Are freebies hurting SL content creators?

LOL

Monetary value is one kind of value. It's not the only one. The air is free, but I value it immensely. Only a fool would vehemently argue that "if it's free, it's of no value."

Remember what they say about "the best things in life"? Admittedly, they weren't talking about the latest dress from SLHaute Couture.

A happy Van Gogh might not have painted such incredible works of art, too. This is all completely beside the point.

This part:

"Visited an art gallery last night....reminder that there are so many talented people floating about SL....my sofas and end tables pale in comparison to their beautiful oil paintings full of passion.... but feel it's my duty to them to establish some sort of value even at the most basic level....so that a pattern is established .....and so that they can be rewarded on the level they deserve, and proceed and continue to create and share those beautiful pieces. Their work was not priced according to it's value.....it was priced according to what SL market will allow.

It's very clear that their pieces have XXXXtimes the value of an end table....if I establish the value of an end table at X...instead of Zero or One....or Five...and if many others would do the same consistently....so that the value of an evening gown will then become XXX....and the value of a house will then become XXXX....then the value of a beautiful piece of art could become XXXXXX....

Just something we need to do for each other. You can create a freebie mentality continent filled with mediocre content....or even far less than mediocre.....or you can encourage more valuable content with your own actions. If you can't do it for someone else....do it for yourself."


I used the art gallery as an example...because it effected my decision to quit giving stuff away for free. Gave an example of ....if one chooses to assign a value to their product at the most basic level....done consistently among others.....could set the value of the next product level....and on up.

If it became customary for every single business selling product in SL to give away their products over and over again.....then you've created a practice where the artist displaying their works are expected to do so, as well....or to at least adjust their pricing.....which could decrease their value.

I used the art as an example.....because to me personally....that's at the top of my list for being "valuable."

Just a personal observation that I shared and choose to follow. No more, no less.

Van Gogh shot himself in the chest due to crippling mental illness. He died at 34 having created over 2000 works of art. He was recognized as a genius during his lifetime and had support from various art schools. He would have killed himself no matter how many more paintings he sold.

Claiming that he would have created so much more art had he sold 2 more paintings just shows a complete ignorance towards Van Gogh and also an ignorance as to how (good) art is created.

You don't set out to create art in order to make a profit, and if you do your "art" will probably be terrible.

Here's a thought: Worry less about things you cannot control and more about improving your own business.

I don't see how Mickey showed ignorance as to how fine art is created - mental illness is not a requirement nor is necessarily genius. I also don't think she was implying that superior artists will only create if they are financially rewarded.

OK - bad analogy. I was thinking on a different level that I'm not able to express. Obviously.

I was in the art field....and I have well known artists in my family. I could not continue to create without an income from it. The artists in my family will not have the luxury to continue to create on the level that they are accustomed to ....without a monetary reward. Simply a personal observation. To label "ignorance" on that level is out of line.



I guess you missed my whole point. By not giving the items away....I've maintained a value in my own mind....which encourages me to make more and improve.

Again....I could have used any example.....if I had visited a home builder.....an evening gown designer....whatever....if I had been impressed with their work....the same concepts would have rolled through my mind. And again....I'm simply sharing them. That does not make me ignorant or less of a business person, as you imply rather harshly.

We share opinions and ideas here. I doubt we will get too many tossed out if you call people ignorant for tossing them out.

See, in my business, giving your stuff away increases its value... if it's good enugh to be competitive in the first place... through network effects. Would Flight Feather have been more valuable if I locked it up and didn't let people modify it, expand it, incorporate it in their own builds? If Linus Torvalds had chosen to sell Linux would it have taken off... or would it have been as forgotten as Regulus or Idris is today?

You can't generalize like that.

I expressed my personal opinion and how it effected my decision making. I think that I used the word "I" enough times to not make it a sweeping generalization.....or to assume that another had to.

"I" personally feel that by maintaining a value with my own product line....and that if others chose to do so as well....that it would help with a consistent value along other product lines. "I" see the process of continually giving away things over and over again....as detrimental. Personal Opinion.

I'm not real clear on how you pointing out that I used the art gallery as an example was a generalization....especially when I went back and clarified why I was using that as an example.

You're still looking at art through the eyes of a business rather than as a passion. Sorry that your art couldn't sustain your lifestyle I guess? Plenty of people create art while working another job to sustain themselves. They do it because they love it, and wouldn't stop no matter if people buy their creations or not.



Hey, whatever floats your boat. If assigning your own predefined arbitrary value to your own work encourages you to make more and improve, go for it.

Just don't generalize and say that not giving out freebies adds "value" to a creators work. Stuff like that is absolutely asinine. Giving out freebies is a legitimate way to advertise your work, if anything it adds value because it gets your name out into the grid.

What you are advocating is market collusion, which is completely ridiculous and unrealistic.

Now I'm "Asinine" ???

Perhaps there are other ways to get your name out on the grid. Like perhaps having one hell of a product out there. Or perhaps learning some marketing skills. Or perhaps giving great customer service.

No I wasn't. But I KNEW someone would toss that in. Expected it to come many pages ago, though.

Call me "Ridiculous and Unrealistic" to expect that.

I didn't say you were asinine, I said the ideas you have posted regarding freebies are asinine.

Also, marketers often give out free samples. Giving out things to promote your business is a legitimate form of advertising/marketing, both in SL and RL.

Really? Coming together and having every business sell their products at a set value (as you have advocated), in other words "price fixing", isn't market collusion? Wow, learn things every day.

I personally don't think that it's productive to have a discussion when people's ideas are labeled in that manner.

I post concepts and ideas here, to share with some other business owners that I respect.....many in this thread. Their views will often differ from mine. I pick up tid bits from their differing views. Even those that largely disagree with my views....or even those who don't like me personally.....would not include the words "ignorant, asinine, and ridiculous" in their discussion.....which is one of the main reasons that I respect them.

I did not advocate that at all.

The analogy between Second Life content and real world art doesn't hold fully. An item of art is different than a functional item. An artwork like a painting is almost pure expression made almost entirely for creative value. Art thrives despite have no commercial value because it is driven by love, not by money. Something purely functional is on the other end of the spectrum. People don't work in furniture factories because mass-assembling furniture is a creative act; they do it because they need the money.

It isn't of course easy to separate all goods into purely artistic and purely functional. Many goods are a mix of the two. But, the more that the art is dominant, the less driven the good is by market factors. The more functional, the more it is driven by market factors.

Because we see SL content as graphical images, I guess it's easy to classify that content as art. But most SL content has some heavy functional use as well. I won't deny that there may be an art to scripting, but scripts are primarily functional. Tiling textures are more functional than art. Maybe clothes are much more art than function (since in SL, there are many places to go that don't require them, and they aren't necessary for protection from elements).

From the consumer standpoint, almost everything one would ever buy in Second Life is more luxury than functional. One really doesn't need anything that one doesn't start with as a newbie.

I don't think it's one or the other- that content needs to be financially successful to survive, or that content will be created if it can never be sold. My best guess is this: Most content in SL is created out of love or self-expression, but not for money, and is a lot like pure art. However, there are costs to creation (time, tools, tier, advertising), and there is only so much one is willing to lose to express oneself in SL. So content creation probably would not exist anywhere near the extent that it does now if it couldn't be sold. Plus, since very, very few people are making good money at content creation (more than they could working bagging groceries even), I have to think that payment for the content is more of a token than real financial gain. Payment is a means of thanks, or showing that one truly appreciates the content received.

At some margin, the availability of freebies does hurt content creators. It takes some of the incentive out of creation, it limits the ability to recieve that token reward through payment.

However, I don't think it hurts as much as the other problems with Second Life that prevent it from acting like a healthy free market. Particularly, the lack of consumer information is the huge problem. Content theft is also a huger problem.

Plus, certain types of hurt don't harm Second Life as a whole. Perhaps hurt is the wrong word, because it presume that the content creators are losing something to which they are entitled. A creator is not entitled to my mone simply because that creator has made something great.

I'm not as financially well-off as I could be if I were allowed to legally print my own money (and no one else could). Honest freebies help SL as a whole. They certainly help consumers. As others have pointed out, they push content creators to not be lax and explore making new content that no one else has ever made. If one area of content creation has many freebies (women's clothes), maybe that's a sign that content creators should get out of the oversaturated market and focus on less-available content.

The only freebies that hurt content creators are the stolen ones. That may be in part about the money. But I know at least for me, one of the reasons I don't do more content creation is that I just know that the first time something I created were stolen (the first time that I'm aware of at least), the emotional feelings of violation would just be awful. Whatever money I stand to make by selling content just wouldn't compensate that helpless depression of watching even one thing stolen.

By advocating a set value for a certain line of products made by content creators, or the elimination of 'freebies' you are most certainly advocating price fixing.

This is an awesome post.

I had a seasonal store, a test as it were. No visitors. I'm sure it could work, just not by me. And I have a large number of these "things" now that are not sellable. heh. bad experiment.

No, I am not, and I was not discussing a "set" value. But I do not feel inclined to continue a discussion with you on that, considering the above comments.

Pep???? Is that you?

Sorry I think you might have me confused for someone else

Ooops...sorry