The Find: Chris Anderson’s new book Free is raising a firestorm of commentary from the likes of Malcolm Gladwell and Seth Godin, and today Mark Cuban weighs in, arguing that accepting free content is different from accepting freely distributed content.- The Source: Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban’s response to the furor surrounding Anderson’s Free on Blog Maverick.
The Takeaway: Malcolm Gladwell put the smack down on Chris Anderson, the prophet of Free, in the New Yorker this week, kicking up a frenzy of defense and rebuttal online, including a piece from Seth Godin entitled “Malcolm is wrong.” Gladwell pokes holes in Anderson’s contention that “information wants to be free,” pointing out that while the cost of content itself may now be close to zero, when the distribution is considered as well as the huge volume of ideas we consume, the costs amount to many hundreds of millions a dollars a year (”YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars.”) He also points out that YouTube, that paragon of the free future, lost so much money last year that, if it were a bank, it would be eligible for TARP funds.
It’s a fascinating argument against a wildly popular idea (and one that Anderson himself responds to here), but it’s not the only take on the issue. Mark Cuban weighs in today making his own distinction between free and freely distributed, concluding:
In the long run, printed content producers should have a brand, and use their institutional knowledge, their core competencies and ability to procure, improve and market to maximize the value of their brands and the perceived value of their content. Whether its on a central website, a co produced website, in print or on a hologram in the evening sky, I should go to the NY Times because they have demonstrated to me that they have the very best articles on the subjects I am looking for. That they are the best source for breaking news about the topics I care about. THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE I DON’T HAVE THE CHOICE OF GETTING IT ANYWHERE ELSE BUT WHERE THEY DICTATE… They should distribute their content for Free where they believe it maximizes return, but should do everything possible to keep it from being distributed Freely.
How exactly they can accomplish this (pay wall? legal action against bloggers and pirates? something else?) he doesn’t say. The entire discussion is fascinating and far too complex for a blog post summary. Check out the various voices and weigh in.
The Question: Is free the price of the future?
