Capitalism In The Age Of Free Riders
Sramana Mitra
Founder and CEO of One Million by the One Million (1Mby1M) Global Virtual Accelerator
LinkedIn’s recent sale to Microsoft is yet another case in point that freemium business models are a struggle to scale. LinkedIn offers excellent value to its users. Still, few are willing to pay for that value. Thus, the company faces a slowing growth curve, resulting in the decision to sell.
The truth is, on the Internet, everyone wants everything for free. Especially consumers.
And so, almost all media / content related business models are facing a wall.
Yahoo! could not monetize and is on the block. Companies like New York Times and Washington Post are struggling, despite massive audiences.
It seems, Capitalism’s future is bleak.
In its purest essence, Capitalism was about producers creating value and consumers paying to consume value.
On the Internet, consumers assume that value should be available for free.
Of course, the flip side of this assumption is that the consumer then becomes the product, gets monetized through advertising, and all related data is fair to be utilized to make advertising hyper-targeted and effective.
The best-case scenario of this logic is Facebook. The company is making out like a bandit monetizing its highly engaged and infinitely data generating users with super sharp advertising.
The rest of the free/freemium Internet is struggling to grow, even sustain in many cases. In the upcoming years, we will experience the demises of many more brands with large audiences and often, quality offerings.
And after that, what happens?
But for Facebook and a few others, the number of companies that can survive with robust, sustainable business models becomes dramatically smaller. Large sectors of industry experience market failures. Most content oriented businesses fall in this endangered category, and have to turn into non-profits on life-support by the generosity of certain capitalist winners. Washington Post, for example, is on life-support thanks to Jeff Bezos, Founder of Amazon, for whom, writing a $250 million check isn’t such a big deal.
In the twenty-first century, finally, Capitalism is hitting its limits on many dimensions. Welfare and philanthropy are becoming essential blocks to sustain important instruments of society and democracy.
The Internet, one of the great capitalist tools for wealth creation, has simultaneously emerged as the great boundary less welfare state.
Capitalism isn’t dead. It is, however, getting increasingly marginalized, with benefits accruing to small numbers of people.
Looking For Some Hands-On Advice?
For entrepreneurs who want to discuss their specific businesses with me, I’m very happy to assess your situation during my free online 1M/1M Roundtables, held almost every Thursday. If you are interested in entrepreneurship topics and my writings, you can follow me here.
Photo credit: Chris Potter www.stockmonkeys.com/Flickr.com.
Practitioner & Promoter of the Shewhart/Deming Management Method (SPC/14 Points) and the System of Profound Knowledge
8 年The disruption of the internet continues. Look at the newspaper business. When I purchase a newspaper today. the $2 has value to me. If I decide not to get it tomorrow, I will not purchase it. I have no such option with internet based papers. LinkedIn is no different. I use it a lot, but struggle to see the value in a paid subscription. When I and if I see the value, I will have no problem paying for the service. The issue here is not free riders. The problem is the business model that continues to be defined.
Founder and CEO of One Million by the One Million (1Mby1M) Global Virtual Accelerator
8 年For those commenting on pricing, I think LinkedIn rightly concluded that most people won't even pay $10/month, while sales and Biz dev professionals will happily pay much more.
Bridging the demand and supply gap of competent IT Professionals.
8 年This article is dangerously misleading because it failed to correctly identify the cause of LinkedIn's inability to monetize its business and, even worse, wrongly attempts to associate the cause with all freemium businesses on the internet. Our business at noobaid.com depends greatly on LinkedIn and I was willing to pay a premium but when I looked and saw the outrageous $67/mth, I declined to subscribe to premium service. It wasn't worth it. Is it worth paying for? Yes. Is it worth that price? No. Therefore, their pricing model is what is wrong. Simple as that.