![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
I talked to Howard because I was flabbergasted myself that he thought writer #1 giving away free ebooks was harming writers #2 and #3 and #4 and...
So don't shoot the messenger here -- because I'm not agreeing with Howard, just explaining what he said in response. (In fact, while I want to see the discussion, I'll say up front that I personally <i>don't</i> agree with his theory, but that'll have to wait for another post as I don't have time right now.) (Also noting this is with his permission.)
His concept stems from what's called Gresham's Law, which is about "bad" money driving out "good" money. I.e., he's hypothesizing that the more people give away freebies, the harder it becomes for others to get paid (e.g. because publishers or readers might exploit the freebie propensity in order to pay authors less). To the extent that he believe's that's true, he sees authors having an obligation to stand together to prevent it.
(And -- aha! -- I'm connecting the dots here: If he believes authors should stand together to prevent this problem, those who give away freebies would be crossing the "picket" line, I guess, for their own benefit at the expense of the rest, and thus be "scabs." So now at least I understand why he felt the word was applicable. I don't think he made his fundamental point anywhere near clear enough. [Now that I understand it, I still think the logic is flawed.])
Also noting he agrees it's his own position, not SFWA's. I think he went for the incindiary approach in order to get folks talking. He said he's seen bad trends in the music industry regarding freebies and such, and wants authors spared that pain.
But, let's chew on this Gresham's Law concept. Google on it for more info; wikipedia has a decent intro.
As I said, I don't personally believe his theory; in fact, I think it's flawed. (Not Gresham's Law, which I think is valid, but it's application to this situation. My feeling is it applies in reverse.) But it's a valid topic for civil discussion.
April 14 2007, 18:24:08 UTC 5 years ago
Like, for instance, Jonathan Coulton giving selected works away for free on his Website and encouraging people to buy his CDs and subscribe to his Work-A-Week program? Like User Friendly creating an online comic, selling the print rights to O'Reilly for a tidy sum, and continuing to publish online?
Free samples are a well-established marketing practice, and have been since King Camp Gillette gave razors away and then sold the razor blades. "But people can choose to do nothing but read online!" Those people weren't your customers anyway. However, the people who read a little Martha Wells, or Lois McMaster Bujold, or Scalzi online, often think "Gee, this is really good, I'll buy some!" are often new readers who become steady customers.
When I was in college, I borrowed SF novels from my friends. When I got a job, I began buying SF; my first purchases were new books from authors I'd come to love when I couldn't afford to buy them.
April 14 2007, 18:25:15 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 18:32:03 UTC 5 years ago
He's on about "Gresham's Law," so it might make sense to reply in that context.
5 years ago
5 years ago
April 14 2007, 18:24:43 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 18:34:53 UTC 5 years ago
(Which, taken in isolation, is a statement we can probably all agree with!)
April 14 2007, 18:48:15 UTC 5 years ago
Writers, like musicians and composers, are in the main stuck with handling their own promotion, which means finding as many innovative or useful methods for pushing one's name out into the market. We're *always* giving a taste for free, whether it's to a potential audience, or to editors we want to seduce into buying our work.
I'm leery of making that point, of course, as I fear I'll find Hendrix suddenly claiming we're all pushers and pimps as well as scabs.
April 14 2007, 18:38:46 UTC 5 years ago
I shudder to think that the industry will actually actively attack those who seek to use these technologies for their own promotion.
April 14 2007, 18:35:49 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 18:40:50 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 18:48:01 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 19:14:44 UTC 5 years ago
A secondary point is that for many musicians, album sales are not a profit centre -- live performance and sale of merchandise at gigs is how they make their bread and butter. (Royalties on a CD in a store; about 50 cents. Profit on a CD sold for the same price at a gig; more like $5.) While the RIAA could care less about live performances and want to milk the recording sales for all they're worth, this is actually not in the musicians' interests -- only the existence of a near-as-dammit cartel situation blocking the distribution pipeline forces them to go along with it.
Book publishing is different insofar as (a) most of us authors don't do live performances and certainly don't make a profit at it, and (b) the publishers don't act at odds with our interests in terms of making a profit, they profit by book sales and so do we.
So it's a broken metaphor, for starters.
For seconds, I don't know about you, but while I'd claim authorship over my books, I'm not the only significant actor in the chain of events that leads them into the readers hands. Along the way they tend to get edited. Editing is a valuable service for the reader: not only does it fix bugs, it stamps the editorial imprimatur on the product, telling the prospective reader that someone (Ginjer Buchanan, say, or David Hartwell) figure this novel was worth them spending a month on and selecting for their brand.
Gresham's law would only really apply if all books/stories were created equal and thrown at the public with complete anonymity, stripped of any means of identifying the author.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
April 14 2007, 19:08:06 UTC 5 years ago
Indeed! As we all know, the music companies' tragic mistake in allowing music to be listened to for free on that evil technology known as "The Radio" utterly destroyed the market for private ownership of the music back in early 20th century! And then the television industry foolishly followed their lead in the 1950s, dooming that nascent technology to a pitiable, also-ran status in America's home and hearts! And let's not begin to discuss how the nefarious public library system doomed poor Barnes & Noble and Borders Books. You can hardly find a large, well-stocked bookstore in America's commerce centers these days.
April 14 2007, 19:39:56 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 19:42:19 UTC 5 years ago
I'm so confused.
(note: This is an in-joke post)
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
April 14 2007, 19:20:08 UTC 5 years ago
Talking about free fiction as a market imbalance might be interesting, though.
Deleted comment
April 14 2007, 19:51:59 UTC 5 years ago
April 14 2007, 20:26:38 UTC 5 years ago
Somebody (not me) should play Devil's Advocate and explain how Howard apparently views Gresham's Law as applying. (Sorry, not me, haven't time today -- but I do think it would make this a more useful exercise.)
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
Deleted comment
April 14 2007, 20:03:55 UTC 5 years ago
(Snerk ...)
April 14 2007, 20:31:59 UTC 5 years ago
Does that sound familiar?
And as far as freebie music went, it was the pirates biting the releases and getting 'em out on the street before they were in the stores.
And now there are no stores.
But there are download services.
Love, C.
April 14 2007, 23:28:45 UTC 5 years ago
Oh, baloney.
April 14 2007, 23:39:44 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
April 15 2007, 00:11:57 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
April 15 2007, 16:28:18 UTC 5 years ago
Given the low state of class consciousness in the US at the moment, very many people don't quite get how significant it is to be called a scab.
Maybe
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago