January 4, 2012 – 10:24 am
I published my ‘work in progress’ book Music in the Digital Age yesterday and had a bit of a play around with the recommended price. The minimum, however, was zero from the outset and I was quite keen that this be the case.
On average, about a third of the people checking the book out have paid money for it. Most of them have paid $5 as suggested, though a few have paid $10 and a couple only $1. Everyone else has downloaded it for free and they’re more than welcome to. The fact that people have paid me money to make this – any amount of money at all – and have devoted their attention to the words that I’ve written so far – is incredible motivation for me to complete it, and to do whatever I can to make it as good as it can be.
I ended up having conversations about price yesterday. One centred around psychological theories about why $5 seemed to be the right ‘suggested price’ point. Nobody paid anything when the suggested price was $7.99 – but many did when it was lowered to a round number – even though at both times, you could simply type in whatever number you thought was fair and appropriate. Other conversations varied between ‘why would you give something like this away for free?’ to ‘how can you justify charging money for something you haven’t finished?’.
It’s been an interesting process and it’s challenged my own thinking about online commerce and the pricing of digital creative works. But this morning I received an email from someone who more or less encapsulated for me exactly the reasons why I wanted my book to be available for nothing – and (with permission, and anonymised) I want to share some of that email with you.
Hi AndrewThanks for publishing your book.
I’m finding what you’ve written so far really useful for attempting to clear my thinking prior to getting enterprising with my music-making activities this year.
We’ve got a first baby coming in the next few days (hopefully) and I’ve a bathroom to finish whilst I’ve a few small professional commissions to rely upon for income over the next few months and all this will no doubt keep me very busy. So it’s great to have someone else put into words in an organised way some of the ideas and knowledge I think about a lot and believe to be important in my work , but don’t spend much effort on organising. So big thank you again.
I wish I could pay the full price you suggest for it because what you’ve written so far is likely be worth far more to me, but for the first time in my life I’m almost properly skint! (it’s sort of freeing and a source of motivation as well as irritating and a source of worry – although I try not to let it be).
Anyway I thought a brief email to say thanks was definitely in order so here it is.
I was so happy to get that email – because it means a couple of things: first, that the book is at least on its way to being helpful and interesting to the kind of person I’d most like to be helpful to; and secondly – it confirmed my belief that ‘value’ is neither universal, nor easily represented in fixed financial terms.
Whatever your situation, I don’t want price to be an obstacle to you getting hold of my book and being part of the journey towards its completion. By the same token, if it’s of value for you, if you’re in a position to give me money and you feel that’s appropriate, then far be it from me to stand in your way.
But I’m sure as hell not going to try and stop you from reading it if you don’t happen to have a spare few bucks lying around. We’ve all been there.
Here’s the link to where you can get Music in the Digital Age for yourself. Pay whatever you think it’s worth, can afford, or feel is of value.
No Trackbacks
25 Comments
This isn’t really the ‘new business model’ we are all looking for. In fact it’s a very old one, one of the oldest in the world. It’s called begging. Begging can be a successful way of making a living for a few people – especially those with cute babies – but it will never be a major business. The main reason is that most potential donors have a very limited fund of generosity. Giving money to one beggar may give them a warm glow of self-perceived virtue. Giving money to a second beggar reduces the pleasure. If they meet a third beggar – hey, get a job!
…incidentally, before writing my previous comment I hadn’t noticed that Andrew Dubber is an academic (Reader at Birmingham University). I’m guessing (correct me if I’m wrong) that he doesn’t do that ‘for free’. It’s a whole lot easier to be generous with your work when you have the cushion of a taxpayer-funded job to fall back on.
I’m sorry – was I meant to be coming up with a business model for you?
To Beg
Verb
1. To ask for as charity.
‘Please buy my book for the price you can afford, I’d suggest X amount but that’s only a guide’ =/= ‘Spare change for a cup of tea, Guvnor?’
No, you were meant to be explaining ‘why your book is free’. I would suggest that a major part of the explanation should be: ‘I have a secure public sector job with a pension at the end of it, which you the public are paying for whether you like it or not, and publishing books is good for my academic career.’ Did all that just slip your mind?
…Andrew Dubber could of course avoid any suggestion of hypocrisy if he were to give all his academic income to his students, and ask them to pay him what they think he is worth. I offer that as a modest proposal.
You found me out. I was cunningly hiding those salient facts about my employment status on my ABOUT ME page.
As an innocent onlooker, gainfully employed in the private sector and slightly perplexed by the notion of begging, I might point out that pay what you think its worth (or more particularly, pay what you think it will be worth to you) is the only economic model outside “perfect competition” that delivers no dead weight loss (no loss to society) other than in a duopoly (and even then it needs to be with homogenous products and simultaneous movement).
As the co-founder of the startup where Andrew publishes his ebook, I’m definitely in the private sector — and we support the “free or pay” model that he is using. Heck, we don’t just support it, I specifically coded the validation that allows free purchases as well as a minimum price purchase, so that you can pay $0 or $0.99 but not $0.25. (Thank PayPal fees for that one.) We support free purchases because we like money, and one great way to get money is to take it from the people who will give it to you and turn the rest of the interested people into evangelists instead of pirates.
Just as a matter of offering some sort of balance to these responses, I am Broke, I am a full time dad, and I am a musician and a free lance photographer. I work harder every day than I know most people do in full time “paid” employment and have done for most of my life, I offer my music to people for free, and play often for free as I love what I do, and maybe sacrifice the comfort of permanent employment for the enjoyment of doing the things I like and want to do. I have no pension waiting for me. I have served my country on more than one occasion, and have struggled with many of the issues in life I know we all have to entertain at some point, and I couldn’t be happier with my lot and the life that surrounds me. I guess the point I am trying to make here is I assume I am worthy of criticism too for the above way I live my life, as It would appear Beggars and begging is wrong but also people who work for a living trying to better others through their knowledge and time giving while being paid a wage is wrong too according to some of these comments above.
I for one have found Andrew’s work and others most valuable, and am heartened at the fact so many people in the creative industry are starting to see the benefits in sharing knowledge and wisdom rather than the dog eat dog world we have had to endure in the creative industry for so many years. Long may this ethos continue and thrive.
as a foot note, replacing the word “begging” and “beg” above with “share” and “sharing” makes for a slightly nicer world.
Thanks for your time. Much love all.
I think David’s comment is a fair one, as long as you believe all FIVE of the following things:
1) That this is an act of generosity on my part – that is, that it costs me for people to have the book for free;
2) That the people who decide to download it for free were going to give me money, but changed their mind because I’d sabotaged myself by making it free – in other words, that I had actively turned paying customers into ‘freeloaders’;
3) That the people who download it for free are not likely to enjoy it, or find it useful, and then tell other people about it who might decide they want to pay for it;
4) That this is the only thing I will ever make, and that the people who are downloading it for free now will not continue to follow and enjoy my work in future (and perhaps pay) because they were offered the opportunity to check my work out this time around;
5) That my point is that everyone should do what I do.
Despite the fact that I genuinely believe there is a net positive economic result from allowing people to choose free when it comes to many (though not all) digital products, perhaps the one thing I’ve said most often about making money online when it comes to creative digital products is that there IS no model.
I could go on at length about this here (though the book seems a better place to be doing that, so it’s something I’ll address there) – but if you’re interested in thinking about this further, Steve Lawson and I recorded a podcast for New Music Strategies yesterday that discusses and explores the issue of pricing and digital products.
Go have a listen.
I’ve also been sent a really interesting analysis of ‘pay what you want’ pricing models by an economist friend of mine in the private sector. I’m going to have a proper read of that today, and make it available here later.
I am not complaining about the fact that Andrew Dubber offers his work for ‘whatever you want to pay’. But since he appears, on the face of it, to be offering advice to others on how they can make a living, I think it is a very relevant fact that he has a secure academic job. I do not suggest that he was concealing this – it is indeed easy to find out from his website – but I do suggest that when he is writing a post on ‘why my book is free’, he should state this relevant fact clearly and prominently in the post itself. Most academics receive little or no payment for publishing writings in their own field of expertise. They are not paid at all for articles in peer-reviewed journals (the journals themselves may have an extortionate price-tag – but that is another story), and they are not paid much for specialist books or monographs. (Textbooks and popularisations are also another story.) It is a part of their job, for which they are paid by the taxpayer. Most of them would not dream of either boasting or complaining about it. But when a University Reader (usual salary between £40-50,000, jjudging by job adverts in the THES) preens himself on offering something ‘for free’, he should not be surprised if he is called out on it.
You’re right (though I don’t feel ‘called out’ about this) – and I do feel that it is an incredible privilege to be able to spend my time professionally researching, writing and thinking about exactly these sorts of issues, so that when it does come time to dispense advice, I might have something useful to say that comes not only from my 15 years in the industry, but also from an arms-length critical perspective and the opportunity to analyse and reflect upon precisely these sorts of things.
I do think you have misread ‘why my book is free (or paid)’ as ‘why yours should be’ – but let’s leave that small point aside for the moment. I don’t happen to believe that whether I make money elsewhere (or whether or not the person reading this blog does) has any particular bearing on what pricing strategy might work for a specific item. And nor do I believe that I have the ‘luxury’ of giving things away for free – because I don’t believe that it costs me to do so. In fact, quite the opposite.
But since we’re on the topic of talking about our professions in order to contextualise a conversation – can I ask what you do for a living?
I read the piece with the understanding it was a clarification on the decision made on how to market the product (pay what you want/can) being a wise choice regards the excerpt response via email from a person in a very similar position to myself and many others who was appreciative for someone making such valuable information available to everyone. In that respect, the Title “Why my book is free – and why it costs money” is an apt description. Or am i missing something here?
I have to say also, On the subject of being “called out” this post in a way (as I read it) can be construed as more of a “call out” to those particular publications that are refer’d to as having an “extortionate price tag” Surely David you would champion the work that Andrew does no matter the earning potential of the author. Once again you seem to be contradicting yourself a little. Who do you think has the format of sharing knowledge in the correct format?
You can ask what I do for a living, but in my case, unlike yours, it isn’t relevant. I will just say that I am not a professional musician or author (just a very bad amateur one). If I *were* a professional musician or author I expect my comments would be even more critical.
I accept that in your post you are not explicitly advising other people to follow your example. But its general tone of enthusiasm for the ‘pay what you want’ pricing model is liable to lead people in that direction. I just think – and this brings me back to my very first comment – that the model would not be viable if it became the general practice. Begging may be successful when it is a rarity, but not when it is commonplace.
I would add (responding to someone’s earlier comment), that begging is not incompatible with providing some kind of service or performance. Busking is a form of begging; it is just a slighly less demeaning label. Anyone who asks for a reward as a matter of charity or appreciation, rather than obligation, is essentially begging, no matter how you dress it up.
Once again you seem to contradict yourself David, someone who asks for a reward under obligation rather than charity or appreciation is a beggar by contract according to the above, you have described the wage system in it’s simplest terms. referring to anyone who earns money in any format as a beggar. at least when I busk I give passers by option to show appreciation rather than making someone feel obliged by contract to do so. I also feel you are not going to be moved from your stance on this issue so I shall offer this as possibly my final say on the matter, and allow us all to continue in our own ventures in the manner we are allowed in our free society. Take good care. I wish you all great successes in any venture you may choose. Much love all.
@anon: Spooky – are you my doppelganger? As a similarly financially-challenged, yet eternally optimistic musician who finds fulfillment beyond the fiscal, I concur with your observations.
Whilst it is undoubtedly more comfortable to take a punt when one is already financially secure, you would need to be living in a cardboard box to be unaware that the give-to-earn model is actually the cornerstone of much contemporary entrepreneurial activity.
This ‘sharing’ approach is both commendable when viewed altruistically and sound business practice, when viewed as a marketing concept.
Many people earn an honest wage for a dishonest corporation producing stuff that the public don’t need or want, produced at a fraction of the cost of the purchasing price to maximise profits and pleasing share holders, harming the environment and setting people to work in the country that offers the cheapest labour market.
I play music (an art form people scientifically cannot live without) for people free to make a choice whether they listen, walk away pay money for or download for free. I’m not sure I could list the souls I may have enriched with my music over the years in the many countries i have plied my trade and adventures I have had. That is Priceless, and I can look my daughter in the eye knowing I don’t have to gloss over what I do through fear of her being disappointed in me. If that is begging, then give me the badge I would gladly wear it with pride.
Anon: if people ‘scientifically can’t live without music’ that’s pretty tough on the deaf.
Returning to the issue of ‘begging’, I personally would find it unacceptably demeaning if I had to plead for charity to make a living. If others don’t feel the same way, that is fine. Different strokes.
But there is a more serious point. If musicians (or novelists, film-makers, etc, because let’s not forget that the copyright wars go much wider than music) have to depend on charity, then rewards will depend as much on the artist’s ability to ingratiate him/herself with the public as on the quality of their work. Not much chance for grumpy old sods like Bob Dylan or Beethoven.
Are you saying deaf people can’t make music or aren’t allowed to make music. that is pretty tough if that is your stance on the matter
Just to clarify for you David it is scientifically impossible to remove the art form of music from life. therefore making it impossible to live without music.
Most people do not make music at all, so making music cannot be necessary for life. I therefore took you to mean that *listening* to music is necessary to life, which is equally obviously untrue in the case of deaf people. (If born deaf, they can’t create music either. Beethoven composed music, and Evelyn Glennie plays music, despite being deaf, but they were not born deaf.) As for your ‘clarification’, if that’s a clarification I’d hate to see what you call an obfuscation.
I think yours and my interpretations of the word “Music” may differ somewhat David, mine stems from the fact that the rhythm of a beating heart is music, but with the worry of people thinking I am misleading them in my statements (of which I am not) I guess it’s better just to bow out of this conversation and wish you one and all the very best for you endeavours. Much love, and apologies for any misunderstanding I may have caused.