|
At least once a week, I have
someone point out to me that a big-name information
marketer, software "developer," or company, is
selling something that is very similar to a product that
you can get for free. They see something fundamentally
"wrong" with SELLING a product or information
that can be obtained for nothing... if you search in the
right place. Often, they point this out to me because they
just feel the need to protest something they view as
somehow "wrong."
First of all, if you search
long enough and hard enough, you CAN find free software
that will do just about anything. Some very intelligent
programmers create lots of software, which they happily
make open-source, shareware, or freeware. These
programmers do this for various reasons that we won't get
into. These programmers will also give or sell you
permission to modify their software slightly and put your
own label on it. Is that "wrong?"
There are thousands of
documents explaining practically any topic imaginable. The
Internet makes it easier to tap into databases and find
this information. Some people compile this free
information that they find into reports or ebooks and sell
it. Is that "wrong?"
After certain intellectual
property has been around long enough, if the copyrights
aren't renewed through various means, it may become
"public domain." That means anyone may then have
the right to publish or distribute this material without
violating copyrights or intellectual property rights. Is
taking an old book that belongs to the public and selling
it as your own "wrong?"
Having been trained as an
economist, I try to see things as they are rather than as
they should be. In economic terms this is looking at
things in a "positive" rather than a
"normative" fashion. It just means looking at
things with a scientific rather than a moral or ethical
eye. I don't avoid the moral or ethical issues, but try
not to judge others based upon my opinion.
So back to the question...
is selling something that you can get for free
"wrong?" Since we've already said that you can
find practically any software or information for free if
you search long enough and hard enough, the answer
actually lies in why people will pay for the same
"stuff" anyway.
Free does NOT mean without
cost. When you buy branded software or repackaged
information, the marketer is theoretically reducing your
risk. The marketer conducted the research, and located a
product that met a specific need, and then made the public
aware of it. The marketer investigated dozens of pieces of
readily-available software, perhaps modified it, and then
"certified" it as capable of meeting your needs.
Another very big reason
that the market is willing to pay for something that can
conceivable be obtained for free, is because of the search
cost. There is a cost of time, energy, and other
resources, in investigating options. The marketer has
invested that search cost and charges you for that
service. Depending upon how you value your time, you may
gladly be willing to pay for something that you could have
eventually located for free... and then tested to verify
that it was exactly what you needed.
Very often, a creator of
intellectual property is not a marketer... and doesn't
understand the finer points of marketing. So a terrific
piece of software, a book, or an idea, just.... sits. A
marketer with an above-average grasp of human behavior and
psychology can step in, "repackage" that
product, and the market will devour it. Should that
product have been allowed to languish rather than some
marketer stepping in, fixing the bad marketing, and
profiting from it. If the product improved the lives of
end users, who would have otherwise never noticed the
product, then clearly the marketer is providing real
value.
So, where is the dilemma?
The dilemma is in the perception that the marketer selling
a product that didn't cost him anything... or very little,
is doing something wrong. It is purely a perception.
However, whether on-line or off-line, people who locate
"stuff" that the market wants, and charge for
that "service" are clearly serving a need. If
they weren't serving a need, then the market wouldn't pay
for it.
The reality is that people
have marketed information since the beginning of commerce.
Both on-line and off-line, there are fortunes being made
ferreting out information that the market wants, and then
providing it. It's the PERFECT way to make your online
fortune. Provided that the product is of the right
quality, it should certainly not be considered a question
of ethics. Doctors, lawyers, realtors, teachers, religious
leaders... they all charge you for readily available
information that they have "repackaged" and put
their brand, or seal-of-approval, on.
When you're doing research,
and you discover a product very similar to one being
marketed under a different label, it IS very eye opening.
However, it is not generally a matter of ethics (in my
opinion). It's no different than an off-line supermarket
selling the identical product side-by-side for two
different prices. Often the store brand is made at the
same factory, with the same formula, as the name brand
product. They are sold side-by-side for different prices.
The higher price is justified by the brand identity and
"certification" that goes along with that.
As an Internet marketer it
is important that issues such as this be studied. Many
people who start businesses on the Internet have never run
or studied how brick and mortar businesses operate. This
article is an attempt to fill in a bit of that missing
training... or at a minimum - create discussion :-)
Copyright 2004 Willie
Crawford
|
About
The Author
Willie
Crawford is a corporate president,
published author, seminar speaker and
host, tele-seminar speaker and host,
retired military officer, karate black
belt, master network marketing trainer,
and lifetime student of marketing. He
shows people how to actually generate
substantial income on-line using very
simple, easily modeled systems. An example
of such a system that you can study and
duplicate is at: http://ProfitMagician.com. |
|
|
