Sorry for the delay in posting this…
Benkler offers a new vision of economics to account for the internet era. What strikes you as particularly compelling about this approach to economic and social relations? Are there specific examples from your own experience that speak to the redefinition of markets, production, and consumption that he lays out?
In other posts I have commented on the massively scaled decentralized mode of production that has emerged from the internet’s ubiquity in developed societies. While I find Benkler’s analysis of this phenomenon to be quite solid from the standpoint of economics, I am most interested in this mode of production’s ability to foment new forms of collective action. “Why I love Bee’s” really exemplified the internet’s increasing potential to allow for structured effective “production” by a completely non-hierarchical decentralized community.
This semester I have been studying Social Movements and Collective Action in a soc class with the same title. It seems that the largest problem facing many contemporary movements is the ability of mass media giants to produce “the news” as they see fit. Generally movements receive skewed coverage form these outlets. The mass media has had an almost century-long hegemony over the American collective consciousness. Americans are delivered a domesticated version of international news. In order to maintain credibility among their contemporaries and to keep viewers, media networks use news frames that don’t challenge the average American to reconsider much besides superficial aspects of real issues. The average news show does not examine why the issues they are covering exist or how they might be perpetuated. We might see a journalist issuing a “play by play” analysis of how a protest got violent or telling us how many protesters showed up while not actually explaining anything about the nature of the conflict responsible for generating the protest in the first place. This incompleteness in news coverage is gradually being rectified online. Skim this short article if you are interested in some examples.
I am excited to see what types of decisions will be made by a generation of vastly better informed Americans and how those decisions might change our societal structure.
e
I hate math and that’s why I never took an econ course…until this semester. And with all of Benkler’s talk of proprietary market elements vs. non-market, non-proprietary systems I’m kind of glad I did. In a traditional market based society, producers are able to charge money for their products because they control exclusive access to a scarce resource or control a means of production to a certain degree.
But in the internet era, Benkler points out that there is a shift towards the importance of information and cultural production. And, according to the second major shift Benkler talks about towards cheaper technology and cooperation via the internet, the non-market producers are increasingly rivaling the market-based producers. Any of the free open-source programs we’ve talked about in class from audacity to Mac the Ripper are perfect examples of information based goods that are produced and consumed without any exchange of money. Who needs money to buy programs from corporations when one can use these open-source programs that are often just as good and getting better thanks to coperation. Money might still trade hands, but individual intelligence is getting more valuable as our ability to share it increases.
Benkler writes on p 32 that “the capacity to make meaning…and the capacity to communicate one’s meaning around the world…are held by at least hundreds of users.” It used to be that only market-based producers could raise enough capital to control the means of production or access to a particular good. But in age where cost of production is getting cheaper by the day and facilitated by cooperation via the internet, these market-based producers seem to be losing their edge. Thus, at least in Benkler’s theory, bringing about the more “equitable” redistribution of wealth amongst a much larger number of information producers and the designers who create the tools that facilitate that production. I’ll be honest, I’m a bit skeptical of this last part and it’s a question I’d love to hear your thoughts on. Do we really believe that as some websites become more visible than others that there won’t be a remegerence of some mass-media culture? Are websites linking to others of common interests really enough to prevent this? That is to say, just because attention in a networked environment is more dependent on directly engaging a smaller group of people than moderately engaging the largest number possible as with TV there won’t be some websites that use their larger audience to dominate others?
I think perhaps the most compelling aspect about Benkler’s approach to economic and social relations is the “its so crazy it just might work” factor. I’m not a math guy, nor am I an econ guy, but my basic understanding of modern free markets makes sense to me–it seems logical. The blood bank example from the 70s he gives is wonderful example of this. As I think about it here in 2008, the current system makes a lot of sense, but were it up to me to decide 30 years ago, I’m not sure if I would have made that choice.
My dad and I were discussing Apple and Google somewhat recently. I’m not sure exactly what the conversation centered around, but I think it was along the lines of which one is better at what it does. Knowing me as I do, I was arguing that, yes, Google is awesome, but Apple is better at what it does. My dad then remarked that Google’s stock currently trades anywhere from 400 to 700 points, and is making money by the boatload, yet for the vast (probably 98-99%) amount of people who use Googles products–be it Search, Gmail, YouTube, Earth, Maps, Docs or whatever else–use these products absolutely free. Having figured out how to make oogles of money without having to charge the end-user makes Google better at what it does than anyone else, he said. I think I’m forced to agree.
Benkler’s South African free textbook story reminded me of the One Laptop Per Child project. The success of this program rests on the availibility of cheap hardware and software. Naturally, the designers turned to open-source software. Here’s a quote from their website (laptopfoundation.org) about it:
“XO is built from free and open-source software. Our commitment to software freedom gives children the opportunity to use their laptops on their own terms. While we do not expect every child to become a programmer, we do not want any ceiling imposed on those children who choose to modify their machines. We are using open-document formats for much the same reason: transparency is empowering. The children—and their teachers—will have the freedom to reshape, reinvent, and reapply their software, hardware, and content.”
The kids are free to modify the software on their computer at will. Contrast this with the 7th Grade Laptop Program in the great state of Maine. While I applaud the state for suppling all 7th graders with Apple laptops, there were so many restrictions (couldn’t connect to the internet outside of school, couldn’t install software, couldn’t use iTunes, etc) that crippled the program. What’s the point of a laptop if you can’t get online from your house with it?
But I digress. I wonder if the success of the next decade and a half will rest on open-source tech. Working on a project because you believe in it, not because its your job inevitably leads to greater success. Google requires that employees spend X amount of time in the office working on their own pet projects. Gmail was born from one of these pet projects. There might even be a time where the vast majority of the software we use is free. Even today, there are free alternatives to most applications. Many of the free alternatives I have used aren’t quite as nice as their standard counterparts, but the night is still young. Microsoft will soon face stiff competition from the free OpenOffice/NeoOffice developed by Sun.
I found one of the most interesting components — and one of the most relevant to today’s advertising community — was his mention of NASA’s Clickworkers project. Benkler writes that “the clickworkers project was a particularly clear example of how a complex professional task that requires a number of highly trained individuals on full-time salaries can be reorganized so as to be performed by tens of thousands of volunteers in increments so minute that the tasks could be performed on a much lower budget.” The latest example of this, all film majors/minors and members of this class received in an email: The Barack Obama ad campaign. A student makes an ad for the politician, and receives $20,000 in film equipments. It would cost well into the six figures to hire a firm to develop a 25-second segment. Another recent example of this was the Doritos’ “Crash the Bowl” Superbowl commercial segment: the winner of that competition only won $10,000. However, the marketing technique behind this is brilliant, and has become a forefront marketing tool since the prevalence of YouTube. In the advent of YouTube, the American consumer and individual is feeling more comfortable—even feels it is their right—to create their own media, and it’s surprising that more companies are not tapping into this vast resource. The internet has already brought one huge media branch (the recording industry) to its knees: are the advertising firms the next to follow? Benkler’s book was written in 2006, and it phenomenal to see how peer production has caught on in less than two years. Maybe the advertising firms will be quicker than the record companies in adapting, but I’m very interested to see the face of ad campaigns in the next couple of years.
[youtube eYOWgfSCaG0]