One obvious difference is that hairdressers don't run around yelling "free haircuts we will give you free haircuts look at us how we give away free haircuts".
What the companies are doing here is that they are trying to kill paid competition, hold on longer and raise prices once competitors don't exists. They really dont have a standing to complain about situation they themselves created in the hope that competition will die sooner and in the hope users will be locked too much without any chance.
> Millions will walk by a painting in a museum, but very few have prints, posters or even inexpensive original art in their homes.
Now, this analogy does not work at all, because going by the painting in the museum in no way implies you would want it at home. And that many people dont go to the museums in the first place ... and those who go are more likely to buy some serious art. The other reason it does not work is that people have tons of inexpensive art in their homes. It is ridiculously competitive market. Posters, cups bought only for their pictures, figurines, people buy all of that.
> Now, this analogy does not work at all, because going by the painting in the museum in no way implies you would want it at home.
You are talking from a buyer's perspective (the museum visitor) whereas he is talking from the seller's perspective (the museum / artist). The seller hopes that by allowing you free or cheap access to the art, you may be tempted to buy a copy of it or some memento of it (which is one of the ways museums / artists make money).
That’s not how marketing works for luxury products (such as fine art), the free/cheap access to see the art is to raise awareness so that they will be impressed by people who actually owns the art.
It increases prestige and pride of ownership for actual buyers.
He was not talking about fine arts but citing one of the business models of some museum. Museums don't sell their historical artefacts. You can't buy the Mona Lisa, but you can buy a print of it. And this is how some museums try to make extra cash.
What the companies are doing here is that they are trying to kill paid competition, hold on longer and raise prices once competitors don't exists. They really dont have a standing to complain about situation they themselves created in the hope that competition will die sooner and in the hope users will be locked too much without any chance.
> Millions will walk by a painting in a museum, but very few have prints, posters or even inexpensive original art in their homes.
Now, this analogy does not work at all, because going by the painting in the museum in no way implies you would want it at home. And that many people dont go to the museums in the first place ... and those who go are more likely to buy some serious art. The other reason it does not work is that people have tons of inexpensive art in their homes. It is ridiculously competitive market. Posters, cups bought only for their pictures, figurines, people buy all of that.