Michael Martin of Pro Blog Design seems like a swell chap, but his recent post on applying the GPL to premium Wordpress themes exemplifies the kind of erroneous thinking I frequently find in the creative community. In trying to apply scarcity rules to infinite goods, he misses out on an opportunity to utilize, rather than fight, information sharing.

Michael’s post makes use of two popular arguments: Somebody can buy a theme and give it to somebody else for free, and third parties can bundle a bunch of other themes together and sell those.

The first:

“…you can do anything you want with your theme, so long as you don’t sell it on or give it to someone else.”

This is an example of someone attempting to apply the rules of scarce physical goods to an infinite digital good. Obviously, it’s very easy for somebody to resell a theme or give it away; people do this with physical stuff all the time. The difference in this case is that after the selling and giving is done, Person A still has his own copy. Conceivably, he could buy a theme from Michael once and share it with the whole world, perhaps even suckering a few bucks out of folks in the process.

Pragmatically speaking, it doesn’t matter if you license under the GPL, Creative Commons, or copyright, people are going to share it with each other. It’s not dishonest, it’s not “wrong,” it’s just natural.The lesson here is that if one purchase is enough for everyone (always the case with infinite goods), you’re selling the wrong thing. Instead of trying to force people to pay for an infinite good, you need to sell them something scarce.

I hinted at one golden opportunity to sell a scarce item in the previous two paragraphs. If one sale is enough for everybody, that first sale is a key scarcity. Sure, people could take Michael’s previous themes and hack them into something different, but the whole reason people pay for Wordpress themes is because they don’t want to have to do that.

One way of making this work would be to release a theme or two for free to demonstrate how powerful and easy to use they were, and set a reasonable price I wanted to be paid for each subsequent one. People who were interested in using it could contribute, Kickstarter-style, until that amount was met, after which they would all get the theme and it would be released online.

The contributors would be the first adopters of the new theme, putting them ahead of the inevitable clones that would appear later. They might also get other bonuses, like the opportunity to suggest features or beta-test the theme while it is in development, or free or discounted support afterward.

This leads nicely to the second point:

“I’ve seen a load of sites pop up selling bundles of themes…There are a dozen places now that you can *legally* get every single theme they have, for less than $20.”

My response to this is always “So what?” From the customer’s perspective, it’s actually a pretty good deal. Sure they could probably find most of those themes online somewhere (certainly if they’re popular), but for $20 somebody else has done all the collecting for you. That being said, a theme developer can hamstring these businesses by releasing their own themes on their site free of charge. Why pay when you can get it straight from the source for free?

There’s also a second key scarcity that nobody but the original developer can offer, support. He has unique insight into how the theme is designed to operate, and depending on how much assistance a customer wants or needs, stands to reap significant financial benefits from his expertise.

When people get caught up trying to treat copyable digital goods like scarce physical items, they tend to forget that what’s really worth paying for can only be offered by them: The creation of new things, and support for the old ones. Working on a business model that effectively uses these two scarcities will go a lot further than hoping people won’t trade your files or bemoaning the fact that the GPL doesn’t allow you to claim copyright-style privileges.

Ironically, premium themers develop for a platform that has taken off largely because of its openness. It’s more than a little bit irksome that people are all too willing to take something they’ve been given both gratis and libre, and turn around and attempt to shackle it with anachronistic restrictions.

Return to previous page