is free actually free?
I’ve been thinking about Chris Anderson’s vision for the future for which he proclaims that “free has emerged as a full-fledged economy”. This makes sense as we’ve been accustomed to getting things for free, but (as he eventually points out), the real cost is our ATTENTION. This is not a new argument.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that even if we shift our focus from money to attention, there is still a monetary cost. We will still have to pay for something, even if we get some initial things for free. Furthermore, when things are free because of advertising, the assumption is that we eventually buy what is advertised. So should my eventual purchases because of the influence of advertising on “free” sites be included in the cost of said “free” site?
For the record, I agree with Chris Anderson that the future of business is free, but I question how long we’ll view goods and services as “free” as we define it today. My attention, and eventual purchases are definitely not free. Doesn’t that count?
Finally, I wonder if a counter movement won’t emerge of folks being fed up with free stuff as a lure or gimmick to capture our attention or eventual purchases? It wouldn’t be a large group of people, but what if we paid for stuff so that we don’t have to see ads? And what if the payment was extremely cheap because digital content doesn’t cost much to produce and scale?
I dunno…
