Retailers Struggling With The Concept Of Digital Ownership

Written by Evan Schuman
October 28th, 2010

As much as E-Commerce and Mobile Commerce are all about taking the in-store experience and making it better (easier, faster, cheaper) and perhaps creating a few experiences that are uniquely digital, digital sites are almost always more comfortable selling physical goods. That’s true even for entirely digital operations, such as Amazon’s Kindle.

That’s why the announcement from Kindle that it will, “later this year,” introduce “lending for Kindle” is so potentially significant. (Nitpick: Why not simply say that it will be introduced this year? Isn’t it assumed that you won’t announce it earlier this year?) The concept is a direct steal from the physical world. A person who purchases an e-book can loan someone a copy of that book, with restrictions.

“Each book can be lent once for a loan period of 14 days and the lender cannot read the book during the loan period,” said an official Amazon post on its blog. “Additionally, not all e-books will be lendable. This is solely up to the publisher or rights holder, who determines which titles are enabled for lending.”

Why not extend this lending idea to music? Ringtones? Software applications? Clearly, some copyright protections must be established, along with significant lending limits.

But if the security issues can be dealt with, why not truly replicate the physical world? If a consumer today buys a book from a physical store, that consumer owns that book and is therefore free to sell it to someone else, for whatever price the market will bear.

Instead of prohibiting that in the digital world, why not encourage it, albeit for a cut. Let’s say Mary buys a digital book for $10. After she reads it, she wants to sell it. Problem 1: Unlike the physical world, what she wants to sell—her “used” book—is absolutely identical to a new copy. She may be fine with selling it for $5, but you’re still trying to sell it for $10. Why undercut your own market?

Answer: Because you have to. Today’s e-books—along with many other digital products—are no longer sub-$1 novelties. Some electronic books today are actually selling for more money than their dead-tree counterparts. At those prices, you need to respect the concept of ownership.

Why not launch a community for selling “used” files? With consumers selling these items—with your environment getting a cut—why would anyone buy from you directly, at full price? Because of your brand and the credibility behind it. Why do many consumers pay a higher price to purchase from Amazon, even with used versions marketed on the same page?

Forget used. How about the identical shrink-wrapped piece of software that Amazon sells for more than third parties on its site? They still sell, and it’s because consumers trust Amazon more than some third party.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.