Elliotlibrarian’s Weblog

I just read this article by the very influential NY Times op ed writer & economist Paul Krugman.  He argues that information is becoming more and more difficult to commodify &, using the Grateful Dead as an example (really!), states that industries are coming to understand that what they can actually sell may not be the product they produce, but rather the peripheral paraphernalia:

The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march.

In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction: that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

This is nothing new.  Let’s consider two staples of American culture: television & baseball. Until cable TV began in the 1970’s, networks and independent stations made money not by selling the public rights to access intellectual property, but rather sold advertising time, freely distributing the to a rapt audience (& having a huge affect upon the cultural atmosphere in the meantime!)

Through the 1980’s, Major league Baseball’s main source of revenue was neither ticket sales nor distribution rights for TV and radio, although the latter certainly grew during this time.  Rather it was the paraphenelia sold everywhere (shirts, hats, etc…) and the beer and food bought at the park–baseball in the 70’s and 80’s was much rowdier than it is now- cheap seats allowed more rabble into parks and  beer was sold into the late innings…

What interests me is the fact that these two industries have pretty radically reversed direction, and instead of following the course Krugman and Dyson describe, they have largely restricted access.  Cable TV costs individual viewers money. MLB franchises have determined that attracting companies willing to dole out thousands of bucks for luxury seating is the way to profitability.  Two-dollar seats no longer exist. Yes, both industries still sell their paraphernalia and advertising (remember when cable had absolutely no advertising? That was a long time ago). One revenue source, in this case, does not seem to have reduced the other.

Amazon’s Kindle certainly uses something more like the Cable TV on demand business model: sell the user propietary technology that allows him/her to utilize a combination of subscription-based and on-demand services. No product can be copied. No advertising.

Why is this important?

I have long believed that public libraries developed in large part as a product of the economics of book publishing and the culture of information scarcity.  In the 19th and 20th centuries,

1. books were expensive
2. difficult to find
3. difficult to learn about.

Libraries developed means to solve these problems.

1. Libraries purchased books and lent them freely
2. Developed classification schemes
3. Created cataloging norms

Publishers found that public libraries often served to help publicize authors, genres and interest in reading and were not only not seen as a threat to book selling, but were perceived as an important element in building universal literacy and developing readership. 

Books are no longer universally expensive. Used books can be purchased often for a dime.  True consumer costs are shipping, the profits of which mainly go to the energy producers.  Amazon’s profits on the sale of books are mainly fueled by the fees they charge customers & dealers of used materials to use their database. Used bookstores rely on being able to sell materials via for prices that comprise a much smaller proportion of the cost of the item than they did 30 years ago.

Books are no longer difficult to find.  Anyone with a computer and a credit card can use  Amazon’s catalog and purchase materials immediately.

Books are no longer difficult to learn about. Before online catalogs, bookstores relied upon books in print & publisher catalogs to help people find materials.  Most bookstores did not even have BIP’s subject index. Card catalog’s were unbelievably high technology and libraries were truly easier places to find materials on specific subjects.  Is this truly the case now?

Please do not perceive me as all gloomy and doomy.  Despite this reality, public libraries are more popular than ever and they circulate more books than ever before. An interesting contradiction, and certainly one to consider when thinking about what role libraries should play vis-a-vis e-books.  more to come…

P.S.

I’m old enough to have seen the Grateful Dead, including Jerry, &, despite Krugman’s description of them having made most of their money off of peripherals, the truth is that they toured incessantly…Their product was the live show because that’s what they did best, & they made money from that because they entertained well.  I was never a Deadhead–I remember paying alot of money to see a band I did not really like that much!