Still spinning from this idea in 's "Making in Public": that when the economics of consumption don't work—e.g. because the product is a public good—a more viable model may exist around the economics of *production*. That is: when might production *be* the product?
Conversation
This is a compelling angle for many (especially older) Kickstarter projects: when what you're buying as a backer is not the eventual product, but rather causing the product to be made at all. You're buying its production. The eventual product is like a positive externality.
1
7
95
Subscription content producers have a similar vibe. Buyers aren't paying to unlock some article's paywall; they're buying into creation of future work. I wonder if this is more compelling if purchases plausibly cause marginal output: "I'll write fulltime when I get X subscribers"
4
8
62
Nadia observes that sometimes the production "product" being bought is access—feeling closer to the creator, a private community, sneak peeks, behind-the-scenes, etc. My instinct is that this offering can only scale so far, but I'd be curious to learn about counter-examples!
2
3
47
This has been a compelling angle to think about funding my work. In this frame, my output artifacts are public goods (essays, interfaces)—positive externalities from an ongoing process which is itself the product. My "customers" buy a verb, not a noun.
2
6
71
Yes it was! Unfortunately in practice the interface and interactions suggest altruism, charity rather than “making the process happen”
well of course no one can *really* care about the product and output, there's too much of it ~ the real artist is overwhelmed by what he has to say, and therefore cannot be attended to, because that would be a full-time job. money is a substitute for attention, then.
1
1
3
Show replies