Saying You Can't Compete With Free Is Saying You Can't Compete Period

from the a-little-explanation dept

Getting back to my series of posts on understanding economics when scarcity is removed from some goods, I wanted to address the ridiculousness of the "can't compete with free" statements that people love to throw out. If we break down the statement carefully, anyone who says that is really saying that they can't compete at all. The free part is actually meaningless -- but the zero is blinding everyone.

To explain this, it helps to go back to your basic economics class and recognize that, in a competitive market, the price of a good is always going to get pushed towards its marginal cost. That actually makes a lot of sense. As competition continues, it puts pressure on profits, but producers aren't willing (or can't for very long) keep selling goods at a direct loss. Sunk (or fixed) costs don't matter, because they've already been paid -- so everything gets pushed to marginal cost. That's pretty well accepted by most folks -- but it's still misinterpreted by many. They tend to look at it and say that if price equals marginal cost, then no one would ever produce anything. That's a misconception that is at the heart of this whole debate. The problem is that they don't add in the element of time, and the idea that what drives innovation is the constant efforts by the producers in the space to add fleeting competitive advantages (what some economists have annoyingly called "monopolistic competition," a name that I think is misleading). In other words, companies look to add some value to the goods that makes their goods better than the competition in some way -- and that unique value helps them command a profit. But, the nature of the competitive market is that it's always shifting, so that everyone needs to keep on innovating, or any innovation will be matched (and usually surpassed) by competitors. That's good for everyone. It keeps a market dynamic and growing and helps out everyone.

So, let's go back to the "can't compete with free" statement. Anyone who says that is effectively saying that they can't figure out a way to add value that will make someone buy something above marginal cost -- but it's no different if the good is free or at a cost. Let's take a simple example. Say I own a factory that cost me $100 million to build (fixed cost) and it produces cars that each cost $20,000 to build (marginal cost). If the market is perfectly competitive, then eventually I'm going to be forced to sell those cars at $20,000 -- leaving no profit. Now, let's look at a different situation. Let's say that I want to make a movie. It costs me $100 million to make the movie (fixed cost) and copies of that movie each cost me $0 (marginal cost -- assuming digital distribution and that bandwidth and computing power are also fixed costs). Now, again, if the market is competitive and I'm forced to price at marginal cost, then the scenario is identical to the automobile factory. My net outlay is $100 million. My profit is zero. Every new item I make brings back in cash exactly what it costs to make the copy -- so the net result is the same. It's no different that the good is priced at $0 or $20,000 -- so long as the market is competitive.

So why aren't the same people who insist that you can't compete with free whining about any other competitive market situation? Because they know that, left unfettered, the market adjusts. The makers of automobiles keep trying to adjust and differentiate their cars through real and perceived benefits (such as brand) -- and that lets them add value in a way that they can make money and not have to worry about having products priced at marginal cost. If a company can't do that, it goes out of business -- and most people consider that a good thing. If you can't compete, you should go out of business. But, when it comes to goods with a $0 marginal cost, even though the net result is identical to goods with a higher marginal cost, suddenly people think that you can't compete? The $0 price makes no difference. All that matters is the difference in price you can charge to the marginal cost. Everyone else learns to differentiate -- why can't those who produce infinite goods do the same?

The answer is that they already do -- even if they don't realize it. Why do movies still cost more than $0? Because there's additional value bundled with the movie itself. People don't buy "a movie." They buy the experience of going to the theater. People like to go out to the movies. They like the experience. Or people buy the convenience of a DVD (which is another feature bundled with the movie). They like to buy DVDs (or rent them) in order to get the more convenient delivery mechanism and the extra features that come with DVDs. In other words, they like the differentiated value they can get from bundled goods and services that helps justify a price that's more than $0. Just as people are willing to pay more than the marginal cost (in some cases a lot more) to get that car they want, they're willing to pay more for a bundled good or service with content -- if only the makers of that content would realize it.

So the next time someone says "you can't compete with free" ask them why? Every company that's in business today competes with those who aim to undercut the price of their product -- and the situation is absolutely no different when it's free. It's just that people get blinded by the zero and forget that the absolute price is meaningless compared to the marginal cost.

If you're looking to catch up on the posts in the series, I've listed them out below:

Economics Of Abundance Getting Some Well Deserved Attention
The Importance Of Zero In Destroying The Scarcity Myth Of Economics
The Economics Of Abundance Is Not A Moral Issue
A Lack Of Scarcity Has (Almost) Nothing To Do With Piracy
A Lack Of Scarcity Feeds The Long Tail By Increasing The Pie
Why The Lack Of Scarcity In Economics Is Getting More Important Now
History Repeats Itself: How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers
Infinity Is Your Friend In Economics
Step One To Embracing A Lack Of Scarcity: Recognize What Market You're Really In
Why I Hope The RIAA Succeeds
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: techdirt feature

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread

  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Jun 2010 @ 10:56pm

    Re: Its NOT all about PRICE - Price is way down the list - U dont know that ?

    Mike you basing your assumptions on wrong facts, that is probably why you ommited any examples to support your claims.

    There are multiple examples in other posts on this subject, all fully supported. The assumptions are correct.

    Your first mistake is the assume, the value of something is based on the cost of it, and its scarcity. That price alone is the only motivation for competition.

    I make neither assumption. You have misread basic economics here. I never said the value is based on the cost or its scarcity. I said that price is driven to the intersection of supply and demand. That is basic economics.

    I most certainly did not say price is the only motivation for competition. In fact, if you actually read the post you would notice I said exactly the opposite.

    What industries, have been forced by competition to sell their product at margin ?

    You miss the point, by a wide margin. Lots of industries would be forced to sell at marginal cost if they did not *keep innovating*. It is that innovation that gives them tiny fragments of competitive advantage, and it is in that advantage that they can charge a higher price.

    But to claim that there are no industries where goods have been driven to marginal cost is to show ignorance of any commodities business.

    Does Nike have lots of competition, massive pressure from competition in fact, yet Nike shoes are very expensive, and popular, and not scarce.

    They are scarce. You are using a non-economic definition of scarce. A scarce good is simply a good that has a higher than $0 marginal cost. Thus, yes, sneakers are scarce.

    And yes, Nike charges more than their marginal cost, because they are able to differentiate. Part of the differentiation is through smart branding -- which creates a perceived benefit for which they can charge a premium.

    Which is *my* point exactly. You compete on all sorts of things other than price.

    So competing itself means you may compete on quality, price, value, support, good will, social standing, availability, form, function, innovation, look, feel the list is endless.

    Exactly. That's the point I'm making. Why are you saying I'm saying something different?

    May by price is a factor, but its NOT the primary factor, if it was everyone would only purchase the very cheapest of anything available, so it would be the cheapest car, cheapest house, computer, phone whatever.

    No one said they would purchase the cheapest thing. The point is *ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL* then you WILL look at price. Why you ignore that, I do not know.

    But it would be NOTHING like my EOS 450D.

    Right. Because Canon competed. You are making my point for me while arguing that you are saying something different.

    For most purchases people make, its not price that determines their purchase, therefore its not price that companies compete on, its function, quality, support and so on.

    Exactly. That's my point.

    And in the case of "file sharing" its what you are willing to pay for the legal copy of the movie, book and so on and the value is not in the price of the data, but the quality of the data (good movie or song).

    But if all other things are equal... then what?

    People dont desire things that are cheap, they desire things that do what they want them to do, and that actually work, and has a quality and security of purchase from a known source (good will). (ie, i trust canon more than I trust 'jo_backyard_reverseengineering.)

    Again, Darryl, that is exactly my point.

    So your entire argument is based on a false premise

    Except that you seem to agree with my point. You just don't realize I was making the same point.

    that markets are purly price driven

    I've never said that. In fact I've said exactly the opposite in *this very post*.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.