Color me a capitalist, but I struggle with the gift economy concept. I understand the idea of an artist giving back to his or her fans as a “thank you” for the sharing and remixing that fans engage in. I understand that such a model increases the spreadability of a particular work. What I struggle with is n
Jenkins, Ford and Green were able to provide examples of artists who were generating significant income through gifting, but is that the norm? It’s hard enough to make a living as a musician or visual artist. While I understand that when gifting art, distribution costs decrease and exposure increases, but income? Does the average “new” artist have the means to produce related merchandise to stimulate purchases related to his or her art as Nina Pauley did?
Maybe I’m just too cautious. Or conservative. But I continue to wonder, if the gifting economy is financially viable, why Jenkins, Ford and Green haven’t gifted Spreadable Media. Gifting the version we’re reading should, in theory, stimulate the sale of the “expanded version” they frequently reference. While I can’t participate in the phone discussion with Sam Ford on Thursday, I have sent Helen that question. I’ll be very interested to hear his answer.
As a media creator myself, I have continually asked myself similar questions about the “gift economy”. While I understand the reasons for doing so, mainly for exposure and experience, I completely agree with the issue you raise about compensation. If people will continue to give things away for free, i.e. their time, effort and ideas, then how will these companies ever expect to pay for any piece of work they receive if they know they can get it for free? And, furthermore, what does that mean for journalists such as myself?
The gift economy is an interesting idea one that I think the providers will go like this, “If I sell my stuff some people will buy it and I’ll make some money. If I just make it free in the first place, the same people will still most likely give me money maybe even a little extra and maybe others will give me some too because they think I’m doing a great thing”. So really producers who are using the gift economy are just trying to almost trick people into giving them more, because honestly most people are probably going to look for the free way around anyway.
There’s a difference between gifting and ripping people off: at a time when people are commodifying the idea of the gift economy (the discussion is how it can be capitalized on) we’re simultaneously reducing the amount of real access to capitol –in the form of real jobs for journalists, for example. Capital is concentrated in hegemonic networks, and all the discussion of the gift economy is doing (when talked about by people who do not, as you mentioned, gift) is trying to benefit from the informal economy as well. What I find disturbing is the complete and total attempt to capitalize on the human existence. Yes, gifts work –because usually they’re genuine. The more we fall into the trap of “using” these models, the less authentic and redundant they become.