It's useful, and probably necessary, to distinguish between
open
access and product sampling.
The rock band Radiohead developed an innovative form of
product
sampling. The music appeared to be open access for a period
of
time, but now we see that the aim was to prime the
marketplace
for the sale of content. Digital media, with its negligible
marginal costs, lends itself to extensive product sampling.
Not
all product sampling campaigns work, of course, but many
do.
Advocates (Harnad, Suber, Swan, et al) of old-fashioned open
access are fighting the last war, as they continue to press
for
something that is already happening and would happen without
them, because the cost and ease of mounting content on the
Internet is increasingly trivial (once the content is
created).
The problem with this traditional outlook is that it views
the
impersonal workings of technology and the economy through a
lens
of moral outrage. Readers of King Lear know that the wind
blows
whether or not we command it to "crack [its]
cheeks."
The institutions that invest in the creation of content are
increasingly learning to use the low marginal cost of
Internet
distribution as a form of product sampling. They will
continue
to learn and "open access" literature will be seen
as but one
node in a broader marketing network. And those institutions
that
do not learn how to do this will cease to invest in the
original
content. It cannot be otherwise because what does not have
an
economically sustainable basis cannot be sustained.
This does not mean that online product sampling, aka open
access,
is restricted to commercial organizations. Many
not-for-profit
cultural institutions are learning to do this as well. MIT's
Open
CourseWare project, is, among other things, a very effective
aspect of brand marketing for MIT.
Joe Esposito
----- Original Message -----
From: <Toby.GREEN oecd.org>
To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 7:08 PM
Subject: RE: Follow-up on rock band's interesting IP
experiment
> Worth reading the next paragraph too:
>
> " The album, the first in four years from the
closely watched
> British rock act, sold 122,000 copies in the United
States,
> according to Nielsen SoundScan. That represents a mixed
result
> for the band. It's a sharp drop compared with the debut
of
> Radiohead's previous album, 2003's "Hail to the
Thief," but
> it's far from a flop, considering the steep decline in
music
> sales in the last four years and the typically weak
sales in
> the post-Christmas period. "Thief" sold about
300,000 in its
> first week in 2003."
>
> To put it in context with one of our own experiences.
One of
> our best-selling book series published a new edition in
> December. This time around we received funding to
assist in
> covering the publishing costs so we put the e-book out
for free
> (as opposed to Radiohead's pay-what-you-like system).
Print
> sales are running at about 66% of the previous
edition's sales.
>
> Toby Green
> OECD Publishing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of B.G. Sloan
> Sent: 11 January, 2008 2:41 AM
> To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
> Subject: Follow-up on rock band's interesting IP
experiment
>
>>From today's NY Times:
>
> "In a twist for the music industry's digital
revolution, 'In
> Rainbows,' the new Radiohead album that attracted wide
attention
> when it was made available three months ago as a
digital download
> for whatever price fans chose to pay, ranked as the
top-selling
> album in the country this week after the CD version hit
record
> shops and other retailers."
>
> Full article:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/arts/music/10radio.ht
ml
>
> Bernie Sloan
|
