Is Free the New Currency in Social Media Marketing?

Is Seth Godin, marketing wizard right? Is Free the new currency in Social Media Marketing? Then that makes Malcolm wrong…?

I enjoy all three of these experts and follow them religiously…We are constantly battling this very same issue..and in this "age of attention" or "attention deficit" in the marketing world it is getting harder and harder to get heard..seen yes..but heard? Listened to? -enough that people will trust you to buy from you whatever it is you are offering? This is commerce as I used to understand it!

I've been enjoying the visit of my two teen nieces and sister in law -their first visit to Minneapolis the shopping mecca here in the midwest…and have been away from the digital world for a few days….hope you missed me? Thought I'd give you a gift this morning of a heated debate amongst three of my favorite experts in the changing world of digital marketing and business!

As a tip…make sure  you have downloaded the new Mozilla Firefox 3.5 version-it is blazing fast and oh it is FREE!

Go here to download:  http://bit.ly/fQSLP

For those of  you who have a desire to write that book, expand  your platform and really learn from the best in information products…my teacher,mentor and colleague ALEX MANDOSSIAN is having a Preview call July 2nd, for his Virtual Book Tour course.

This 2-hour training is specifically deisgned for authors, info marketers and entrepreneurs
who want to combine the power of info mktg and the Internet to accelerate biz growth …

A replay will be available 24 hours after the event if you register on or before July 2nd.

Follow this link to learn more…..<a href='http://www.1marketinglive.com/cmd.php?af=736398&p=14'>Click

So here is the delightful post from one of my all time favorite marketing experts, Seth Godin..Enjoy!

"Malcolm is wrong

I've never written those three words before, but he's never disagreed with Chris Anderson before, so there you go.

Free is the name of Chris's new book, and it's going to be wildly misunderstood and widely argued about.

The first argument that makes no sense is, "should we want free to be the future?"

Who cares if we want it? It is.

The second argument that makes no sense is, "how will this new business model support the world as we know it today?"

Who cares if it does? It is. It's happening. The world will change around it, because the world has no choice. I'm sorry if that's inconvenient, but it's true.

As I see 'free', there are two forces at work:

In an attention economy (like this one), marketers struggle for attention and if you don't have it, you lose. Free is a relatively cheap way to get attention (both at the start and then through viral techniques).

Second, in a digital economy with lots of players and lower barriers to entry, it's quite natural that the price will be lowered until it meets the incremental cost of making one more unit. If a brand can gain share by charging less, a rational player will.

Conde Nast (publisher of the Wired (Chris's magazine) and yes, the New Yorker (Malcolm's magazine)), is going to go out of business long before you get sick, never mind die. So will newspapers printed on paper. They're going to disappear before you do. I'm not wishing for this to happen, but by refusing to build new digital assets that matter, traditional publishers are forfeiting their future.

Magazines and newspapers were perfect businesses for a moment of time, but they wouldn't have worked in 1784, and they're not going to work very soon in the future either.

We're always going to need writers, but the business model of their platform is going to change.

People will pay for content if it is so unique they can't get it anywhere else, so fast they benefit from getting it before anyone else, or so related to their tribe that paying for it brings them closer to other people. We'll always be willing to pay for souvenirs of news, as well, things to go on a shelf or badges of honor to share.

People will not pay for by-the-book rewrites of news that belongs to all of us. People will not pay for yesterday's news, driven to our house, delivered a day late, static, without connection or comments or relevance. Why should we? A good book review on Amazon is more reliable and easier to find than a paid-for professional review that used to run in your local newspaper, isn't it?

Like all dying industries, the old perfect businesses will whine, criticize, demonize and most of all, lobby for relief. It won't work. The big reason is simple:

In a world of free, everyone can play.

This is huge. When there are thousands of people writing about something, many will be willing to do it for free (like poets) and some of them might even be really good (like some poets). There is no poetry shortage.

The reason that we needed paid contributors before was that there was only economic room for a few magazines, a few TV channels, a few pottery stores, a few of everything. In world where there is room for anyone to present their work, anyone will present their work. Editors become ever more powerful and valued, while the need for attention grows so acute that free may even be considered expensive.

Of course, it's ironic that sometimes people pay money for my books (I view them as souvenirs of content you could get less conveniently and less organized for free online if you chose to). And it's ironic that I read Malcolm's review for free. And ironic that you can read Chris's arguments the most cogently by paying for them.

Neatness is for historians. For a long time, all the markets for attention-based goods are going to be messy, which means that there are going to be huge opportunities for people (like you?) able to get that most precious asset (our attention) for free. At least for a while."

As always…I love to continue the conversation! What do you think?