From a market perspective the idea is fine. If there are people out there who find my tweets and blog interesting enough that they will help me pay for something I want, why wouldn’t I ask the price? After all in a free market we set the price at what people will pay.

I can justify this in purely theoretical terms. But when I come to thinking about actually asking ‘the world’ to give me something in return for stuff I was going to do freely anyway I just can’t sit with it. If I want a phone I’ll save my money and go buy one, if I want to do a masters (which I do in the next couple of years) I’ll find a way to pay for it. Why? Because these things are going to primarily benefit me.

On the other hand if I was going to undertake a masters in Web 2.0 then use the knowledge I had gained to help a variety of not for profit organisations who typically could not access this kind of consulting then I might feel comfortable to seek sponsorship. In asking to take something I am promising to give something back, otherwise I am just taking money that could be benefiting people who need it far more than me.

That said whether we like it or not knowledge has a price. I go to work for money not for love. I like my job, but I can promise you the minute they stop paying me I stop working. Which shows the inherent contradiction in my position. It is fine to ask for money sometimes but not others, I guess the individual decides which of those times is right for them.

If sharing of knowledge and experience is human, intrinsic and intangible, then why do organisations lock it up, call it IP and attach a financial price to it?

My original reference was to community building where there is a free public exchange with no expectation of a tangible return. Usually this takes place in spaces where there is a net communal gain such as in open spaces and open networks. These values have always been with us and are not new.

In the commercial arena, a company justifies, for better or worse, ‘locking away IP’ (and not an easy thing to legally acquire, btw) to recoup private investment and risk which is usually substantial.

Maybe these companies are stuck in the 1.0 system because viable, alternative 2.0 business models and risk/return models are still very hard to come by? The 2.0 revolution is certainly here, however widespread systemic change in mainstream organisations always lags behind.

It is an interesting discussion and as we chatted about over lunch on Monday, there is an ethical argument to be had, especially with things such as phones and further education.

Fundamentally, whether it is financial or information / knowledge sharing that we are talking about, the key factor is values; values such as collaboration and sharing. So the point I raise is that whether it is financial value or intellectual value, the underlying principle is still the same. We are taking about collaborating and sharing.

I absolutely understand and agree that we live in a middle class and wealthier country than others, which, from where I sit makes this model even more exciting.

We live in an economy of abundance and combined with world 2.0 values of sharing, collaboration etc means that many of us have the capacity to help one another out.

Another point I raise is that of value exchange, I think that in world 2.0 we value so much more than financial gain. We value experiences, knowledge, insight, time etc. So whilst finance does still count as a value. I would argue that we see value a lot more broadly than we have before.

If sharing of knowledge and experience is human, intrinsic and intangible, then why do organisations lock it up, call it IP and attach a financial price to it? (i.e. when they charge out a consultant at an amount per hour or attach a financial price to a report or document).

Knowledge is a value; time is a value, as is a financial amount. I spend my time sharing my knowledge with whoever wants it or whoever is interested to read it. I spend my time developing my knowledge and creating original content that I publish and share, and even further to that, I spend money in pursuit of that knowledge.
To me, that equals me giving away “free” value as I do not seek anything in direct exchange for that value.

I completely agree with you – in theory micropatronage makes sense to me, especially for events and the like but micropatronage for personal gain (when I am so fortunate) I cannot reconcile myself to.

I have been a spporter of microfinance projects in less developed communities for along time, and the real difference such finance makes to the poor & disenfranchised is truly astounding.

However financing phones & post-grad degrees of the middle class in wealthy countries leaves me cold. Community building and sharing of knowledge and experience is human, intrinsic and intangible, and to ask someone to put a price on it reduces it to a commodity.