I began working at Leslie Hindman Auctioneers a few months ago (hence my sparse blogging) and have watched basic economics at work. Two or more people bid against each other, offering more and more money until no one is willing to spend more. In traditional commerce, the goal is not to sell to the highest bidder, but set your price to attract the largest number of buyers. This is the difference between value and price. Value equals what each person is willing to pay while price is what the actual cost is.  A few months ago, I wrote about customers, or individuals, can be wrong in the marketplace, but as a whole, the market is always right.  The market is a greater indicator of what’s valuable and for how much. Auctions are a microcosm of these market effects. In auctions, we get to see how value, price, and markets can work for and sometimes against each other within very small sets.

Within our capitalist society, our goal is to make money.  For many, this means selling goods. So in any auction, the goal is to sell each good, or lot, for the largest amount of money.

Let me walk you through an auction example where I explain how value and price differ. I really want a painting.  Another person, Jack, also wants this same painting. I am willing to spend $15,000 maximum on this painting, meaning, I value this painting up to $15,000. Jack is only willing to spend $10,000, meaning he values the painting at up to $10,000. We both bid on the painting until Jack bids $10,000. I bid $11,000. Jack only values the painting up to $10,000, so anything higher would be a perceived loss for him. The price is too high compared to the perceived value he receives. I buy the painting for the price of $11,000, $4,000 less than my perceived value.  This is a net gain for me because the price was lower than my perceived value. The painter owner still gets $11,000, the auction house gets its commission, and I get a painting I really wanted. Everyone wins, even Jack who keeps his $10,000 to spend on something else. Because the painting sold for more than he valued it at, he did not loose anything, whereas had he spent more than his maximum, he might have felt like he lost something.

Now some may not agree this was a win-win-win-win. Because I was willing to pay $4,000 more, the owner and auction house lost out on more money. But according to auction (and marketplace) rules, I only have to pay more than the last bidder. So if I were asked to then pay more than the $11,000, I might feel cheated or like I lost something because the market, comprised of Jack and me, deemed the painting should be priced at $11,000.

This is where auctions show the ignorance of the individual and the wisdom of the market. People selling their goods through the auction house, called consigners, can place reserves on their goods. Reserves are the minimum price a consigner is willing to sell the good for. If the auction price is less than the reserve, the item goes unsold. Auction houses often provide low and high estimates appraising the value of the good and the reserve cannot be higher than the low estimate.

So let’s apply a reserve to my previous example. Let’s say the consigner has a $15,000 reserve on the painting.  This is the consigner placing a price on their good based on what they believe other people’s perceived value will be. This is why problems in commerce occur – when the seller and the buyer’s views of value fail to meet.

But I was willing to pay $15,000, you say. True, but that was based on the understanding that someone else was willing to pay $14,000. Because I now understand what the market values the painting at, $11,000, I may change my own perceived value of the good. Think of it as competition pushing the price (not value) down, because I know no one will pay more than $11,000.

So the auction house may try to arrange a private sale between myself and the consigner where I may raise the payment price and the consigner may lower their reserve – the price they are willing to sell for.  If the consigner sticks with $15,000 and I am unwilling to pay it, we both lose. I don’t get the painting, and they get no money. Maybe they’ll make more at a later date, but they might also make less. During that time, I might buy another painting and no longer want this one.

How can we apply this to the price of free and all the industries challenged by it? First, the price of free is not representative of value as so many content producers confuse. The painting, and many auction items, are sought after because of scarcity and unique qualities that give them high value. Since buyers cannot find this same value in other goods, they are willing to spend money to buy the goods. Newspapers, music, and entertainment programs are no similarly scarce and unique, rather, they are quite ubiquitous and easy to find. If I can watch one TV, I have 500 other channels to pick from, plus on demand, plus online sources, play other media like video games to spend my time.

Auctions, as I said, are a microcosm where only two people are needed to bid up the price of a good. This is attributed to the aforementioned scarcity of the goods – if you only have one or two to sell, you only need one or two buyers. For general consumer goods, auctions would not be effective since companies need to sell hundreds if not millions to meet their desired profit goals. So companies have to balance price with their assumption of the market’s average perceived value of their product in order to sell the largest of number of goods at the highest possible price.

As we are seeing, many industries are setting higher reserves on their goods than the market is willing to pay. Music companies want licensing fees so high that TV shows can’t be released; gene patent holders charge to much for researchers to license. Movie companies are trying to force more money from Redbox and newspapers think consumers will give up free blogs to pay for online news.  All these industries ignore what the market is saying, instead trying to say they are smarter or more attune to the value of their own products. But value is not about what it cost to make or how much time was spent making it. Value only matters for how much people are willing to pay. If consumers are not willing to pay anything, then no amount of government intervention or PR manipulation will change that. The market wants what the market wants and the market is still always right. Instead of fighting the market, recognize their wisdom and find a way to make money in the new market. It’s a lot easier, cheaper, and more profitable than trying to change how the market, and basic economics, works.

I often get into arguments about why I don’t think piracy is wrong, but actually helpful to businesses.  The crux of many arguments, from newspapers to music to software, revolves around how people should be paid for their work rather than will people pay for that work.  This is a serious disconnect that explains much of the frustration many feel regarding new business models and free content.

Content creators argue they should be paid for their work. If they aren’t paid for their work, no one will make music, movies, investigative journalism, or video games. We’ll live in a silent, non-fun, corrupt world of animals on skateboards.

But this is not the economic reality.  In capitalism, people can try to make money, but there is no right to it.  600,000 small businesses are started each year and more than 50 percent will fail within the first five years.  No one should have to support these businesses. It’s up to each business to find a market need and fill that need.  While making money is obviously the goal, it is a side effect of effectively meeting a market need.

The content industry (I’m including newspapers and software) certainly filled important market needs – entertainment, productivity products, information and education, etc.  But they got used to a business model based on little competition and monopolies on distribution. The market has changed, but the market need is still there.  People will always want all these products.  But without the monopoly on distribution, consumers have more choice to market products.  More competition drives prices down, and this means for the content industry, the price of content is zero.  The value is still high, but there’s so much of it, you can’t price it higher.  It doesn’t matter if you should be paid for your content.  No one will pay you because another company will fill the market need at the lower price.  This is why you have to treat piracy like a competitor, not a threat, because it’s the market demanding change.

When a company says people should pay, it’s claiming a right and entitlement to compensation.  Obviously, if someone works hard, it’s good to be rewarded, but often hard work comes with the risk you won’t be properly compensated. That is business. It’s competition. It’s healthy for the economy overall.  If companies are guaranteed money, they don’t have to try as hard to earn consumer’s money by creating valuable products that feed market needs.

This is why Google chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt was so right when he told newspaper executives they shouldn’t piss off consumers.  Consumers decide how they want to consume news, not news executives.  If consumers won’t pay for newspapers, then newspapers will go out of business.  Nothing can change that.  You might think they should or even have to pay, but the economic reality is, they won’t.  Even if piracy is stealing, it’s the economic reality. It’s what the market wants. Nothing can change that.  The successful businesses of the future will learn how to capitalize on this market demand and find new, innovative ways to make money.  Everyone else will get left behind.

A paper written by Haim Mendelson from Stanford Graduate School of Business and Deishin Lee from Harvard Business School guides students and businesses on how to fight open source business models and technology.

The two professors say being first to market, improving product features, and keeping the product closed are needed to combat the open source market - the way to make money against competitors who sell their products for free.  By keeping the product closed, open source networks can’t use the product to improve their own.

It’s sad to see such misguided lessons coming from two smart people and worse, teachers in a business school.  While it’s fine for commercial companies to compete with open source initiatives, Mendelson and Lee seem to recommend commercial as superior to open source even though several business models show free can be very profitable (e.g. Linux, Mozilla, MySQL, Wordpress).  Their example of a good commercial release, Microsoft Office, ignores how Office didn’t compete with open source upon release and further ignores how Microsoft is adapting to compete now with Open Office, Google Docs, and Zoho (all are free, only Open Office is fully open source).  Microsoft has released new specifications on its format types for anyone to include in software and is considering a subscription-based model for future releases.

Mendelson and Lee’s emphasis on being first to market is always good, no matter your business model, and improving product features is likewise necessity.  The problem commercial software has and will continue to have is open source, or at least open platforms, just offer more for less. Apple’s iPhone, another example of Mendelson and Lee’s, began by refusing developers any access to the system, telling them build for the web browser. A year later developers get to build applications with harsh restrictions, sometimes issued after applications are finished being built.  Google Android is coming out, fully open source and free for phone manufactures, has already attracted sour iPhone developers and has a huge software library waiting for its clientele - the first Android phone is still three weeks away from release.

Closed systems are a dying breed. It’s a slow death.  Trade secrets will always exist and there’s nothing wrong with that. What business students and professors should recognize is the landscape is evolving. Free and open aren’t bad words, but should be embraced by the next generation of business leaders.  Encouraging more of the same closed, walled garden thinking only slows innovation (see Microsoft) while free and open are winning the market and the profits (see Google).

Chris Anderson tries to tally the free economy, counting the money made from advertising, “buy one, get one free” gimmicks, and free services subsidizes by paying customers (like Flickr or MYSQL).  The numbers are huge, talking hundred of billions of dollars in each category, if not trillions.  Anderson’s point is that free has been a business tool for a long time, using infinite goods like TV shows or loss leaders to sell more valuable scares goods.  Companies used to charging large amounts for their goods, like music and movie companies, are finding it hard to understand the free economy and how much money can be made there.

Anderson is promoting his new book, “Free” about leveraging free as a business model and I’m hoping he leads by example, proving the point of his book through his own leadership.  “Free” isn’t due in stores until next year when I hope the book is sold extremely cheaply, subsidized by Anderson’s certain to follow speaking tour.  The promotion from the book would make Anderson a more sought after and thus highly paid speaker (time is a scare good).  Books have a higher marginal cost - the cost of printing, paper, binding, etc. - so some price for production might be need.

Anderson could also release digital copies of the book (and audio) for free online.  Matt Mason is doing just that (at least in book form) with his book “The Pirate’s Dilemma” about how file-sharing helps businesses make more money.

To further prove his point, Anderson could release his four year old book “The Long Tail” online for free (and lower the price on those $30 audio book copies).

This is a man trying to change the way companies think about business and the concept of free. I really hope he thinks about it himself.