Media guru, Jeff Jarvis mentions “the link economy” often in his arguments against charging for content online. He has even said that “the link economy” is part of a profound, fundamental change in our economy. However, when pressed to explain the details of “the link economy,” he becomes rather cagey and deflects questions as personal attacks or somehow not understanding how he thinks the web works.
In the very least, “the link economy” is a misnomer. I’d go as far to say that it really just means the same as “website traffic is good,” which is not such a significant observation. However, an unfortunate characteristic of the web is that catchy ideas like this can spread like wildfire nonetheless because the sentiment it conveys is appealing to enthusiastic lovers of the web.
My opinion is that someone with Jarvis’ stature as an author, new media thought leader, consultant, professor of journalism, etc.—someone who is flown to The World Economic Forum at Davos to give his opinion about the future of the internet—should be willing and able to delve into details on the core concept that forms the foundation of many of his arguments.
HERE’S THE DEFINITION OF “THE LINK ECONOMY” THAT I’VE PUT TOGETHER FROM MY RESEARCH… (as of 8/15/2009)
In terms of an argument for or against charging for content, the really interesting part of “the link economy” is that if links have value it follows that those receiving the link traffic could theoretically quantify the value of an incoming link. This would produce an ideal win-win situation in which content providers charge for their content and happily pay the sender for the incoming traffic. Unfortunately, that would never work since “the link economy” is really just an appreciation of the linking nature of the web as far as I can tell.
I will gather details about “the link economy” here in this post over time…
(Here’s my research and notes, newest on bottom)
Here’s a recent post from his blog where he references “the link economy.” This appears to be part of Jarvis’ position that charging for content is the same as opting out of “the link economy.” He has equated charging for content as “banning links.”
UPDATE: This WordPress blog automatically sends a pingback comment to buzzmachine, which Jeff Jarvis just deleted. I don’t think that’s very transparent. Then, he called me a “troll,” which always makes me feel like I’m at a Star Trek convention. Reminder, this guy is a university professor…
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/05/the-golden-link/
Here’s an exchange with Tim O’Brien about “the link economy”
http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2009/08/jeff-jarvis-and-tim-obrien-arguing-about-real-time.html
Here’s the famous blog post where Chris Ahearn “believes in” “the link economy.” I don’t know if belief is a part of economics…
http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/08/04/why-i-believe-in-the-link-economy/
This is the link that Jarvis links to with the link text “link economy” so I guess this is part of the definition, although it sounds more like brainstorming. It seems it’s really a “worldview” and doesn’t really have anything to do with economics as such. However, this gets really confusing when he starts to talk about abundance and scarcity because that sounds like more than a worldview. In any case, his fans really eat it up.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/06/18/the-link-economy-v-the-content-economy/
Here’s a video of Jeff Jarvis explaining “the link economy.” Sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along. Seems like a main part of “the link economy” is what Jarvis sees as a “clash” between bloggers and the AP. The interviewer asks Jeff how to make money in the link economy. Jarvis suggests advertising but says he doesn’t know. He talks about the “post-scarcity” economy or the “economy of abundance” but I think it’s worth noting that in terms of news, we’ve had abundant, ubiquitous, free content on tv, radio and even in print for a long time.
Strangely enough, he also thinks there is a market for quality journalism. Furthermore, he says he foresees “many new business models,” but doesn’t say what they are. (I think this is part of his recent tendency to paint himself as an optimist after having been accused of dancing on journalists’ graves.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/dec/15/digitalmedia-pressandpublishing
This is another buzzmachine blog post Jarvis links to when defining “the link economy.” WARNING: it’s full of new-age techno-babble, pseudo-science and more catch-phrases. The imperatives are: 1) let people link to your site, 2) link to other people’s sites, 3) try to make money from traffic coming in to your site.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/07/28/the-imperatives-of-the-link-economy/
This one is really long-winded and layered with layer upon layer of “the link layer.” “Ecosystem” is mentioned a lot.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/06/02/the-ethic-of-the-link-layer-on-news/
Here is respected NYU journalism professor, Jay Rosen, explaining what he calls “the link ethic”. However, his explanation of “the link ethic” is all within the context of the “conflict between the bloggers and the mainstream media,” so he’s really saying that he thinks the mainstream media don’t understand how links are used on the web for connecting people with ideas. I disagree. I think they understand. I think links are the most obvious and fundamental characteristic of the web. Everybody understands how the web works. I think much of the sentiment of “the link economy” or “the link ethic” is really an enthusiasm for the linking nature of the web. It’s like saying “I love the way the web works. Isn’t the web great!” He emphasizes the idea of “ethics” and personal responsibility as a blogger to “give more” imparting links with an almost magical or spiritual quality.
UPDATE: I must comment that Rosen’s speech at the end about “giving” is really bizarre. I think this may be the crux of “the internet economy.” In some ways I think those who believe in “the link economy” are staking a claim for their version of how they see the web and where they want it to go.
Here’s a Nieman Journalism Lab article by Zachary M. Seward that mentions “the link economy.” In this context it seems to mean the capability of links as a means of increased website traffic and search engine optimization.
http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/08/why-the-associated-press-plans-to-hold-some-web-content-off-the-wire/
Here Arnon Mishkin writes about The Fallacy of the Link Economy where he says, “The vast majority of the value gets captured by aggregators linking and scraping rather than by the news organizations that get linked and scraped.”
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-the-fallacy-of-the-link-economy/
Here’s Jeff Jarvis’ response.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/14/on-the-link-economy/
I have also noticed as Mishkin point out that I regularly get a “snapshot” of what’s going on in the world on google news and go no further most of the time. I can’t say I’ve adopted using any of the sites google news links to. It’s just much easier to let google news do that for me. You could replace “the link economy” with “the link convenience.” I think part of the underlying appeal of link is that they give structure to the highly fragmented web.
Jarvis threateningly argues that content providers who don’t believe in “the link economy” can opt out by “banning” links. He also frequently emphasizes that google doesn’t collect ad revenue from google news, which implies they are innocently providing “valuable links” in exchange for the content on google news. But that doesn’t make sense. I didn’t get to google news via a link. Google news does not rely on incoming links at all. Google news is all about outgoing links. I think the “golden” part of the link according to Jarvis is the ability to “monetize” the incoming traffic, not the outgoing traffic, so whether or not google news makes money is irrelevant in an argument about “the link economy.” I would argue that the vast majority of internet users have opted out of “the link economy” through laziness by going directly to google news instead of the sites themselves.
FURTHERMORE: When Jarvis describes “the link economy,” he’s inaccurate in characterizing it as primarily about links. It’s not. It’s about content excerpts. It should be called “the content-excerpting economy.” The links are a minor technicality.
Mishkin’s article makes Jarvis fume…
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/14/on-the-link-economy/
This is getting tedious. The argument about charging for content centers around the “value” of links in “the link economy.” The believers in “the link economy” keep equating charging for content as disallowing linking. But if links really did have value, they should view people charging for their content as potential paying customers. This proves links don’t have value in the sense we’re led to believe (monetarily). They have “value” only in a “linking reciprocity” way. They have value strictly in the sense that they drive traffic around the web. This doesn’t mean charging for content is incompatible with links. The believers in “the link economy” say charging for content is like “banning links.” I’d say just the opposite, if links have value, charging for content would prove that they have value. Alas, what believers in “the link economy” are really saying is they love to link freely to everything (why? because those links have value to them…).
Also, when can we stop saying things like “monetize the links” and instead just say what we’re really talking about: trying to make money from advertising from website traffic.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/14/on-the-link-economy/#comments
Jarvis recently did an “A-for-effort” presentation on his CUNY “new” business model(s) and “the link economy” didn’t appear to be a factor, which is weird because Jarvis has said it’s causing a fundamental shift in our economy. In response to criticism that he was “reinventing the wheel” he said that’s what he does.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/18/newbiznews-hyperpersonal-news-streams/
What does Craig Newmark (of craigslist) have to do with journalism or “the link economy?” I think one of the effects of proclaiming there is “the link economy” is that it divides the world into those who have an innate understanding of the web and those who don’t; those who “get” it have an inherent benevolence and natural ability to explain how the web works to those who don’t get it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-newmark/jeff-jarvis-on-business-m_b_262607.html
I think we can almost pronounce “the link economy” dead. Jarvis makes no reference to “the link economy” in his recent book plugging exercise on NPR. His new call-me-crazy-but-I’m-an-optimist canned presentation about platforms and ecosystems sounds exciting but in the end seems a lot like mini DIY newspapers and very similar to what we have today in terms of a business model–that is, primarily supported by advertising.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/22/newbiznews-on-on-the-media/
I thought “the link economy” was almost completely dead, but Jarvis just mentioned it again in his latest blog post. He says, “In the link economy, value is created by he who creates content and she who delivers audience. So in this networked ecosystem, large players and small will find ways to mutually create and share in more value.” Attempting to translate, it appears he’s simply saying, “linking creates links.” There’s no evidence that “value” is being created or shared other than in the form of indirect linking reciprocity or “link love,” which you can’t put in a business plan.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/25/hyperdistribution/
Jarvis writes a let’s-get-down-to-business post in his blog, yet he never mentions “the link economy.” Instead, he appears to have substituted a less revolutionary sounding term that’s still vague: “new business realities.” UPDATE: As a reminder, Jarvis promised to hold a symposium on “the link economy” in October where he’ll talk some more about his CUNY project and how it presumably relates to “the link economy.” He also set up a discussion forum for “the link economy,” but there aren’t any comments yet.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/08/30/the-real-sin-not-running-businesses/
Jarvis mentions “the link economy” again even though no one seems willing to engage with him in a serious discussion of what it means. That’s because it doesn’t mean anything. There area a few SEO crackpots out there pushing “the link economy” but no one with any credibility mentions it seriously.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/11/15/nose-face-cut-spite-blocking-google/
Jarvis, himself, tries to figure out just what “the link economy” might mean by vanity surfing and analyzing what his admirers have said.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2009/11/19/gained-something-in-the-translation
This has got to be one of the funniest posts ever. The comment by Not2Sure sums it up. Jarvis blurts out that linking is a right but can’t really explain it in much detail. The consensus seems to be that linking is not a right. As I’ve said before, I’m amazed this guy is employed by CUNY. Don’t they read this stuff? I sometimes really wonder if he’s going off the deep end…
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/01/17/the-right-to-link/
Jeff Jarvis’ posts just keep getting stranger and stranger. I wonder how he comes up with this stuff. Is he running out of ideas? Does he really think he can just write about his travels and loosely tie it all together with his random observations? His goal increasingly appears to be to attract attention to himself, but this only exposes his ridiculous ideas to more dumbfounded readers. Here, “professor” Jarvis draws a comparison between being nude in a sauna at Davos and public privacy rights. He calls this a paradox. He also references an actual German relative of his in order to make somewhat insulting and probably inaccurate blanket statements about the German culture.
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/11/the-german-privacy-paradox/#comments
Too funny. The absent-minded professor forgets to put his own “right to link” in his new “Bill of Rights in Cyberspace.” Does anybody use the term “cyberspace” anymore?
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/03/27/a-bill-of-rights-in-cyberspace/