Thanks for joining the conversation.

I don’t mind that you question my authority. After all, I’m just a guy with a blog (actually I pay less that $20 a month for my hosting), but it’s pretty certain that I have done more Internet marketing than Friedman, whose employer is nearly broke in large part due to related factors.

I agree with most of the points you made, but you did not address the basic premise that proves Friedman’s ignorance and undermines the value of his friend’s case study. Friedman writes that “for about “20 percent of what we normally would charge” “the customer got a better product.” No, he did not place those two statements side by side, but that’s what he said and that’s what he meant the reader to conclude.

Yes, many services that used to be provided by skilled workers are now commodities. I just significantly reduced the cost of a video project by collaborating on the editing long distance over the Internet.

But whether you are a lawyer, a plumber or a marketing agency, 60% – 80% of the value you deliver and charge for should be your skill. If free Internet tools allow you to do better work at “20% of what we normally charge” no credible writer should use you as a case study to define a new reality. Unless, of course, your are his childhood friend and you can help him produce some flimsy theory.

They can, but it just comes from India

Matt

I’d respectfully ask that you support that claim having been made by someone of note regarding the “Internet economy.”

I think people expect better value for their $100 today because real costs have decreased. Innovation in technology (production) and the Internet (distribution) have commoditized certain aspects of sales and marketing.

As an example, you are able to get your ideas out to anyone in the country/world via what I suspect to be a Wordpress blog ($0). You’re hosting at Media Temple ($20/month). You reached out to me on Twitter ($0). If we needed to meet, we provably would not fly; we’d likely do video chats or use GoToMeeting ($49/month). For almost nothing, you are able to reach people all over the world with your message. 5/10 years ago this was not as easy or cost effective. Reaching a national or international audience was more expensive. Why should a customer not expect better value for their dollar in return?

As for getting what you pay for, we should all be so lucky. There’s been plenty of times i’ve paid a hefty price only to be disappointed. I’d argue, paying a higher price is not necessarily an indicator of value. Technology and the Internet have enabled more people to participate and, hopefully, collaborate. To use another axiom, the cream always rises. I believe the Internet allows for more froth. I think froth is a good thing.

Thank you for sharing.

Thanks for adding to the discussion. I do not question the value of new technology for enabling people to acquire and master the types of skills that traditionally would have required costly formal education.

The biggest danger in the empty evangelizing by Friedman and others is convincing clients of marketing professionals that they can get better quality work today for $20 than what they purchased for $100 five years ago.

John R.