The End of Distribution

Published on July 22, 2010 in Internet and Methods and Systems.

During a conversation regarding DRM and e-books (stemming from the recent release of the Nook client for Android phones which allows sharing your purchased ebooks with others), I was explaining my distaste for any lock-in technology and my desire for a utopian free-information model which motivates sincere effort rather than the product. Rather than paying for the final result of the effort, instead we focus on rewarding the effort itself. A marketplace which measures following, appreciation, and admiration for a thought or piece of prose. Call it dreaming, hopeful, or unrealistic but think of the number of Likes or Retweets you might generate in a typical day. We are already sharing our efforts and thoughts finding value and insight in small, consumable pieces. We pay for this information not with coins but with our attention and devotion; a currency which, as yet, isn’t very liquid or easily monetized at all.

Regardless of the lack of infrastructure, we are slowly moving in this general direction and have been experiencing the backlash for some time now. As distribution authorities of various mediums attempt to cement their place in the distribution model, many users are finding it hard to justify paying for a product which costs a negligible amount of effort to copy and share. This model made sense when the effort justified the end result. Now that distribution has changed, these authorities are trying to remain relevant but only by changing their channels instead of reinventing the model. Again, we decide their effort isn’t worth sharing our currency and seek better use of our resources.

This is why a meritocracy which rewards the effort is needed. Services like Flattr recognize this and are helping to bridge this gap by providing a hybrid of both worlds. Its users interpret currency as a medium of measuring effort (or social clout) and providing a way to distribute it more efficiently while still offering some of that old-school kickback that makes the world go ’round. The important distinction with Flattr is that the reward is more closely coupled with appreciation than the product. This has incredible potential as it positions Flattr and services like it to create a pseudo-currency to eliminate the ultimate distribution problem: Money.

The end all and be all of commerce and capitalism. The holy grail of business. As more limitations of this medium become apparent, paper currency is starting to find itself less important in trade. The existing system of distributing this antiquated measure of worth around has only seen marginal improvements in the last century. And despite our gradual departure from physical currency, we are still chained to its shortcomings in artificial transaction fees and transfers as each party siphons their cut along the way. Companies like Paypal, Venmo and SquareUp are making headway, but are only achieving incremental results as they try to repair an eroding distribution model.  Until we find the technology, trust, or serendipity to remove the problem of moving around these bits (and bytes) of currency and begin sharing in the marketplace of social clout we will continue to have the power struggle of middle-men trying to remain needed.

If you like these ideas, I suggest reading For the Win (affiliate link) by Cory Doctorow which uses Whuffie much in the way described. It asks similar questions and shows an interesting perspective on how such a marketplace might function. Technology is not yet in place to reward this type of thought-share marketplace. There are several problems which still need to be solved which allow a model like this to work. How do you verify authentic and original effort? Will a capitalistic marketplace allow effort to be subject to the properties of supply and demand to make it productive and profitable? How would this technology (computers or otherwise) work?

I’m very interested in your thoughts and willing to start from the position of completely naïve. Where are the holes in my argument?

No related posts.

9 Comments. Tags: , , , , , , , , , .
  • Allan Georgia

    I think that the notion of an effort-based marketplace, and not a results-based marketplace is extremely sensible from the standpoint of the theory of information and communication, but in my mind that standpoint does not truly assess the role of information in Western, developed societies. Obviously, the very notion of holding onto a results-based market (or we may say, “goods” based) is rooted in a basically agrarian and industrial understanding of commerce. The dilemma is that as a society we still ARE rooted in an industrial way of experiencing the world. More importantly, the motivations of that marketplace are becoming more and more complicated, and in many cases further and further from the hands of consumers. We don’t voluntarily consume anymore – we consume through compulsion. Does anyone “opt” for a cell-phone anymore? Are people really joining facebook because it sounds fun? These technologies of communication are becoming interwoven into our lives in ways that links technology WITH the motivations of consumption, not against them. Heiner Müller wrote about the destiny of humanity-as-cyborg, where technology is not a vehicle for freedom, but simply another medium for business-as-usual power dynamics.

    Obviously, I’m coming at this from a philosophical perspective that is distant from the practicality of technological development and the impetus for human growth that developers find there. But I would call to mind in such a discussion that technology becomes subject to human desire and identity, and itself cannot become a pathway from human salvation. In my mind, technology will not save us – technology will only help us become what we already are. The final question is, as Levi-Strauss described it, a Promethean one. It is a question of ontology and of ethics. We have to decide who we are, and what things we value in ourselves and in our lives. Up to this point, we have been content to conceive of that value in terms of dollars and cents. And its no surprise that technology has aided that enterprise. If we seek to change that, the motivation must be seated in the human will – will to be something or to do something. And in that case, I have no doubt that technology will contribute its own part, but it will be a limited to who we already are.

  • Pravin Dhake

    I agree over certain points, however what I find hard to imagine is how would you measure worth of the effort ? If the worth would be decided by the quality of the product (or in other words final result of the effort) it gets tied down to paying for the product !! Also at risk of sounding pessimistic , writer/developers/other protagonists in this blog risk their effort if information gets shared amongst masses but the masses refuse to appreciate the effort monetarily after they get hold of the product

  • http://nobulb.com Michael Greenberg

    Granted that our culture deals primarily in tangible goods, you can’t ignore the shift we’ve seen over the past decade toward information as a commodity. An effort-based model doesn’t make much sense when dealing with physical goods: they don’t get from A to B without time and resources invested, material costs upfront negate the possibility of an “effort-less” reproduction of the final product, and so forth. An effort-based model like I describe works best when dealing with information and data as a product.

    I also argue against involuntary consumption by “necessity”. The driving force comes from the compulsion of owning “newer” and “better”. And if better means a more efficient way of communicating with friends using your new cell phone and Facebook account, then a market is built around that improvement. I argue here that better also means cutting out the middle-man where it no longer makes sense to have them. I can’t argue from a standpoint of ethics, but lack of efficiency and innovation for the sole purpose of maintaining your relevancy in a market is not justifiable. Despite that the market will shift with or without you, the stonewalling will just slow progress.

    A special case exists with paper and coin currency. At least here in the US, the Reserve sits squarely in the center of every transaction with its infrastructure designed to handle the lowest common denominator regardless of the original medium of transaction. It is unclear to me how changing such a long-standing institution is possible short of creating a completely new ecosystem outside of its jurisdiction. Not for lack of trying, there have been many attempts with varying degrees of failure. This will also change as the market shifts and these new currencies make better sense to use.

  • http://nobulb.com Michael Greenberg

    Measuring effort is exactly the question I pose and sadly there is no simple answer given today’s technology. Maybe that means verifying a person’s thoughts as they occur in an opt-in work environment. Scary Big Brother images aside and putting on my Altruism hat for a moment, perhaps the lack of privacy will be outweighed by the possibility of monetary compensation or the overall good of society.

    Regarding the lack of appreciation once the goods are delivered, a purely efforts-based model would be driven by the need to improve the product further and incentivizing the author to continue their work in this direction. This is a much better scenario than our current model as it stands today where the masses don’t appreciate the effort OR the product. (Copyright infringement, illegal downloading, etc.)

  • Marco

    I can’t see from the post how “effort” is of more value to me than “results.” Maybe because it’s early morning over here …

    There is an old story where a restaurant owner sues a day laborer: the owner tells the judge that the day laborer has been eating his meager rice meal outside the restaurant and has enjoyed the wonderful smells for free. He demands compensation.

    The judge agrees with the owner and instructs the (horrified) day laborer to take his purse and pour the coins from one hand to the other. After he does so, the judge instructs the restauranteur that he’s been paid: the sound of money for the smell of food.

    I think that “monetizing effort” with likes and re-tweets is the sound of money–turning that into real money would be like having the judge order real payment.

    I get that there’s micro-payments and maybe other stuff going on here but I’m having a hard time figuring out where that factors in …

  • http://nobulb.com Michael Greenberg

    The mentality of associating payment with results (and vice-versa) is what has stagnated this evolution. I don’t necessarily suggest that the effort is of more value than the product (at least in the very direct sense). Effort, however, is still the precursor to the valuable product that everyone is after. More importantly, sincere and impassioned effort. The kind of effort which drives innovation. The half-asked, good-enough products we waste our attention and resources on would be pushed out of a market like that. The real trick will be getting people to experience those results and implicitly connecting that with the originally invested “effort”.

  • https://profiles.google.com/aaantonio Antonio Orlando

    Mike, I think you could find this interesting:
    http://www.emergence.cc/

  • http://nobulb.com Michael Greenberg

    Antonio, I’m really happy to see this movement getting some momentum. Despite the holes in my ideas, I really think many people underestimate the potential of such a market. Really appreciate the reference. You wouldn’t be involved in the project in any way, would you?

  • https://profiles.google.com/aaantonio Antonio Orlando

    No I’m not involved in the project, only following it (and donated to it). In fact I have some ideas about these topics, and that’s why this post captured my attention while briefly browsing your blog.

    Funnily enough, I was browsing your blog for a different reason: that is, two days ago you published “idjump”. (Edit: Removed link. It’s still sorta secret.)