Traditional economics has always
been defined in terms of the basic economic equilibrium equation: Production of
a good will settle at a quantity (Q) produced at a price (P) where demand and
supply are equal. However, in the past 20 years we’ve seen massive growth in a
market where these basic equations no longer make sense – digital goods.
Because digital goods can be reproduced perfectly, and at zero cost, suddenly
the supply side of traditional economics makes no sense – because suddenly, the
price drops to free.
With digital products, most of
the scarceness of a product is wiped out – consumers can get as much as they
desire at the low, low cost of zero. And in the developing world, such as
Namibia, where everything else is scarce, an abundance of digital goods is a
life-saver – eliminating inequalities of education and recreation in one fell
swoop.
This sounds great to the average
consumer – but a nightmare for producers of content. After all, how are you
going to get paid for what you produce? And how can you get paid if your
product is free?
Readers of the Informanté should
have the savvy to notice a glaring inconsistency in the previous argument: The
newspaper you’re holding right now is free! In fact, it has been free since
inception, and many more stories are posted via Facebook and on its website
that are also available for free.
Many content producers grasping
at straws have clutched onto ‘intellectual property’ protection. While this has
provided some basis for producers to protect themselves, the basic premise of
‘intellectual property’ is flawed. Ideas and stories are non-rivalrous in
consumption (i.e. one person’s consumption does not prevent another from consuming
it), and thus cannot be treated economically as property. In fact, African oral
tradition has never had the idea of a ‘story’ as property.
They often say that this is
because creators of content have a right to make money from their work.
Hogwash! Economics is not a moral issue – no one has a ‘right’ to make money
off their work, they can merely try to
make money off it. Businesses fail every day if they have products no one wants
to buy – no entrepreneur has a ‘right’ to succeed.
And this attempt to make
something abundant suddenly scarce should be repugnant to a society that will
be poorer for it. Putting a price on something economics dictates should be
free only worsens the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’, and should not be
tolerated in a country that strives towards more equality between its citizens.
But what about Namibian content
producers? How will they live? Create? I suggest they also look at the other
side of the coin – an enlarged audience. Without costs limiting the size of the
audience you can reach, you have a much larger pool of potential customers. One
example of this would be the Informanté’s reach across the Namibian population.
And while certain digital goods
are now abundant, content creators still have lots of non-abundant goods to
sell – now to a much wider audience. Think gigs and concerts for musicians and
the like. After all, for centuries beforehand, artists still created without
selling to the general public. In previous eras, this was done via patronage –
a countries leaders and wealthy often commissioned works.
Even now, our friend the digital
world is making even that easier. While the Informanté’s patrons are its
advertisers, with the concept of crowdfunding comes a new way for artists to go
forward. With websites such as Patreon allowing fans to either contribute per
work of per month to content producers, making a living from your art has
become even easier. And for Namibians with a wider audience, services such as
these will be a godsend.
No comments:
Post a Comment