Just finished Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody.  That combined with rumblings from Chris Anderson’s Free have gelled something I’ve been thinking for a while now:

The primary difference between the Web and the real world is ubiquity.

The real world is characterized by scarcity.  There are only so many iPods.  If I destroy one, there’s one less iPod in the world.

The Web is characterized by ubiquity.  There is no limit to the number of downloads of U2′s new album.  If I download it and delete it, there are, for all intents and purposes, no fewer in existence.

The reason it’s so easy to think about economic models in the real world is that we’re used to models based on scarcity.  The rarer it is and the more that you want it, the more I can charge for it.  Most of the things that are available on the Web are available in abundance (or, effectively, infinite-ness).  This makes it very difficult to apply real-world economic models.  So, as I said at a recent lecture I gave…

The financial challenge of the Web is to figure out how to monetize ubiquity.

I’ll let Chris tell you how he thinks it will happen (and let Gladwell rebut him quite succinctly), but of the ideas he presents, I’m going to put my money on information.

The example he gives of GOOG-411 suggests that it’s worth Google’s investment to give away the service for free if that means they can record how you order a pizza.  In theory, the fact that you asked for “Domino’s” insted of “pizza” is of great value to marketers.  If this is true, I think that kind of aggregated information will be the most valuable commodity of the new economy.

My strongest suspicion, though, is that it’s still way too damn early to tell.

What do you think?

First off, no, I have not seen Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  I learned my lesson with Wolverine.  Shiny trailer + crappy rating on Rotten Tomatoes = I have made a terrible life choice.

That having been said, the following image (via Justin via Schadenfreude) inspired me to consider just who would Optimus appoint to head up his world-changing cabinet.

Veep: Bumblebee

Just has to look cute and do photo ops.

Chief of Staff: Grimlock

Not the brightest Auto-bulb, but when a Tyrannosaurus tells you to do something, you do it.

Secretary of State: Jazz

As the designated “ethnic” Autobot, Jazz will demonstrate our nation’s open-mindedness to the international community.

Secretary of Defense: Ironhide

Never mind that’s his job already, you want a SecDef who sounds like he could kick your ass with his name alone.

Secretary of the Treasury: Soundwave

A controversial choice, but Optimus likes to reach across the aisle.  Besides, who could keep a cooler head during a financial crisis?  Also, best. voice. ever.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Ratchet

He’s an ambulance.  This isn’t rocket science.

Secretary of Education: Perceptor

You know what Perceptor changes into?  A microscope.  You know how I know?  I was the one kid in the country who actually bought that Transformer.  And you know what else?  The microscope worked.

Who else would Optimus appoint?

Really?  We’re going to compare Ice Age v. Transformers to the Minnesota Senate race?  Really?

7/10

Wide

BRÜNO

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
If Borat were gay, and made a lot of the same people uncomfortable.

WILL IT SUCK?
Pretty much the same team here as Borat, and the trailer has that same so-wrong-but-so-funny feel.  Early footage screened at SXSW apparently went over well, though I somehow missed it.

Early buzz is solid.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Probably won’t have the same impact as Borat, which was a surprise, but it’s still well-positioned.  $96mil.

I LOVE YOU, BETH COOPER

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Guy falls for Hayden Panettiere (cos, well, that’s what you do).  Night of his life ensues.

WILL IT SUCK?
I give director Chris Columbus some credit ever since he delivered two knockout Harry Potters.  And the writer penned some decent Simpsons fare.  Plus, it’s based on the writer’s own novel, an exceedingly rare occurrence in teen comedies.

By the way, how weird is it that Alan Ruck is now playing the dad in a teen comedy?

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Will get a snippet of the Panettiere fan base before Harry Potter swoops them up next week.  $33mil.

Limited

HUMPDAY

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Ben and Andrew Make a Porno

WILL IT SUCK?
This is one of dem dere mumblecore films, in spite of the high concept.  Buzz is mad good.  Considered one of the more accessible of its ilk.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Good buzz going back to Sundance, so should open well.  Faces (500) Days of Summer next week, tho.  $1mil.

BLOOD: THE LAST VAMPIRE

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
Japanese Blade

WILL IT SUCK?
Early buzz is good.  From the director of Kiss of the Dragon and the writer of Jet Li’s Fearless.  So probably good action and better-than-average script, but the trailer and fx still look cheesy.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
Indie horror/action rarely hits until DVD.  $1mil.

SOUL POWER

WHAT’S THE PITCH?
You’ve probably heard of the Rumble in the Jungle; but what about the three day concert that preceded it?

WILL IT SUCK?
Early reviews are mixed, with some rhapsodic about documentation of the historic concert with James Brown, Celia Cruz, B.B. King, The Spinners, Bill Withers and more, while others cry missed opportunity over ground they feel was better covered in When We Were Kings.

HOW WELL WILL IT DO?
You can’t argue with the cast.  $2mil.

Next Week: The other big summer flick delayed from 2008.

A recent On the Media addressed the issue of older journalists using older references in their work.  The upshot was you shouldn’t do it because it alienates your younger readers who might not know what the hell “23 skidoo” means.

Allow me to retort.

1. Educating the Public

When I was a kid and I ran into a word I didn’t know in something I was reading, I was encouraged to look that word up in the dictionary.  I didn’t, usually, which is why I don’t know a lot of words.  However, had I done it, wouldn’t I be smarter now?

When I come across a reference I don’t get in something I’m reading, and I’m motivated enough, I look it up.  It is, in fact, easier now, to look shit up than ever before in the history of looking shit up.  It is, in part, how I learn.  It is, in part, how I’m recommended down the long tail of things.

Twitter trending topics, in fact, is one big obscure reference.  When I see #moonfruit and I can’t figure out from the context of the tweets what the hell they’re talking about, I type it into Google and find out very quickly that it’s just some disappointingly uninteresting Web site that happens to be running a promotion that day.  But now I know.

So all these obscure references (assuming they’re presented in an engaging enough manner) can actually help make us all smarter.

2. Encouraging a Curious Readership

I want people to be curious.  I think society is better off.  Putting references in your content (especially if you bother to hyperlink them to explanations) helps encourage a curious readership.  It provides the opportunity to reward curiosity.  Just sticking to references you’re sure 90 percent of the population will get never even starts the discussion.

3. Your Identity as a Writer

Just as I would not discourage writers from using obscure references, I would also not encourage them to use them if it doesn’t fit their style.  Each writer has his or her own voice and to that voice they should stay true.  Take Dennis Miller.  He basically built his game on obscure references to the point where when he briefly co-hosted Monday Night Football, a post called the Annotated Dennis Miller appeared the following day to explain all the stuff he was talking about the previous night.

I’ll be honest.  My own voice is very tied to the notion of making connections and explaining new things in terms of old things which means, quite frequently, the relatively obscure reference.  The worst of it is in my movie previews.  I’m merciless.  When I use an old movie to explain the plot of a new movie, you’re SOL if you don’t know the full title and plot of the old movie.  When I describe the new Star Trek movie as Kirk Begins, God help you if you haven’t seen Batman Begins.  (Not a great example since most of you have, but you get the point.)  But if you have seen Batman Begins, I feel like there’s a special bond created, even for a moment.

That example, of course, doesn’t lend itself easily to points 1 or 2, since that’s not an easy reference to cite, but I still feel that all three points as a whole make an argument for keeping those obscure references coming.  I feel that, like any writing tool – metaphor, hyperlink, comma – you use it where you know it belongs in your work.  As our good friend Anton Chigurh said, “You pick the one right tool.”  That comes from here.