Mike Taylor has a parable on the Guardian Blog about research communication and I thought it might be useful to share one that I have been using in talks recently. For me it illustrates just how silly the situation is, and how hard it is to break out of the mindset of renting access to content for the incumbent publishers. It also, perhaps, has a happier ending.

Cameron Neylon

::: {.wp-caption .alignleft style="width: 310px"}
[![An auto mechanic works on a rally car at the
2\...](http://cameronneylon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/300px-Auto_Mechanic9.jpg "An auto mechanic works on a rally car at the 2..."){.zemanta-img-inserted
.zemanta-img-configured decoding="async" loading="lazy" width="300"
height="200"}](http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Auto_Mechanic.jpg)

Image via Wikipedia
:::

*[Mike Taylor](http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/) has [a parable on the
Guardian
Blog](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/feb/10/parable-farmers-teleporting-duplicator)
about research communication and I thought it might be useful to share
one that I have been using in talks recently. For me it illustrates just
how silly the situation is, and how hard it is to break out of the
mindset of renting access to content for the incumbent publishers. It
also, perhaps, has a happier ending.*

Imagine a world very similar to our own. People buy cars, they fill them
with fuel, they pay road tax and these things largely work as well as
they do in our own world. There is just one difference, when a car needs
its annual service and is taken to a garage -- just as we do -- for its
mechanical checkup and maintenance. In return for the service, the car
is then gifted to the mechanic, who in turn provides it back to the
owner for a rental fee.

Some choose to do their own servicing, or form clubs where they can work
together to help service each other's cars, but this is both hard work,
and to be frank, a little obsessive and odd. Most people are perfectly
happy to hand over the keys and then rent them back. It works just fine.
The trouble is society is changing, there is an increase in public
transport, the mechanics are worried about their future, and the users
seem keen to do new and strange things with the cars. They want to use
them for work purposes, they want to loan them to friends, in some cases
they event want to use them to teach others to drive -- possibly even
for money.

Now for the mechanic, this is a concern on two levels. First they are
uncertain about their future as the world seems to be changing pretty
fast. How can they provide certainty for themselves? Secondly all these
new uses seem to have the potential to make money for other people. That
hardly seems fair and the mechanics want a slice of that income, derived
as it is from their cars. So looking closely at their existing contracts
they identify that the existing agreements only provide for personal
use. No mention is made of work use, certainly not of lending it to
others, and absolutely not for teaching.

For the garage, in this uncertain world, this is a godsend. Here are a
whole set of new income streams. They can provide for the users to do
all these new things, they have a diversified income stream, and
everyone is happy! They could call it "Universal Uses" -- a menu of
options that car users can select from according to their needs and
resources. Everyone will understand that this is a fair exchange. The
cars are potentially generating more money and everyone gets a share of
it, both the users and the real owners, the mechanics.

Unfortunately the car users aren't so happy. They object to paying
extra. After all they feel that the garage is already recouping the
costs of Â doing the service and making a healthy profit so why do they
need more? Having to negotiate each new use is a real pain in the
backside and the fine print seems to be so fine that every slight
variation requires a new negotiation and a new payment. Given the
revolution in the possible uses they might want to be putting their cars
to isn't this just slowing down progress? Many of them even threaten to
do their own servicing.

The problem for the garages is that they face a need for new equipment
and staff training. Each time they see a new use that they don't charge
for they see a lost sales opportunity. They spend money on getting the
best lawyers to draw up new agreements, make concessions on one use to
try and shore up the market for another. At every stage there's a need
to pin everything down, lock down the cars, ensure they can't be used
for unlicensed purposes, all of which costs more money, leading to a
greater need to focus on different possibilities for charging. And every
time they do this it puts them more and more at odds with their
customers. But they're so focussed on a world view in which they need to
charge for every possible different use of the "their" cars that they
can't see a way out beyond identifying each new possible use as it comes
up and pinning it to the wall with a new contract and a new charge and
new limitations to prevent any unexpected new opportunities for income
being lost.

But things are changing. There's a couple of radical new businesses down
the road, BMC Motors and PLoS Garages. They do things differently. They
charge up front for the maintenance and service but then allow the cars
to be used for any purpose whatsoever. There's a lot of scepticism --
will people really pay for a service up front? How can people be sure
that the service is any good? After all if they get the money when you
get your car back what incentive do they have to make sure it keeps
working? But there's enough aggravation for a few people to start using
them.

And gradually the view starts to shift. Where there is good service
people want to come back with their new cars -- they discover entirely
new possibilities of use because they are free to experiment, earn more
money, by more cars. The idea spreads and there is a slow but distinct
shift -- the whole economy gets a boost as the all of the licensing
costs simply drop out of the system. But the thing that actually drives
the change? It's all those people who just got sick of having to go back
to the garage every time they wanted to do something new. In the end the
irritation and waste of time in negotiating for every new use just isn't
worth their time and effort. Paying up front is clean, clear, and
simple. And lets everyone get on with the things they really want to do.

 

::: {.zemanta-pixie}
[![Enhanced by
Zemanta](http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=441cbf1a-73f5-4852-b85e-042c9fac8abb){.zemanta-pixie-img
decoding="async"}](http://www.zemanta.com/ "Enhanced by Zemanta"){.zemanta-pixie-a}
:::


Image via Wikipedia
<em>
 Mike Taylor has a parable on the Guardian Blog about research communication and I thought it might be useful to share one that I have been using in talks recently. For me it illustrates just how silly the situation is, and how hard it is to break out of the mindset of renting access to content for the incumbent publishers. It also, perhaps, has a happier ending.
</em>
Imagine a world very similar to our own.

Rogue Scholar Beiträge

The parable of the garage: Why the business model shift is so hard