Andrew Stiller wrote:
On Jan 13, 2007, at 9:18 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 9:32 AM +0100 1/13/07, dc wrote:
Andrew Stiller écrit:
Big mistake. People don't value what they can get for free. Even a
nominal fee would generate a much stronger response.
I'm sure any business school would say the same, but in some cases
they would be wrong. The cases I'm thinking of is when what you do to
pay the bills is one thing, and what you do for the enjoyment of it is
another. A hobby, in other words.
I was not speaking of the income of the producer, but of the (esthetic
and intellectual) value placed on the work by its intended audience. It
is an unfortunate but inescapable fact of human nature that if you are
offered something for nothing, you tend to assume that it is of little
intrinsic value or importance, and will pay little attention to it. The
big foundations understand this and will usually refuse to subsidize any
musical group for more than one year if they do not charge admission to
their concerts.
Tell that to people who are trying to get the necessary-but-free tickets
for U.S. Marine Band or U.S. Navy Band or U.S. Army Field Band concerts
when they are held locally!
This generalization, like all generalizations, is false in the details
while seeming to be true in the generality.
Many people DO value things they get for free. Many people place
absolutely no value on things they pay for.
It's not a foregone conclusion that people will value what they pay for
and will think worthless something they get for free.
The concert on the Esplanade in Boston on the 4th of July is another
example of a huge population placing a lot of value on something they
get for free.
The huge hordes of people visiting the Smithsonian each day is another
example.
The many people who use the Philadelphia Free Library is yet another.
And on and on and on.
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
