What If More Money Makes People Less Inclined To Create?

from the promoting-what-progress? dept

The entire premise behind copyright law is that by making sure there is enough financial remuneration, people will be more interested in creating more great content. The argument of those who push for ever stronger copyright law is always based on this very premise, with the often explicit claim being "if artists can't make enough money making art, they'll do something else instead," while suggesting that would be a net negative to society. Now I'm all for artists making money and being able to create more art. It's why I spend so much time discussing business models that work for those artists. But what if that entire concept -- that we need this monetary incentive to create -- is bunk?

Peter Friedman points us to a short piece by Malcolm Gladwell, discussing the findings of Dan Pink in his new book Drive, which compiles tons of scientific research on motivation -- and finds that money can actually hinder, rather than help, the incentives to create:
His jumping-off point is the academic work done over the past few decades that consistently shows that financial rewards hinder creativity. These studies have been around for a while. But Pink follows through on their implications in a way that is provocative and fascinating. The way we structure organizations and innovation, after all, almost always assumes that the prospect of financial reward is the prime human motivator. We think that the more we pay people, the better results we'll get. But what if that isn't true? What the research shows, instead, is that the great wellspring of creativity is intrinsic motivation--that is, I do my best work for personal rewards (out of love or intellectual fulfillment) and not external motivation (money).
Indeed, the more you think about this, the more obvious it becomes. There are lots of reasons why people do things, and economic motivation is for marginal benefit, which some (bad) economists equate directly to cash. But many people value other things much more than cold hard cash -- and it's quite interesting to see that the pursuit of money may actually hinder aspects of creativity.

Again, this is not to say artists should not get paid. I'm very much in favor of business models where artists do get paid. But it absolutely calls into question the very central argument for copyright, and suggests that, if anything, copyright may hinder the incentive to create, rather than promote it. This is a big, big deal -- and if we had an evidence-based copyright regime, rather than a faith-based one, it's something that Congress would consider. Tragically, that seems quite unlikely any time soon.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), 18 Apr 2010 @ 11:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What 'other' models

    If you have fans, and they really want to continue to see/hear/experience more of your creativity, then what you really have are not fans, but patrons. ... they are still creating, except now they're creating a relationship with their patrons

    I understand the patron business. I've been one and I have also watched the patronage dynamics in sports, music, and art. But the relationship business is different than excelling at sports, music, and art. Not everyone is good at it. And these days, as the relationship business sometimes becomes more important than the art, the people who are good at fan management may make more money than the talented artists who don't do well in social situations.

    And that is perfectly fine. The world changes. I just like to point out that the skills aren't interchangeable. Someone like Amanda Palmer is perfect in today's world because it's the relationships that are more important to her than the music. But for someone who got into music to do music rather than interact with fans, it's sometimes an uncomfortable situation. It's like pulling teeth to get them to respond to fan emails or to post on Twitter, etc. And trying to find someone else to do it for them doesn't always work because they have to pay their fan managers, or they have to give them a percentage, or they have to recruit someone to do it for free (which doesn't always work out well).

    Sometimes it's more lucrative to have a day job that pays well and just to play music to play music than to scramble looking for stuff to do to keep your patrons happy.

    There are a lot of nuances to making it in the art or music business today. They tend not to get discussed on Techdirt, but musicians are discussing these sorts of things amongst themselves, sharing what works and doesn't work.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.