There's ample to read about the subject of "free" (products or services), and most of it points to you - as being the product. Although this statement has been proven, for the most part, true, it's oversimplified. Free is an inordinately complex subject, and reducing it to a catchphrase only benefits those who want to leverage collective ignorance.
Free products and services (product samples or freebies) have been around since the early part of the 19th century. Yet, this practice only gained widespread usage in the '70s. The free software movement (the industry that has made the practice of free common) was started in 1983 by computer scientist Richard M. Stallman when he launched the GNU project. But it's in 1995 when things took a turn. Renowned journalist Esther Dyson made a bold prediction, "as the web becomes populated with all kinds of content including software, business data, entertainment, games, and news; intellectual property will depreciate in value." She argued, "the likely best defense for content providers in the future is to distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships."
In that one sentence, Dyson created the most prolific business model of the next two decades: freemium. Distribute some IP for free to get people to pay for something else. This has blossomed into a prevalent business model, especially amongst software applications (Dropbox, Spotify, Evernote, etc.) and Internet-based businesses (particularly gaming and gambling). Its sweeping prescription is a trick to build a consumer base (fast) when the marginal cost of producing extra units is low (why it's so prominent in SaaS and gaming). It has been praised for the rapid growth of "unicorns" and rightfully lambasted as the reason smaller companies went bankrupt (as you can't keep up with the VC-fuelled players). Today, Dyson's projections have unfortunately proven accurate, and the web has become saturated with free content.
But what's important to understand is that free (and the freemium model) is, at its core, a marketing tool. And it's irresistibly attractive for companies of every size, including entrepreneurs, artists, photographers, musicians, and the rest. For decades companies have been playing tricks using 'free' to lure naive customers. However, this obsession has given rise to a new phenomenon – where the customer is never asked to pay because the business makes their money on advertising (and/or the profit generated by paying customers for the service/product). And this brings about the ultimate question - is a culture where consumers think that increasingly more and more services should be free, sustainable?
Let's pause a moment. Something for 'free' is defined as being "without cost or payment," which also implies things like "no obligations, restraints, and rules," though these can be gated. Yet when we think of something as being free, there's a powerful psychological principle in play that states that if you give someone something, the recipient will feel compelled to return the favor, as opposed to a true "gift," which is not expecting anything in return. This marketing bluff insinuates a "quid pro quo" (Latin - meaning "something for something") which has become a mainstay of modern business. And since companies are not selfless nor altruistic (giving to others without looking for personal gain), this is why the freemium ploy has become a pillar of what some surreptitious marketeers call "fair marketing" - making it look like disinterested growth.
I think we've gone too far. We're raising a generation who do not want to pay monthly subscriptions for anything (just give me stuff for free and stick some advertising on it). And it's not only the young. Many don't understand the impact and long-term implications on independents, startups & small businesses, which fuel innovation. And what about the model's effect on answering their needs today and tomorrow (sustainable product development), the quality of professional media (news, radio, and television), the future of the arts (music, photography, and literature), and notably the consequences concerning security and privacy. Free is also dangerous for another reason. Gen Y & Z are growing up with not only a sense of expectation of free but a sense of entitlement for free.
Everyone loves to get stuff for free, but we should equally acknowledge that free is an illusion. And this brings about the question of free will, where one is the ultimate source of their choice. Free in such is not a predetermined choice, so you can choose the path of righteousness, pay for the hard work, and endorse the intrinsic value of the exchange. It's up to you.
Free products and services (product samples or freebies) have been around since the early part of the 19th century. Yet, this practice only gained widespread usage in the '70s. The free software movement (the industry that has made the practice of free common) was started in 1983 by computer scientist Richard M. Stallman when he launched the GNU project. But it's in 1995 when things took a turn. Renowned journalist Esther Dyson made a bold prediction, "as the web becomes populated with all kinds of content including software, business data, entertainment, games, and news; intellectual property will depreciate in value." She argued, "the likely best defense for content providers in the future is to distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships."
In that one sentence, Dyson created the most prolific business model of the next two decades: freemium. Distribute some IP for free to get people to pay for something else. This has blossomed into a prevalent business model, especially amongst software applications (Dropbox, Spotify, Evernote, etc.) and Internet-based businesses (particularly gaming and gambling). Its sweeping prescription is a trick to build a consumer base (fast) when the marginal cost of producing extra units is low (why it's so prominent in SaaS and gaming). It has been praised for the rapid growth of "unicorns" and rightfully lambasted as the reason smaller companies went bankrupt (as you can't keep up with the VC-fuelled players). Today, Dyson's projections have unfortunately proven accurate, and the web has become saturated with free content.
But what's important to understand is that free (and the freemium model) is, at its core, a marketing tool. And it's irresistibly attractive for companies of every size, including entrepreneurs, artists, photographers, musicians, and the rest. For decades companies have been playing tricks using 'free' to lure naive customers. However, this obsession has given rise to a new phenomenon – where the customer is never asked to pay because the business makes their money on advertising (and/or the profit generated by paying customers for the service/product). And this brings about the ultimate question - is a culture where consumers think that increasingly more and more services should be free, sustainable?
Let's pause a moment. Something for 'free' is defined as being "without cost or payment," which also implies things like "no obligations, restraints, and rules," though these can be gated. Yet when we think of something as being free, there's a powerful psychological principle in play that states that if you give someone something, the recipient will feel compelled to return the favor, as opposed to a true "gift," which is not expecting anything in return. This marketing bluff insinuates a "quid pro quo" (Latin - meaning "something for something") which has become a mainstay of modern business. And since companies are not selfless nor altruistic (giving to others without looking for personal gain), this is why the freemium ploy has become a pillar of what some surreptitious marketeers call "fair marketing" - making it look like disinterested growth.
I think we've gone too far. We're raising a generation who do not want to pay monthly subscriptions for anything (just give me stuff for free and stick some advertising on it). And it's not only the young. Many don't understand the impact and long-term implications on independents, startups & small businesses, which fuel innovation. And what about the model's effect on answering their needs today and tomorrow (sustainable product development), the quality of professional media (news, radio, and television), the future of the arts (music, photography, and literature), and notably the consequences concerning security and privacy. Free is also dangerous for another reason. Gen Y & Z are growing up with not only a sense of expectation of free but a sense of entitlement for free.
Everyone loves to get stuff for free, but we should equally acknowledge that free is an illusion. And this brings about the question of free will, where one is the ultimate source of their choice. Free in such is not a predetermined choice, so you can choose the path of righteousness, pay for the hard work, and endorse the intrinsic value of the exchange. It's up to you.