There is such a thing as a free lunch (sort of)

Chris Anderson's previous book, The Long Tail was arguably a book about sociology and technology and as such (it's got an ology!) made it onto the Popular Science website. I really couldn't justify reviewing his new title Free (see at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com) there, because although at first glance it's a similar sort of title, this is much more a straightforward business book.

That's not a bad thing. Though I found The Long Tail fascinating and gave it 5 stars, it wasn't a book of practical advice for business - it concentrated a lot of its message the way you could make pin money out of selling 5 copies of your ebook on lesser spotted titwarblers to other lesser spotted titwarbler fanciers, rather than giving something a real business could use (unless it was a megabusiness like Amazon that could collect in all the tiny long tail contributions).

Free, on the other hand, is much more practical and although its primary driver is the impact of the internet, it extends beyond this to the whole business interaction with the concept of 'free'. So we see the literal origins of the free lunch (and whether or not there is such a thing), the free giveaways and the first large scale free in free radio, sponsored by advertising (or governments).

Broadly Anderson suggests there are three ways to do business incorporating free. A direct cross-subsidy, such as a free gift, or buy one, get one free. A three way process, like advertising, where a consumer gets the product free because the advertiser pays the broadcaster (or equivalent) for access to the audience. And freemium, where the products and services are available as free versions, plus pay versions with more value - and the pay versions subsidize the free versions.

As he points out, what has changed hugely is that the internet makes it much easier to offer things for free, because the marginal cost of doing so is so low. And this means that many information-only products will tend to drift towards free, using one of the three techniques mentioned above to (hopefully) keep revenue flowing. It's not just a nice to have, with information products it's almost an essential.

Most of what's here is sensible, well thought out and convincing. There are always those who will throw up their hands and moan about the free model (e.g. music producers) - but Anderson cleverly lists all the main objections to free and shows why they are flawed.

The only argument I feel he doesn't really answer properly is the 'we can't all do gigs' one. This basically says, if you're a band, for instance, you should give your downloads away free, and make money on premium CDs, but mostly on live gigs, appearances and the like. The argument says 'But we can't all do this,' if you try to apply this argument wider than pop groups to, say, writers. Anderson's counter to this is really just 'It'll work if you get the right model,' but I'm not sure he is right here.

Even so, this is a book every business that's using the web - and that should be every business - needs to have on the shelf and to study. Interestingly he makes the point that most of us still prefer real books to the electronic version, and Free just wouldn't work for me the same if it weren't on paper. So, despite the enthusiasm I now feel for 'free' - I encourage you to virtually nip over to Amazon and buy a copy. This is free advice. Cherish it. (see at Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.com)

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Search This Blog