Skip to main content

The Amateur Ascendent -- The Compromise of Disruptive Innovation

Dennis Yang posted "If Amateur Photographers Are As Good As Professionals, Then We Can All Be Professional Photographers" over at Techdirt recently. It's a nice article and well worth a moment of your time to read.

When I Buzzed the article, I got a comment that's really worth addressing from a friend and (quite skilled) amateur photographer. He says:

While this is true in some senses, it really only affects the middle to lower tier of talent. Just like in any other medium where technological advances have lowered the bar to entry to fields that were once the preview of only "professionals", having access to professional tools and getting professional results are not the same thing. [...] Creative talent, in many cases, is still a "get what you pay for" field, whether the masses have access to the same tools or not.

He's correct, and this is the real crux of the Information Revolution, and how it impacts our culture and economy.


On one hand, you have the argument from the likes of Andrew Keen: The cult of the Amateur shouldn't be too highly praised. It will hurt quality in the aggregate. These critics are correct.

On the other, you have the somewhat techno-utopian viewpoint (myself sheepishly included), convinced that the amateurs will replace much of what was previously professionally produced. They too are correct.

These two points are not mutually exclusive.

Clay Shirky probably has the best take on this phenomenon, writing recently about The Collapse of Complex Business Models. When on a conference call in the 90's with AT&T, he's asked to help them research the web-hosting business. AT&T assumes they have an advantage with 99.999% uptime, but can't figure out how to make it pay when charging the going rate of $20/month. The point is, they can't. And it doesn't matter to most customers. 99.999% uptime is nifty, but not worth the cost.

Has the quality of web-hosting suffered at this price? Absolutely. Does it matter to the average consumer? Not to most.

In short, good enough tends to win, and we're seeing this scenario played out in many markets. News, commentary, video, music, photography. Amateurs are producing goods of a quality and a price that more appropriately meets expectations.

Author Clayton Christensen refers to these technologies that cut across traditional metrics of improvement as "disruptive innovation". The Internet itself is a single massively disruptive innovation, even though its effects manifest differently in different markets. But across all the areas where the Internet does disrupt, the symptoms are similar:

* the product or service is notably inferior to it's established counterpart. It is 'amateur', compared to 'professional'.

* the product or service is considerably less expensive to the consumer in terms of money, but may be more expensive in time or labor. Consumers are more likely to value lower cost and direct control over fit and finish.

Timothy B. Lee wrote about the rise of the amateur photographer recently as well, and summarizes nicely why the lower technical barrier to entry (both in terms of equipment and distribution) is likely to curtail the practice of photographer as career:
The amateur photographer stands in relation to the professional as the Apple ][ microcomputer stood in relationship to the PDP-11 minicomputer: the PDP-11 was superior in almost every respect, but the Apple ][ was a lot cheaper and was "good enough" to be useful to millions of people. The difference is that the PDP-11 doesn't have a family to feed, and you didn't have to worry about hurting the PDP-11's feelings. People are understandably reticent about stating too bluntly that for the vast majority of photography tasks a professional just isn't worth the money. We don't want to be seen as badmouthing the skills of some very talented people, nor do we want to contemplate the prospect of thousands of photographers becoming unable to earn a living. But on the other hand, it's important to be clear about what's at stake here: the growth of Internet-enabled digital photography may be bad news for professionals (although I think it's far from clear how it will affect the long-term demand for professionals' services) but it's unmitigated good news for almost everyone else.
The argument many would make, however, is that it's *not* unmitigated good news for almost everyone else. This disruptive innovation is a trade-off, albeit one that many of us (including myself) are willing to make. But we should make no mistake, we *are* sacrificing something when we, the former audience, take over the workload from the "professionals".

Quality will go down.

Price will go down.

We will simplify.

For most, it will be good enough. For some, it won't.


  1. Ahh, it finally has a name. Disruptive innovation has been around forever. Someone makes a living at a skill with talent not assumed by the masses, which elevates their 'profession'. Lo and behold, technology (ie. the paint roller and latex paint)brings the skill down to the level of the do-it-yourself market. Product is made cheaper and more available, packaged with a healthy dose of encouragement, and the masses assume control and the satisfaction of achievement. What they are unable or unwilling to see with an untrained eye, becomes the standard. Expectations are lowered.
    I believe there will still be a market for some professionals to make a living at their craft, but it certainly does eliminate a broad spectrum of talent. It seems to be a natural progression. At some point, a revival will occur, which places value of excellence and craftsmanship over the quick, cheap fix. There will always be a place for a few talented professionals, but the market for their wares will probably be changed forever.
    When was the last time you hired a professional painter who could base-paint your walls and paint your portrait or install stained glass all within one contract?

  2. I agree with Lynne


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Re-Opening Experiment

We should remind ourselves that, this Memorial Day weekend and the weeks that follow, we are subjects in a grand experiment to see how good we are at social distancing as stay-at-home orders are being slowly lifted. The state's stay-at-home order was never meant to keep you, individually, safe from infection. It was meant to keep hospital's safe from being overwhelmed by too many of us needing them at the same time. In Michigan, the daily new cases of COVID-19 are higher today than they were when we locked down in late March. We are testing whether or not we can open up (with all of our new precautions and protocols) without spiking the rate of spread, but make no mistake: it *is* an experiment, and we *are* the test subjects. Please don't get careless as things start to open up. We need to get our economies back on track, but we are still a long way (and a vaccine away) from being out of the woods. Stay vigilant, folks. Wash your hands. Wear a mask. As has always been the

COVID-19 and the Tools We Need to Re-open Wisely

There's a lot of graphs and stats that the news is throwing at people right now. So much so, that you can get information overload trying to make sense of the statistics that have meaning. To quote my old Econometrics professor, "There are three types of lies: 'Lies', 'Damned Lies', and 'Statistics' ". I should also lead with the caveat that I'm an engineer and data nerd by trade, but I'm not an epidemiologist. I welcome feedback from those who have more experience than I do. The most important question we're trying to answer (at least here in Michigan), is "How are we doing?", and "When can we reopen our economy?". With respect to those questions, here's my take on the most important data, and some caveats about what these data are telling us. The four most cited data in news stories are: Total Number of Cases Daily New Cases. Total Number of Deaths Daily New Deaths This post will talk about #1 and #2

What Advice Would You Give Your Younger Self?

An old friend recently reached out to me (and presumably others) and asked us what advice we'd give our younger selves, particularly at ages 20, 30 and 40. After writing my response to him, I thought it worth posting myself as well.  The substantive bulk of my response to him follows: ----- The difficult thing is that I really wouldn't change a thing about who I am, so any call for advice feels a bit like a time-traveler scenario where my advice to a younger self would affect the outcome of my present life, and I'm not sure I'd risk it. My experiences shaped me, including the glaring mistakes, and I wouldn't trade places today with anyone on Earth. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics here, and thus assume I won't mess my own (present) life up. Wibbly-Wobbly. Timey-Wimey. It is also important to note that the question is "What advice would you give your younger self?". The a