Very true. Reminds me of what Seth Godin wrote on how the internet has changed people's behaviour:
> Most people, most of the time, don't buy things if there's a free substitute available. A hundred million people hear a pop song on the radio and less than 1 percent will buy a copy. Millions will walk by a painting in a museum, but very few have prints, posters or even inexpensive original art in their homes. (In the former case, the purchased music is better–quality and convenience–than the free version, in the latter, the print is merely more accessible, but the math is the same–lots of visits, not a lot of conversion).
> We don't hesitate to ask a consultant or doctor or writer for free advice, but often hesitate when it involves a payment. ("Oh, I'm not asking for consulting, I just wanted you to answer a question…") And yes, I'm told that some people cut their own hair instead of paying someone a few bucks to do it. The bet a creator makes, then, is that when she gives away something for free, it will be discovered, attract attention, spread and then, as we saw in radio in 1969, lead to some portion of the masses actually buying something. What's easy to overlook is that a leap is necessary for the last step to occur. As we've made it easier for ideas to spread digitally, we've actually amplified the gap between free and paid. It turns out that there's a huge cohort that's just not going to pay for anything if they can possibly avoid it.
> As the free-only cohort grows, people start to feel foolish when they pay for something when the free substitute is easily available and perhaps more convenient. Think about that–buying things now makes some people feel foolish. Few felt foolish buying a Creedence album in the 1970s. They felt good about it, not stupid. This new default to free means that people with something to sell are going to have to push ever harder to invent things that can't possibly have a free substitute.
> Creators don't have to like it, but free culture is here and it's getting more pervasive. The brutal economics of discovery combined with no marginal cost create a relentless path toward free, which deepens the gap. Going forward, many things that can be free, will be.
One obvious difference is that hairdressers don't run around yelling "free haircuts we will give you free haircuts look at us how we give away free haircuts".
What the companies are doing here is that they are trying to kill paid competition, hold on longer and raise prices once competitors don't exists. They really dont have a standing to complain about situation they themselves created in the hope that competition will die sooner and in the hope users will be locked too much without any chance.
> Millions will walk by a painting in a museum, but very few have prints, posters or even inexpensive original art in their homes.
Now, this analogy does not work at all, because going by the painting in the museum in no way implies you would want it at home. And that many people dont go to the museums in the first place ... and those who go are more likely to buy some serious art. The other reason it does not work is that people have tons of inexpensive art in their homes. It is ridiculously competitive market. Posters, cups bought only for their pictures, figurines, people buy all of that.
> Now, this analogy does not work at all, because going by the painting in the museum in no way implies you would want it at home.
You are talking from a buyer's perspective (the museum visitor) whereas he is talking from the seller's perspective (the museum / artist). The seller hopes that by allowing you free or cheap access to the art, you may be tempted to buy a copy of it or some memento of it (which is one of the ways museums / artists make money).
That’s not how marketing works for luxury products (such as fine art), the free/cheap access to see the art is to raise awareness so that they will be impressed by people who actually owns the art.
It increases prestige and pride of ownership for actual buyers.
He was not talking about fine arts but citing one of the business models of some museum. Museums don't sell their historical artefacts. You can't buy the Mona Lisa, but you can buy a print of it. And this is how some museums try to make extra cash.
> Most people, most of the time, don't buy things if there's a free substitute available. A hundred million people hear a pop song on the radio and less than 1 percent will buy a copy. Millions will walk by a painting in a museum, but very few have prints, posters or even inexpensive original art in their homes. (In the former case, the purchased music is better–quality and convenience–than the free version, in the latter, the print is merely more accessible, but the math is the same–lots of visits, not a lot of conversion).
> We don't hesitate to ask a consultant or doctor or writer for free advice, but often hesitate when it involves a payment. ("Oh, I'm not asking for consulting, I just wanted you to answer a question…") And yes, I'm told that some people cut their own hair instead of paying someone a few bucks to do it. The bet a creator makes, then, is that when she gives away something for free, it will be discovered, attract attention, spread and then, as we saw in radio in 1969, lead to some portion of the masses actually buying something. What's easy to overlook is that a leap is necessary for the last step to occur. As we've made it easier for ideas to spread digitally, we've actually amplified the gap between free and paid. It turns out that there's a huge cohort that's just not going to pay for anything if they can possibly avoid it.
> As the free-only cohort grows, people start to feel foolish when they pay for something when the free substitute is easily available and perhaps more convenient. Think about that–buying things now makes some people feel foolish. Few felt foolish buying a Creedence album in the 1970s. They felt good about it, not stupid. This new default to free means that people with something to sell are going to have to push ever harder to invent things that can't possibly have a free substitute.
> Creators don't have to like it, but free culture is here and it's getting more pervasive. The brutal economics of discovery combined with no marginal cost create a relentless path toward free, which deepens the gap. Going forward, many things that can be free, will be.
Source: The game theory of discovery and the birth of the free-gap - https://seths.blog/2011/06/discovery-free-145/