Alexiz, Anna Catherine, Avery & Claudia

Is Free Really Risk Free?

In Chris Anderson’s article Free!, he aptly christens America the “land of the free” (Anderson, 2008). But this name isn’t based on our personal freedoms -- rather it refers to the economy of ‘free’ that has now fully emerged in the US. We now live in a world where the price of a good or service isn’t defined by its actual cost, but by our psychology (Anderson, 2008). This concept was extremely intriguing to me, so I decided to use this blog post to investigate more into the ‘psychology of free’.

When reading these articles I was overwhelmed by the number of situations I could recall when I chose/accepted something just because it was free. Most of the time it wasn’t even something that I wanted -- honestly, when am I ever going to use a plastic draw-string backpack sporting a giant Geico logo? The answer is absolutely never. So why did I it take it in the first place?

The answer, according to Dan Ariely’s Predictably Irrational, is that I took or accepted the free item because it wasn’t scary. Ariely says that the “real allure of free is tied to fear” -- fear that we will risk something and lose (Ariely, 2008). We choose free things when we assign them a higher value because they do not come with the same risk tied to spending money on something that we might decide we don’t like/want/need later. 

But is choosing the free thing really risk free? Apparently not. Just because “there is no visible possibility of loss when we choose a free item” doesn’t mean that we aren’t paying for it in either a physical or metaphorical way (Ariely, 2008). According to Ariely, the impact that ‘free’ has on us can lead us to make decisions that are not in our best interest. When I first read this I was reluctant to accept it -- if I’m not paying for it, how is it costing me anything? Well let me tell you. I went to a free high school choir show once, and that’s two hours of my life that I’ll never get back. I borrowed a pair of shoes from a friend and paid for them with some serious blisters. I took the free mascara sample instead of buying the brand I like and ended up with a middle part in my eyelashes. Those are costs and that makes the free stuff not free. 

There are definitely more serious situations when supposedly free things end up costing us. When we take the interstate rather than the tollway we risk missing our interview. When we download a movie for free rather than buying it we risk computer viruses (and jail time?). What do we risk when we consume free news? Do we risk anything? 

My answer is yes. We all know, or say that we know, that you can’t believe everything you read on the internet. But have we trained ourselves to live that out? Just because it is free doesn’t mean it is better -- and it’s probably costing us in ways that we don’t even realize. Free news is great because it’s free. But it can be not so great if the free news that we assign value to is inaccurate, biased, or irrelevant. What’s the cost of missing out on something you needed to know? What’s the cost of not even knowing that you are missing out?

Sources:

Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational. New York: HarperCollins.

Anderson, C. (2008). Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business. Wired. http://www.wired.com/2008/02/ff-free/

Schiller, C. (2015). The Psychology of Free: Why this One Magic Word is Your Most Powerful Secret Weapon. https://www.blinkist.com/page19/the-psychology-of-free-why-this-one-magic-word-is-your-most-powerful-secret-weapon

That's All, Folks

There was a lot to digest in this chapter on the rise of ebooks. Personally, I found the detailed historical account a little overwhelming, but it brought up several things that I found very interesting. The section on bookshelves and the middle class’ desire to fill them with some form or fashion of book was absolutely fascinating. The US book industry recognized that they were in quite a slump, so they found a way to turn things around without people knowing that they had been tricked into buying more books. Pure genius. 

Though it was incredibly clever, the book industry’s bookshelf campaign is not, I feel, the most notable portion of the chapter. My favorite quote comes from the Chronicle of Higher Education comic -- “the problem with ebooks is that they are ebooks.” Well said, indeed. I don’t dislike reading an ebook because it’s an ebook, I dislike it because it’s not a printed book. Just like I don’t like reading on my phone or computer. I don’t have a problem with technology, but if I’m going to read a book, I’m going to read a book. 

The chapter continued this distinction between books and other reading material when it noted that “ebooks fail to duplicate the serendipitous flaws and minor variations” that “imbue industrially manufactured printed books with warmth, difference, and depth” (pg. 24). I could not have said it better myself. There is something to be said for an actual, physical copy of a book -- it’s like holding a piece of humanity in your hands. It’s a physical manifestation of someone’s hopes and dreams (and likely their blood, sweat, and tears, too). 

The chapter talks about the ‘weightlessness’ of the digital world -- in a blink of an eye, online books can vanish without a trace. They are not permanent. Digital books do not exist in quite the same way that printed books do. Books occupy a physical place -- and when you read them, you are grounded in that place for as long as you like. When you finish an ebook, it’s gone. However, the earmarked pages of a printed book are always there to take you back to where you were the first time you read it. 

Take a look at this. Jesse England photocopied his Kindle to create a hardbound back up copy of George Orwell’s 1984. So when his ebook disappears because the internet saw fit to destroy it, Mr. England will not be left empty handed.

The chapter goes on to suggest that “technology is a license to forget” (pg. 25). I don’t want to forget what I’ve read. I want to remember the story and how it made me feel and what it made me think. I don’t want all memory of it to vanish as soon as I read the last page. I want to share it with my family or my friends, and one day with my children. For me, books are something that have the ability to cross time and space, gender and generations. Technology breaks your physical and emotional ties to what you have read, and for me, that’s what it is all about. Reading is more than just words -- it’s about the entire experience, something that ebooks just can’t offer.

But what about photocopies? What about them, you might ask. Well, photocopies are just as printed and tangible as regular books. What makes them any less of a product. Perhaps they are an even better product because you are getting the printed book experience at a fraction of the cost. My personal opinion is that yes, while reading a photocopied version is better than reading it online or on a Kindle, there is no replacement for the smell and feel of a printed book. That’s all, folks. 

It Ain't Over Til It's Over

In a society where we believe that the internet is the answer to all things, it was interesting to read the study’s evaluation of that belief. According to their research, the internet isn’t the end-all-be-all of news, for several reasons:

1. people are less satisfied with the experience of reading something online
2. people think that free news (most internet news) is bad/low quality news
3. people like tangible things

The first point rings true with me. I hate when ads pop up while I’m reading something online. I’m not super tech-savvy, so it usually takes a bit for me to figure out how to make it go away or turn the sound off of the video or whatever needs to be done so that I can finish reading the article. With print newspapers, the ads aren’t blocking the news content, and if you want to ignore them completely, you can. I also hate reading on screens in general, never mind the distracting ‘extras’.

The second point is a little less applicable to me. My primary news source is TheSkimm, which as most of you know is a free, daily news email service. I have never questioned the validity of what I read in those emails (that may say more about me than about the news) and I don’t think that it is any less trustworthy because it’s free. I think this point is relevant to a generation that is used to working hard for things because they don’t come free. Because of that, they question the reliability of something that you can just take without giving something in return -- they believe that there must be some tradeoff waiting if they consume free news from the internet. On the other hand, our generation grew up with the internet and we are accustomed to searching for and finding just about anything that we are looking for for free. It’s part of our routine, and as such, it doesn’t phase us (at least it doesn’t phase me) to consume free news. 

The final point is hard to disagree with, and for me, it goes beyond newspapers. I mean, I printed out this thirty page study because it is easier for me to digest what I am reading if it is in a print format. I don’t own a Kindle or an iPad because I want to read actual, physical books. I like the substance. It makes whatever I am experiencing -- news, narrative, etc -- more real. An article in the Scientific American said that modern screens “fail to adequately recreate certain tactile experiences of reading on paper that many people miss.” I’m definitely one of those people. 

I haven’t lost sight of the joy of partaking of print media -- books, magazines, and occasionally a newspaper. I don’t want to see it disappear, run out of town by the big, bad internet. But the truth is, the internet isn’t really to blame. In her article about the Ramen Noodle Theory, Professor Chyi describes the frenzy that newspapers have worked themselves into over the proclamation that print news media is dying. The truth is, the publications are killing themselves. The continual cutting of resources for print editions to expand an online presence that is not exponentially beneficial will be the downfall of newspapers, not the internet itself. 

It’s high time that everyone takes a deep breath and calms down for a second. All it takes is a little understanding of what people really want and need. There is a market for print format news and it is likely that it will be there for years to come. It’s tradition, it’s science, and it’s personal -- it fulfills peoples’ needs in a way that digital news can’t. In the famous words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over til it’s over.” 

Fight or Flight

In his article about the decline of growth in digital media, Ricardo Bilton’s contributors say that 2016 is the year to get out. It’s all about momentum, they say, and once things start slowing down there will be no way out (with a respectable valuation, that is). His article spells doom and gloom for all in the digital media business, but I suspect that it’s a little too soon for the social media conglomerates to play the victim card. 

Jiyoung Cha’s chapter on business models investigated the strategies that social networking giants like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and LinkedIn are using to grow and sustain their user base. From the looks of it, they’ve done a good job of bringing something “differentiated, innovative, and attention-grabbing” to the table -- just what Bilton’s contributors say is necessary for them to survive. But I would argue that they are doing much more than surviving -- these social networking sites are thriving. And if these giants are thriving, some one-time competitors are on the downhill slope to extinction. 

Cha notes that many US social networking sites are pursuing an “aggressive international expansion.” My first thought was that some universal social networking site for each niche would be an effective and efficient solution to our problems. You can look one place and find exactly what you need. Every one wins.

However, it’s impossible for everyone to win in that scenario. What about the local social networking sites that don’t have the resources to stand up to a giant like Facebook? What about the market for local goods -- it’s sure to be overrun by the products being advertised on the newly expanded social networking sites. Social networking globalization is not a victimless crime.

In an article in the Harvard Business Review, Niraj Dawar and Tony Frost offer some ‘survival strategies’ for local companies who are experiencing the onslaught of international business into their ‘emerging’ market. The article instructs local business to focus on their niche -- to really invest in the specific needs of their consumers that might easily be missed by bigger companies. 

That all sounds well and good, but if everyone is following the model of the Long Tail that preaches ‘niche niche niche’, how will a smaller company survive? The globalization of digital social networks and advertising isn’t likely to come to a halt soon, so one question remains for all things local -- fight or flight? 

Tell Me What You Want, What You Really Really Want

Anderson’s discussion of the development of the Long Tail phenomenon was very interesting. I definitely agree and identify with the three components that he declared to be necessary to their success -- limitless availability, lower than low cost, and assistance navigating the endless options. These are the characteristics that attract us to companies like Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, and many more. They have the ability to fulfill desires that we didn’t even know that we had. 

Whether good, bad, or indifferent, the reality is that this is the kind of world that we live in. It is unlikely that things are going to become suddenly ‘less available’. Amazon isn’t going to close up shop because we are overwhelmed by the number of books out there. Instead, digital content distribution platforms are flooding the market and you can even find ways to DIY digital distribution. Rather than talking about the pros and cons of the Long Tail, I want to touch on some of the other interesting points that Anderson’s article brought up.

Anderson notes that the idea of unlimited shelf space helps people “discover their taste is not as mainstream as they thought.” It’s true, these sources allow people to access music, books, movies, etc. that they may not otherwise have the opportunity to. In the time since this article was written, however, I can’t help but wonder if the overall abundance of stuff is actually informing our preferences. Not all content can be displayed at once and we cannot see all of the content available. Because of this, it is likely that our preferences are being crafted for us by the busy bees at Amazon, Netflix, and the like. Sometimes we only see that snippet that they have chosen for us, and more often than not, I would say that tiny image stays with us and influences our consumer decisions.

Aside from influencing our choices (often without our knowledge), the access to abundance of media that Anderson hails as the dawning of a new age scares me a bit. In his article, Anderson asks what people really want and he doesn’t hesitate to respond -- more. I’m protective of my time and energy because I know that it is exhaustible. Infinite supplies of media content threaten to steal my autonomy in that regard, so I would argue that what I really want is less. There was a time when people begged for more, but I would venture to say that in the world of information and media content overload many have learned, as I have, that more is not always better.