The razor blades of the digital economy

Scott Karp is asking the right question. He wants to know how creative artists and writers are supposed to make money in the unbearably light new economy.

Karp should listen to the podcast of John Updike's recent speech at the Book Expo of America. Speaking in respone to Kevin Kelly's New York Times piece on the digital book, the great writer gets straight to the heart of the Web 2.0 business matter. Updike explains that Kelly wants the author to give the book away for free and then collect on what Silicon Valley people call, without irony, the "back end".

To excuse the literary pun, this is the oldest business model in the book. It's the razor blade business strategy: give away the razor, then charge for the blades.

As Updike observes, in Kelly's digital utopia, authors are expected to give away the copy of their "book" and charge for value added services -- such as in-person readings, lectures and interviews. Content builds brand; brand is money.

The writer in this new economy, therefore, makes money from everything except his writing. The writer's value is the personal recognition he can leverage from his content. Michael Goldhaber would say that this is the core truth of our new attention economy. Chris Anderson would welcome it as the "long tail." I would describe it as the transformation of art into self-promotion.

In his speech, Updike uses a historical metaphor to make sense of Kelly's vision. He says that it would be a return to the pre Gutenberg world where artist had no physical autonomy from their work. Gutenberg's printing press, with its ability to manufacture copies of the text, allowed the writer to sell his ideas without having to be physically present. If content is free, then the copy has no value. The writer can only make money by selling himself -- his presence, his voice, his signature. So the end result is doubly ironic: in the virtual economy, physical presence is the only thing that can be monetized. It's back to the future. Back to the Middle Ages.

But back to Karp's original question. Given that the writers are skilled in writing rather than in self-promotion, it is unlikely that they will flourish in the new economy. The winners will be sharp marketing mavens -- the real razor blades of the digital revolution.

Comments

[Doug Lay]

...and writers prosper now? Come on, our blockbuster-oriented publishing industry makes a very few writers vey rich, while most languish in obscurity and struggle to pay the bills.

My view is that in the digital economy which you seem to fear and loathe (great marketing skills in packaging that sentiment up into a Web site BTW), writers will make money the way they always have - by selling books. Print is just plain better than the screen for reading anything longer than a few pages, and copyright law won't allow Google and other "universal library" services to provide anything longer than an excerpt of a book anyhow. What the "universal library" (a.k.a. advanced earch engine services) provides to writers is a path to discovery by the public - ne that holds out the promise of releasing the artist from the clutches of the marketing/promotional middleman. Combine that with cheap, widely available print-on-damand services and the writer is free of the need for a publisher at all.

It is not the writer, but the traditional publisher, who is challenged by the "universal library" that the technologists are striving to build.

[andrew keen]

"Combine that with cheap, widely available print-on-damand services and the writer is free of the need for a publisher at all."

uh-uh. So who is going to help the writer define, edit and publicize the book? That's the core value of the publishing business. Writers can't do these things on their own.

[Doug Lay]

Advanced search engines will take care of the publicizing. Perhaps independent copy editors will take care of the editing. As for "defining" the book, I reject the claim that writers can't do such a thing on their own. That seems to me to be near the heart of any useful conception of creativity.

[Stephan]

wrong wrong wrong. Authors are definitely in need of publishers/agents to help them define their writing projects. Nobody ever just publishes a book without critical editorial support and feedback. Ask any writer about this... The truth behind any good book is a good editor.

[andrew keen]

how will advanced search engines take care of publicizing? What exactly does that mean? How could a search engine, however advanced, help a writer coordinate reviews and features with newspaper and magazine editors?

[Doug Lay]

Magazine editor uses search engine to find new books of interest. Magazine editor contacts author. What's so hard about that?

[andrew keen]

Doug -- you are making the process sound way too simple. This is a push economy rather than a pull economy. Editors have a huge choice as to what to review/publish. Authors need to be skilled in resonating with editors. You are completely ignoring the human factor here.

[Doug Lay]

"This is a push economy rather than a pull economy."

What does that even mean? That the economy is all about shoving stuff down people's throats? Talk about glib oversimplification!

Truly, I'm not really sure what you're even arguing for. Maybe your editor can help you figure it out.

[drainage]

doug -- chill out, man. Get real with all this open source stuff. It' won't be no better than before. The big guys control things then, now and forever. Updike or Kelly, it don't matter which, they are all rich white guys