At least once a week, I have someone point out to me that a
big-name information marketer, software "developer," or
company, is selling something that is very similar to a product
that you can get for free. They see something fundamentally
"wrong" with SELLING a product or information that can be
obtained for nothing... if you search in the right place.
Often, they point this out to me because they just feel
the need to protest something they view as somehow "wrong."
First of all, if you search long enough and hard
enough, you CAN find free software that will do
just about anything. Some very intelligent programmers
create lots of software, which they happily make
open-source, shareware, or freeware. These programmers
do this for various reasons that we won't get into.
These programmers will also give or sell you permission
to modify their software slightly and put your own label
on it. Is that "wrong?"
There are thousands of documents explaining practically
any topic imaginable. The Internet makes it easier to
tap into databases and find this information. Some people
compile this free information that they find into reports
or ebooks and sell it. Is that "wrong?"
After certain intellectual property has been around long
enough, if the copyrights aren't renewed through various
means, it may become "public domain." That means anyone
may then have the right to publish or distribute this material
without violating copyrights or intellectual property
rights. Is taking an old book that belongs to the public
and selling it as your own "wrong?"
Having been trained as an economist, I try to see things
as they are rather than as they should be. In economic
terms this is looking at things in a "positive" rather
than a "normative" fashion. It just means looking at things
with a scientific rather than a moral or ethical eye. I
don't avoid the moral or ethical issues, but try not to
judge others based upon my opinion.
So back to the question... is selling something that you
can get for free "wrong?" Since we've already said that
you can find practically any software or information for
free if you search long enough and hard enough, the
answer actually lies in why people will pay for the same
"stuff" anyway.
Free does NOT mean without cost. When you buy branded
software or repackaged information, the marketer is
theoretically reducing your risk. The marketer conducted
the research, and located a product that met a specific need,
and then made the public aware of it. The marketer
investigated dozens of pieces of readily-available software,
perhaps modified it, and then "certified" it as capable of
meeting your needs.
Another very big reason that the market is willing to pay
for something that can conceivable be obtained for free,
is because of the search cost. There is a cost of time,
energy, and other resources, in investigating options. The
marketer has invested that search cost and charges you for
that service. Depending upon how you value your time,
you may gladly be willing to pay for something that you
could have eventually located for free... and then tested
to verify that it was exactly what you needed.
Very often, a creator of intellectual property is not a
marketer... and doesn't understand the finer points of
marketing. So a terrific piece of software, a book, or an
idea, just.... sits. A marketer with an above-average grasp
of human behavior and psychology can step in, "repackage"
that product, and the market will devour it. Should that
product have been allowed to languish rather than some
marketer stepping in, fixing the bad marketing, and
profiting from it. If the product improved the lives of end
users, who would have otherwise never noticed the product,
then clearly the marketer is providing real value.
So, where is the dilemma? The dilemma is in the perception
that the marketer selling a product that didn't cost him
anything... or very little, is doing something wrong. It
is purely a perception. However, whether on-line or
off-line, people who locate "stuff" that the market wants,
and charge for that "service" are clearly serving a need.
If they weren't serving a need, then the market wouldn't
pay for it.
The reality is that people have marketed information
since the beginning of commerce. Both on-line and off-line,
there are fortunes being made ferreting out information
that the market wants, and then providing it. It's the
PERFECT way to make your online fortune. Provided that
the product is of the right quality, it should certainly
not be considered a question of ethics. Doctors, lawyers,
realtors, teachers, religious leaders... they all charge
you for readily available information that they have
"repackaged" and put their brand, or seal-of-approval, on.
When you're doing research, and you discover a product
very similar to one being marketed under a different label,
it IS very eye opening. However, it is not generally a
matter of ethics (in my opinion). It's no different than
an off-line supermarket selling the identical product side-
by-side for two different prices. Often the store brand
is made at the same factory, with the same formula, as the
name brand product. They are sold side-by-side for different
prices. The higher price is justified by the brand identity
and "certification" that goes along with that.
As an Internet marketer it is important that issues such
as this be studied. Many people who start businesses
on the Internet have never run or studied how brick and
mortar businesses operate. This article is an attempt
to fill in a bit of that missing training... or at a minimum
- create discussion :-)
|
