SXSW Keynote with Chris Anderson and Guy Kawasaki

March 17, 2009  |  Social media

Keynote ses­sion at SXSW, with:

  • Chris Ander­son — Wired Magazine
  • Guy Kawasaki — Alltop

In 2006, Chris Ander­son intro­duced the con­cept of the Long Tail. His soon-to-be released book will talk about the power of free. Will his the­o­ries stand up to the tough ques­tions of ven­ture Sil­i­con Val­ley ven­ture cap­i­tal­ist Guy Kawasaki?

If you want to cre­ate a freemium prod­uct, where do you set the bar? You don’t want to crip­ple the ser­vice, but you don’t want to set the bar too high to the extent no one will feel com­pelled to sub­scribe to the pre­mium prod­uct? Twit­ter has crip­pled the prod­uct too much, to the point where it’s easy for Face­book to repli­cate the ser­vice and poten­tially catch up.

Free is the best way to max­i­mize your reach because it low­ers peo­ples’ bar­ri­ers to entry. Con­vert­ing 5% of a big num­ber is the busi­ness model of free. The mar­ginal cost of dis­trib­ut­ing a book is zero, so it should be free, since the opti­mal method of read­ing a book is still in paper.

Each one of us is our own plat­form and we each need to fig­ure out how to con­vert our rep­u­ta­tion and brand into money. That’s all of our jobs: build our audi­ence the right way and give them some­thing of value that keeps them there.

The prob­lem is that our pub­lish­ers are not mak­ing money from authors’ keynotes. For exam­ple, the music indus­try is per­fectly fine except for one part of it: dis­tri­b­u­tion and sale. The issue is, authors and musi­cians are now mis­aligned with their pub­lish­ers and record labels. The ques­tion is, can labels and pub­lish­ers rep­re­sent bands ade­quately in social media?

What if some­one fol­lows me and I send them a direct mes­sage with a link to a free pdf? Is this a good model? “My test for spam: if I do it, it’s clever mar­ket­ing. If some­one does it to me, it’s spam.” –Guy Kawasaki

The word “free” is one of the most mis­un­der­stood words. Free is a word that’s laden with mean­ing. And the mean­ing has changed over time. Twen­ti­eth Cen­tury free is where prod­ucts had a real cost, so you had to pay back the free quickly. Today, every­thing costs less to noth­ing, par­tic­u­larly dig­i­tal media. Freemium is the inver­sion of the free sam­ple model. Here, you give 95% of your prod­uct free and charge for 5%. Vir­tual worlds are exper­i­ment­ing with every pos­si­ble way to charge and 5% of the pop­u­la­tion seems to be a good model. But peo­ple mis­un­der­stand how hard it is to con­vert 5% of people.

China and Brazil are the future of “free”. We have the first true truly com­pet­i­tive mar­ket, which is one where mar­ginal costs are low. If you do not make your prod­uct for free, the mar­ket will do it for you by pirat­ing your stuff. Peo­ple then use piracy to cause celebrity, and celebrity to cre­ate cash.

Could Starbuck’s give away free cof­fee to attract and retain cus­tomers? Absolutely: it would be easy for them to do that.

The word free has a pow­er­ful meen­ing in eng­lish, where we take the best part of the words (ie., free­dom) and apply these asso­ci­a­tions to sell prod­ucts. Imag­ine a flag in your head which pops up every time you hear a price and it raises bar­ri­ers to you pur­chase. There is no cor­re­la­tion between free ad cheap. Util­ity comes first, price sec­ond. Peo­ple now expect two lev­els from almost prod­uct: a sim­ple, free ver­sion and a pre­mium version.

Are peo­ple more moti­vated by some­thing they lost, or by not get­ting some­thing they could? Things that you don’t have and want loom large; that ‘s what trad­tional mar­ket­ing has done. Some infor­ma­tion wants to be free and some wants to be expen­sive. You can have Guy for free on Twit­ter, or his cus­tomized ver­sion for thou­sands as a speaker.

On YouTube, the qual­ity of video is not as impor­tant as the rel­e­vance. Same thing with com­pa­nies: nowa­days, you can start a com­pany for almost no cost.

Open-source is free as in kit­tens: you have to look after them. A lot of the free stuff we have is because we sup­port it communally.


  • Alex, thanks for being eyes and ears! Very powerful stuff, and critical. What they didn't say, though, is that relationship is not free; it's relatively expensive, even though the cost is falling fast. Social networks make relationship more explicit than ever. But people want something genuine like care and attention. Cheers
blog comments powered by Disqus