The Guardian
topics

Chris Anderson vs Malcolm Gladwell: The Freestyle Fight

The battle of pop sociologists just got a lot more interesting: in the latest issue of New Yorker magazine, Malcolm Gladwell does a fisking of Wired editor Chris Anderson’s new book “Free”, the book about the future of pricing and the value of IP (and by definition business models) in a digital world. Anderson’s iron law: “In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.” Gladwell’s main take: that free isn’t what everything is moving towards, and building a business on it is not as simple, due to other factors involved. “There are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively free), a psychological claim (consumers love free), a procedural claim (free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological free and the psychological free can make you a lot of money). The only problem is that in the middle of laying out what he sees as the new business model of the digital age, Anderson is forced to admit that one of his main case studies, YouTube, ‘has so far failed to make any money for Google.’” Because falling prices multiplied by rapidly growing audience numbers still gets you a very big number. That plus the real economy just took out the bottom out of the “free” economy.

This comes as Anderson is under a cloud of plagiarism charges that surfaced last week, when it was discovered that he used some passages from Wikipedia and “forgot” to credit them. He apologized for the oversight later.

Meanwhile, back to Anderson vs Gladwell: in reality, both writers aren’t that different: my bet is that if you do blind taste tests on their books, it would be hard to figure out who wrote which. Both of them have built lucrative careers peddling somewhat interchangable and at times indistinguishable ideas: abundance vs scarcity, wisdom of crowds, network effect, david vs goliath, and a “a dazzling ability to find commonality in disparate fields of study” to prove their points (not my phrase but from a PW review of Gladwell’s “Blink”). So expect some barbs the other way next time Gladwell comes out with a new book. And if nothing else, all this will help sell more copies of their books.

Jun 29, 2009 1:25 AM ET

Free, By Chris Anderson

Share

Posted In: , chris anderson, malcolm gladwell

  • ed dunn

    I haven't read the "Free" book yet but saw a copy at the public library I will check out so I don't have to pay for it.  But I do think the "free" premise is not only flawed but it is the major cause of startup failure that no one wants to admit.

    There is this line of thinking right now that some company can offer a web service for free in other to prevent competitiors from charging or entering the market. Not only is this premise false, it is silly and suicidal for a startup.

    I learned that people do want to pay because that is how they express their earnings.  I also learned that just because someone offer a web service for free does not deter people from paying for the service when offered by a competitor.

    I think this Gladwell/Anderson "debate" spark a greater discussion about web startups getting serious about having pricing strategy from launch instead of hiding behind comScore to mask the face they ain't getting profits.

  • Seth Godin

    Your piece starts out fine, Rafat, but then disintegrates into needless snark.

    You write, "...peddling somewhat interchangable and at times indistinguishable ideas." Let me parse this a bit:

    "Peddling" is a careful word choice, one that demeans and diminishes what they do. In fact, both of them are eager to share what they have with us for free or close to free. Neither does infomercials, neither sells expensive study at home courses, neither pretends to have precious secrets.

    Second, your point point about, "interchangable and at times indistinguishable" doesn't make much sense either.  If both are describing the truth of our economy and our world, then of course what they're saying is similar. How could it not be?

    Perhaps the sentence would be better if it read, "Both of them have made a good living sharing insightful and productive ideas about how the world works today."

    I enjoy your blog (a lot(!) even if it's free), but leave my peeps alone.

The Economics of Content | paidContent Newsletter

Know something we don’t?

Send Us a News Tip

All tips are anonymous and untraced.

Sponsors

Contributors