On the record.
So there is a blog going around that accuses my fellow designers and I of hypocrisy for speaking out against the practice of offering free content while at the same time offering free content in our stores. Because this blog was based on taking comments out of context coupled with a superficial understanding of facts, I feel it but just that I reply to tell the designers’ side of this issue. As such I urge you to read and comprehend the following:
I am a designer. I design and sell user-created content--such content being the key feature of Second Life. I do this both to enrich the content of the SL community and to earn money for my work. If anyone doubts the amount of labor involved in creating items for use in SL, then they should give it a try and see for themselves. Because I put forth a great deal of time and effort into designing my goods, it is only fair that I charge for them.
Regardless of realm, any time that producers and goods converge with consumers and money, the fundamental rules of economics apply. With this in mind, designers create items, and in exchange for not having to create themselves, consumers give money to purchase them. The problem arises when, in an effort to attract customers, people offer free items. These items are often of a degraded quality and the intent of these items being given for free is to draw customers into their stores in the hopes that once in the stores, customers will purchase20items which cost money. On its own there is nothing wrong with this practice, and anyone would be foolish not to take advantage of getting something for nothing. However the overuse of the practice is detrimental to the level of quality in the content created for SL.
The problem with free content is that it provides the creator no incentive to create it. After all, who would want to devote hours of their time creating something to just be given away? As designers our quandary is this: do we create items of lesser quality and attach our reputation as designers to a shoddy product, or do we continue charging for goods and watch as our customers disappear to other stores that offer freebies? This is a Catch-22. We can sell garbage and sacrifice our reputation for quality or we can lose business to those who give away free items. Either way, there is little incentive for us to create content and no incentive leads to no creation of content.
Remember then, that economic rules apply. The offering of free content has its origin in the tenets of healthy competition, which is supposedly fundamental to capitalism. The problem is that overabundance of free content leads to unhealthy competition that forces us to diminish the quality of our products in order to compete. If quality diminishes, then the consumer loses. This is why designers are against the practice of giving away freebies. That said, we choose to offer free content in order to stay in sync with demand, keep our stores on the public radar and create content to enrich SL.
On the whole this is why designers are against the practice of offering free content. We have little choice to meet the demand for free content. However, offering freebies diminishes our ability to create quality products in order to keep up with other stores to the detriment of our job satisfaction and the ability of our customers to have access to the level of product quality that should be extant in SL.
Speaking personally, I will continue to speak out against the overuse of free content as a marketing tool because I believe that in the end, it degrades the overall quality of products in SL. In addition, I will begrudgingly continue to offer free content in some form to meet demand because the nature of competition forces me to in order to continue to offer the quality items; the items that I thoroughly enjoy creating. The duality of being against freebies but still offering them exists for all of the aforementioned reasons, it is merely a latent effect of economic rules. If this is hypocrisy, then I will bear the mantle of hypocrisy, but I do it so that I do not have to bear the mantle of stupidly adhering to a principle until I run myself out of business.
2 comments:
Well said. I agree that is a not a good way to market. But, customers are trained easily and many have come to expect free items. It is unfortunate that creators have no other choice but to participate in the freebie economy in the current environment.
I do think there is a way to give free items that can truly enhance the appeal of other merchandise - for example giving out a pair of earrings but selling the matching necklace and bracelet (and recouping the labor cost for the earrings in the price of the other items) or giving out a belt that matches a full price outfit. And these items should be displayed close together.
If a designer chooses to offer free items of a degraded quality, they should not offer free items at all. In RL nobody would use items of a lower quality as a promotional or marketing tool, and it doesn't make sense in SL either. People who try out the item would get an inaccurate idea of the kind of quality that designer is able to offer. If I get a poorly made freebie, I mentally cross that store off my "to shop" list.
I don't think it's true that a designer *has* to give out free items in order to keep customers or make sure their stores stay on the public radar. Stiletto Moody doesn't even have demo shoes (let alone freebies) and yet people know of them and buy their stuff - overpriced as it is. I've not heard of Armidi having freebies either, yet people continue to buy their stuff too. Bare Rose does have a freebie section and a lucky chair, but as far as I know, the freebie section is rarely updated and they don't release regular freebies; yet everyone has heard of them and has at least one item from them. These are the three major names that come to mind. The point is that there are other ways to create a buzz and do marketing/publicity in SL, other than via freebies.
Granted, smaller stores will have a harder time building up their brand and bringing their store names to the forefront of consumer consciousness. But if a designer consistently offers good quality items, people are bound to notice sooner or later; word of mouth often works wonders.
It was always my understanding that designers create because they enjoy creating. Sure, they would like people to purchase their products so that they could recoup expenses (classifieds, store rental, electricity/internet bills, etc) or, better still, make some profit. But if they didn't enjoy it, they wouldn't have gone into it in the first place. If a designer's sole aim is to profit, SL may not be the best environment for them to set up a business. Competition is tough because the grid is large, people only have so much money to spend, and clothes in SL don't wear out. Every time I buy more clothes/hair/skin/shoes for my avatar, it's pure self-indulgence. There's no *motivation* for one to buy new things, apart from vanity or greed. As it is, I don't think I'll ever finish wearing all the things I already have in inventory. So these days, even when the item is really nice, if it's not on sale I only buy if I fall in love with it and feel like I *have* to have it.
Sorry to have written a thesis in your comments *blushes*
Post a Comment