-we-go dept

When we talk about economics and business models concerning "infinite goods" it may seem like we focus almost entirely on the entertainment industry. However, the reason for doing so isn't an infatuation with that particular industry, but simply the fact that it's the best "natural experiment" for showing how these infinite goods work to grow a market. But "infinite goods" impact every market and help them grow. Yet, every time there's some sort of larger financial crisis, people spring up and deny that economic growth can occur any more. It dates back to Malthus' incorrect belief that people were growing exponentially while food supplies grew linearly -- meaning we'd run out of food. The problem, of course, was that he failed to take into account economic growth. That economic growth came from new ideas and new technologies (infinite goods) that made the production of food much more efficient.

The Wall Street Journal at least admits that every previous "Malthusian" has been proved wrong (other than very limited, pre-technology societies) before diving headlong into a discussion of whether or not the latest generation of Malthusians might just have a point this time. The article includes lots of fear mongering about various resources running out -- but those were the same fears that proved overblown in past Malthusian outbursts. My favorite example of this is William Stanley Jevons, who predicted the end of British economic growth thanks to coal running out (four years before oil was discovered) and when he died, his study was found filled stacked high with scrap paper -- since he believed that the country was running out.

That isn't to say things just "work out," but that it's these new ideas and new technologies -- these "infinite goods" -- that help to solve the problems. But they can only do so if they aren't locked down and artificially limited. Every time we lock down these ideas, we cause more problems and actually limit growth. If you could invent a solution to creating drinkable water (which the article frets about, but which Dean Kamen believes he's done), you could patent it and make it expensive. Or you could give it away, and recognize how you've just created a booming market for goods in places previously decimated by drought and disease. Rather than selling the water cleaning device, I would think there's a much bigger market in giving it away free to trouble spots and then helping to sell everything else that a healthy population would then want. Unfortunately, it's not clear that this is what Kamen will do. He is, after all, one of the folks protesting against any kind of patent reform in Congress.

So, again, this isn't to brush off the concerns of the Wall Street Journal piece. The environmental and resource challenges described are real challenges. But resource constraints can be solved through growth, and that growth is supplied by new ideas (new infinite goods) that increase the pie by creating resources that are infinite, and which make other scarce goods more valuable. We've pointed to Paul Romer's excellent explanation of economic growth before, but it bears repeating:

Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a recipe. The cooking one can do is limited by the supply of ingredients, and most cooking in the economy produces undesirable side effects. If economic growth could be achieved only by doing more and more of the same kind of cooking, we would eventually run out of raw materials and suffer from unacceptable levels of pollution and nuisance. Human history teaches us, however, that economic growth springs from better recipes, not just from more cooking. New recipes generally produce fewer unpleasant side effects and generate more economic value per unit of raw material.

Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding. Possibilities do not add up. They multiply.

So, when we're discussing infinite goods, and using the entertainment industry as a model, it's not just about entertainment. It's about dealing with all kinds of challenges that the world faces, and doing so through spreading infinite goods that multiply and make existing resources more valuable.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Can You Create A Market For Privacy? Would Anyone Care If You Did?

from the artificial-scarcity-isn't-a-business-model dept

David writes in to point us to Jim Manzi's guest post at Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish suggesting that a way to deal with privacy issues is to create a market for private info. This is not a new idea, though it's not clear if Manzi knows about those who have tried it before. Root Markets has been trying to do this for years without getting that much traction. Manzi's idea is that right now people are lax with transaction data because they really have no choice: "When the choices are (1) opt out of modern life, or (2) implicitly surrender all of this info, pretty much everybody picks door #2." His description of the solution, however, should immediately ring some bells on an analogy that shows why his plan will almost certainly never work:

"But what if I had the practical ability to charge commercial entities for access to or use of information of this sort? It would, first, go from a free good to a scarcer resource, and second, I could protect those parts of my transaction history that I feel to be most sensitive. In effect, we need a functioning market into which I can sell my transaction history."

Yes, he's basically saying that we should take an infinite resource (data about our transactions) and forcibly create artificial scarcity, and then create a market around that artificial scarcity. It sounds nice in theory, but given how just about every market that's based on artificial scarcity is disintegrating as we speak, it seems unlikely to get very far. If there's one lesson that we've learned from watching the entertainment industry implode over the last decade, it should be that artificial scarcity doesn't last. Basing a business model on artificial scarcity is incredibly risky.

Given how little attention Root Markets has received from users, Manzi may not be correct in estimating where consumers' feelings lie on this matter. As they've shown time and time again, it's not that people want to keep their transaction data private and just don't have the means to do so -- it's that very few really seem to care at all.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Abundance And Scarcity In The Insight Market

from the it-all-fits-together dept

Last week, after I wrote about some of the theory behind the Insight Community and the Smart Dossiers offering (which is a subset of the Insight Community), someone asked how my writings on economics fit into the equation. It's rather straightforward: In any market there are likely to be various scarcities and various abundances. You should always look at the scarcities as problems that need to be solved and the abundances as the resources you can use to solve those problems.

So, as we were building out Techdirt's business, working with various Fortune 500 companies to better understand various technology trends, we again began to notice an interesting set of scarcities and abundances. On the scarcity side, companies were really hungry for useful and actionable insight about their biggest challenges. At best, they could hire a big analyst firm or a big consulting firm, which would be excessively expensive, and often wouldn't give particularly useful information. In fact, it was a huge risk, since they would only receive a single answer, as if handed down from a wise man on the mountain, with no idea if it was accurate or not. At worst, they could have internal people try to do the analysis, often passing it off to a junior person to handle the work. Again, this would result in a single opinion (often from someone not very experienced) providing an important analysis that was also biased by coming from inside the company, rather than with an outsider's perspective.

At the same time, we were discovering an immense abundance in the ability to find and communicate with smart, knowledgeable passionate experts, many of whom we got to know via their participation on Techdirt itself, or via their own websites and blogs. At first we began to tap that group informally, to help us with the work we were doing with existing clients -- but we realized it was better to formalize the system, which is how we came up with the Insight Community, helping to eliminate the middle man and solve the scarcity (relevant, timely insight) with the abundance (lots of knowledgeable folks). The trick was coming up with a system that allowed the best, most useful insights to bubble to the top. In other words, figuring out not just how to connect companies to smart people, but to make sure that those companies could get the best, most relevant and insightful analysis out of the most qualified folks in that group of experts. To do that, we put in place a competitive system, that allowed experts in the community to compete to show they could provide the best insight. The end result has worked quite well, making it incredibly easy for companies, both big and small, to tap into this network of experts in order to get the best, most relevant insights into the challenges they face, gaining multiple expert opinions -- and doing so at a price the company gets to set.

Of course, while the "name your own price" model works well in some cases, it doesn't work for all. It can sometimes be an impediment for a company that knows they want something specific and isn't sure how much to bid for it. So, to help with those situations, we wanted to focus on common types of cases that the Insight Community was being used for and start to launch more packaged solutions -- the first of which is Smart Dossiers. Many of the customers using the Insight Community, had used it to get a straight analysis of a company. Sometimes of themselves (to get a quick snapshot of multiple outsider expert viewpoints), but more often of other companies they were dealing with: customers, competitors, partners, investments and investors. For example, we had one company use the Insight Community to create detailed "dossiers" on the company's top customer targets, so that its sales people could be better informed while calling on them. Another firm needed a competitive landscape of a new market it was about to enter, and was able to get a bunch of experts to all weigh in on the competitors in just over a week.

So, yes, we are putting into practice the economics that get discussed here all the time. It's all about taking an abundance and helping them "solve" a scarcity that companies desperately are looking for help solving.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Another Business Model That Leverages 'Free'

from the having-someone-else-pay-for-it dept

When I first heard about TrialPay, I thought it was a bit gimmicky. However, in reading through a NY Times article about the company, I'm realizing it's actually yet another example of how to use "free" in a business model. The service is mainly used by software providers (who, remember, are offering an infinite good, which will face pricing pressures towards a zero price). The software developers officially offer their software for a price, but then also offer it for free if you agree to buy someone else's product. For example, you can get free anti-virus software if you also agree to get a subscription to Netflix. Note what's happening here (and how it sounds familiar). Software providers are giving away their (infinite) product, but they're attaching it to the sale of a totally unrelated (scarce) good, and are then profiting from the referral fees associated with those other goods. In other words, even if not explicitly, they've realized that their software products act as a promotional good for those other products. What's most interesting here is that those scarce goods are totally unrelated to the software that's for sale, other than through TrialPay's service. Effectively, TrialPay has helped makers of infinite goods tie up their products with other scarce goods that people would have thought were unrelated. So, the next time someone insists that there can't be a scarce good attached to certain infinite goods, remember this example.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..