3 ms·

Thank you for the response! I was quite disappointed with the downvotes. The examples you give do not convince me that my statement, "this only works because i

by wzdd 15y ago

Thank you for the response! I was quite disappointed with the downvotes. The examples you give do not convince me that my statement, "this only works because it is novel", is not correct. People obey traffic signals out of habit and / or fear that there may in fact be someone around (and even if they didn't, it would be out of concern for safety, nothing to do with this give-some-get-some principle); the "pay what you want" restaurant in London was a month-long promotion (and it now charges again), and many other incarnations struggle (see this NY Times article for information on several failed versions of the scheme: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21free.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21free.html); the vast majority of church funding (millions of dollars!) does not come from collection plates, and, even if it did, collection plates are dissimilar to this example because everybody watches what you do with the plate -- the social cost of stealing is far more obvious and pronounced (and, unlike Jonathan's Card, taking from a collection plate is unequivocally stealing, making the example even less relevant); and, finally, if there are musicians who make "a decent living" out of selling free music (as opposed to a profitable sideline) then I don't know of any. One counter example is Radiohead's "In Rainbows", where 62% of the people downloading paid nothing at all (see: http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/10/16/radioheads-in-rainbows-experiment-was-a-success/ http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/10/16/radioheads-in-rainbows...). The album still made money, due to Radiohead's brand power, but they have not continued the experiment with new albums. There are no good examples of a Jonathan's Card-type scheme working for any length of time in the real world. The problem with the response in general, and I think your response in particular as well, is this quote from you: > If the idea isn't strangled in its crib by a wise-ass. The very fact that the idea was strangled in its crib by a wise-ass, coupled with the dearth of similar ideas out there in the real world, seems to demonstrate fairly well that this is not a good idea. You then give a bunch of examples of expensive technology which eventually became cheap technology (stockings, the Internet, cars, etc). This is a completely unrelated to Jonathan's card -- nobody is going to deny that expensive technologies become cheaper and, in doing so, benefit more people! However, Jonathan's card doesn't rely on expensive technology -- it relies on all participants being altruistic. And in the real world, given a sufficiently large number of participants, not all of them will be altruistic. Jonathan's Card is particularly bad in this respect because one "wise-ass" can take so much value from the system -- contrast this with a hypothetical successful musician putting her album online, where the worst that a single defector can do is take the album for free.

glenra 15y ago
In addition to Radiohead, I was thinking of Jonathan Coulton. Many of his songs are still available for free, but enough people choose to buy them or to pay to see him perform live that he grossed half a million dollars last year. For instance, here's one of his songs with three options: (1) buy the song, (2) download the mp3 (without charge), (3) send a donation: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/wiki/Chiron_Beta_Prime http://www.jonathancoulton.com/wiki/Chiron_Beta_Prime > The very fact that the idea was strangled in its crib by a wise-ass, coupled with the dearth of similar ideas out there in the real world, seems to demonstrate fairly well that this is not a good idea. Whether something "is a good idea" depends on context, which changes. This wouldn't have been a good idea a few decades ago because the technology wasn't there to enable it. As society gets wealthier and smarter we can afford to support more free-riders and it becomes less and less important to rigorously charge for stuff. "serve yourself" soda refills is an example, as is the institution of unlimited free napkins, toilet paper, and use of the restroom. Any of those could be crippled by wise-asses too. > a hypothetical successful musician putting her album online, where the worst that a single defector can do is take the album for free. Something a single defector can do that's worse than that would be to (1) take the album for free, (2) put up a website encouraging others to do the same and expressing contempt for all the suckers who choose to pay, (3) get this website highly ranked on social media sites. If that happened and nobody spoke out against it, it would significantly harm the prospect of name-your-own-price albums. That's basically what happened here.
- wzdd 15y ago
  The examples you give are always so consistently different from Jonathan's Card that I can't help but wonder if others feel the same way, with the same examples, and that this disconnect between made-up examples and the reality of Jonathan's Card is the cause of the outrage. Jonathan's Card is nothing like free soda, free napkins, or free restroom time. If someone sits in McDonald's and repeatedly takes all the napkins from the dispenser, he will be asked to leave, and if he persists he may have to deal with the police; the economic cost to McDonald's is minimal, and the inconvenience to other customers minor and localised. Ditto someone choosing to sit in the restroom all day, someone coming in and siphoning all the soda out of a machine, etc. For each of these examples, there is minimal economic cost or inconvenience to other patrons or the business involved, but a lot of inconvenience for the defector -- he has to physically gather up the items, sit in the restroom, etc, for minimal benefit to himself (what, he's going to eBay a million napkins?) Compared with this, the Jonathan's Card scam provided an effective income of $130 per hour, at a cost of sitting in a comfy couch at Starbucks drinking coffee. There is no immediate social censure (unlike what would happen to a dedicated napkin-grabber) and indeed the defection is undetectable unless the person involved chooses to blog about it. And, as hinted above, it is easy and convenient to convert Starbucks gift cards into money. These circumstances make defection a lot more tempting. Let's recap: 1) No social censure (unless you decide to tell people) 2) The return is not just fungible but is easily converted into actual money 3) Low effort required 4) Low time investment 5) High per-hour return The confluence of these factors makes Jonathan's Card a bad idea -- far worse than free soda.

by wzdd 15y ago

glenra 15y ago

In addition to Radiohead, I was thinking of Jonathan Coulton. Many of his songs are still available for free, but enough people choose to buy them or to pay to see him perform live that he grossed half a million dollars last year. For instance, here's one of his songs with three options: (1) buy the song, (2) download the mp3 (without charge), (3) send a donation: http://www.jonathancoulton.com/wiki/Chiron_Beta_Prime http://www.jonathancoulton.com/wiki/Chiron_Beta_Prime > The very fact that the idea was strangled in its crib by a wise-ass, coupled with the dearth of similar ideas out there in the real world, seems to demonstrate fairly well that this is not a good idea. Whether something "is a good idea" depends on context, which changes. This wouldn't have been a good idea a few decades ago because the technology wasn't there to enable it. As society gets wealthier and smarter we can afford to support more free-riders and it becomes less and less important to rigorously charge for stuff. "serve yourself" soda refills is an example, as is the institution of unlimited free napkins, toilet paper, and use of the restroom. Any of those could be crippled by wise-asses too. > a hypothetical successful musician putting her album online, where the worst that a single defector can do is take the album for free. Something a single defector can do that's worse than that would be to (1) take the album for free, (2) put up a website encouraging others to do the same and expressing contempt for all the suckers who choose to pay, (3) get this website highly ranked on social media sites. If that happened and nobody spoke out against it, it would significantly harm the prospect of name-your-own-price albums. That's basically what happened here.

wzdd 15y ago
The examples you give are always so consistently different from Jonathan's Card that I can't help but wonder if others feel the same way, with the same examples, and that this disconnect between made-up examples and the reality of Jonathan's Card is the cause of the outrage. Jonathan's Card is nothing like free soda, free napkins, or free restroom time. If someone sits in McDonald's and repeatedly takes all the napkins from the dispenser, he will be asked to leave, and if he persists he may have to deal with the police; the economic cost to McDonald's is minimal, and the inconvenience to other customers minor and localised. Ditto someone choosing to sit in the restroom all day, someone coming in and siphoning all the soda out of a machine, etc. For each of these examples, there is minimal economic cost or inconvenience to other patrons or the business involved, but a lot of inconvenience for the defector -- he has to physically gather up the items, sit in the restroom, etc, for minimal benefit to himself (what, he's going to eBay a million napkins?) Compared with this, the Jonathan's Card scam provided an effective income of $130 per hour, at a cost of sitting in a comfy couch at Starbucks drinking coffee. There is no immediate social censure (unlike what would happen to a dedicated napkin-grabber) and indeed the defection is undetectable unless the person involved chooses to blog about it. And, as hinted above, it is easy and convenient to convert Starbucks gift cards into money. These circumstances make defection a lot more tempting. Let's recap: 1) No social censure (unless you decide to tell people) 2) The return is not just fungible but is easily converted into actual money 3) Low effort required 4) Low time investment 5) High per-hour return The confluence of these factors makes Jonathan's Card a bad idea -- far worse than free soda.