Customer Reviews

The Age of Access: The New Culture of Hypercapitalism, Where All of Life Is a Paid-For Experience

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Make no mistake, I think that the Age of Access is an outstanding analysis of modern economy.

If you are a young professional and trying to develop a plan for professional development, or if you are a seasoned professional trying to come to terms with the mindset of the young, you should definitely read this book.

The biggest intellectual challenge that exists today for professionals is to understand the "new economy." I am always afraid that tidal waves of disruptive changes are right around the corner (or are already here) that could literally destroy my company or my career. Rifkin elaborates on several modern economic paradigms, and his analysis will help you anticipate and prepare for these fantastic changes.

I agree with some of the gloomy predictions like the destruction of our "Cultural Landscape." In a very vivid example, Rifkin mentions that there is a Dunkin' Donuts just a few yards away from the Trevi fountain in Rome. Even as a self described libertarian, I believe this kind of pollution of the "Cultural Landscape" should be stopped.

Rifkin's elaboration on the economic value of social trust is right on. Nevertheless his implication that trust is withering away in the US is not convincing.

My criticism is that although Rifkin has clearly diagnosed many of societies ills, he falls short of offering an action-based specific resolution. He seems to imply that "a handful of giant transnational life-science companies" represent the evil empire of today, nevertheless he does not say how to undo their influence.

Reading between the lines, it seems that Rifkin is implying that government ought to take control of certain things that are now considered private property. As an example, government would force Dunkin Donuts to move their restaurant to a less sacred location. History shows us that expanding the power of government can have disastrous results. I would have respected the author much more if he would provide a naked description of his action plan.

Your life is part of a larger drama. As you grow up you are presented with numerous options as to the character you will play. What attributes should your character have, what personality traits, what reputation, what should your character strive to be? Will you take on different personas at work, in social situations, in simulated environments? The choice is up to you, but your choices are presented by advertisers who seek to steer you in a particular direction and supply you with the props to act out your character of choice.

Once you acquire the physical props needed to reinforce your character (which have limited revenue potential for the companies supplying them), you need to compliment your props with experiences. Maybe you want to play a distinguished individual; one who lives in an exclusive golf community with others of similar status and means. Your character of choice has the newest cars, the latest gadgets, and adheres to the norms of others playing similar roles.

You own little if anything and consume most everything as a service - you lease your car, despite "owning your home" you have to pay for all kinds of memberships and fees to keep up the act. You script your social circles and cultural experiences. The majority of your relationships are based on monetary exchange and are pre planned. You are able to purchase cultural experiences based on what market research has determined you want to experience. You are presented with that which others have determined you want to see and will pay the most to experience. Your experiences don't reflect reality, as it exists in nature, but the "reality" which you want to, and think, should exist.

If you have enough financial resources you can rent the exact character you want to play, buy all the necessary props, and engage in all the appropriate cultural experiences. Everyone will treat you just the way you want to be treated. You'll be able to script your whole life. Will your relationships be built on trust, empathy, compassion and other genuine human emotions? Does any of this matter? Is there any difference between a life where everything is a paid for experience and one where it is not? Is this much ado about nothing? That's up to you to decide. Jeremy vividly describes how such scenarios may affect you.

Another fundamental issue in "The Age of Access" is the private ownership and control of public assets and natural resources. Should a private entity be allowed to claim exclusive ownership of the radio spectra over which all sorts of communications are broadcast? Should a biotech company be able to patent (and therefore have exclusive use) of a particular gene that has always existed in nature but has only recently been discovered and put to a particular use? Should companies be able to have patents on the very building blocks that make up life on Earth? Should they be able to patent things that make up your body? When it comes to property rights, where is the line between private property and the right of humanity to share in and access the natural wealth of the planet?

Monsanto, through the development of "Terminator seeds", has already shown how such patents and associated biological tampering may be used for the financial gain of a few to the detriment of the food supply of the world.

[Terminator seeds were developed by Monsanto as a way to claim intellectual property rights and revenue from farmers. The seeds are bio-engineered to be sterile so that instead of simply harvesting seeds at the end of one crop season to be used for the next, the farmer would have no choice but to ante up to Monsanto for seeds for next years crop.]

The parallel is made between cultural diversity and biodiversity. As the world's natural resources are depleted, can we continue our current lifestyles, our massive energy consumption? Many other works contend the answer is no. Rifkin compares biodiversity to cultural diversity. Can capital markets continue to operate if the very social fabric and trust on which they are built is transformed into continuum of paid for experiences?

"The Age of Access" is brilliant. It raises issues that will become more and more important as we move forward into the age of "hyper-capitalism". Will it matter if your life becomes a series of subscriptions and paid for experiences? Should any private entity be able to claim control over things like genes or radio spectra or should they remain in the public domain for all to use? Is it in anyone's interest for corporations like McDonalds's, Dunkin Doughnuts, Starbucks, and others to steamroll local cultures and business outside of the US in the pursuit of profit? Rifkin presents scenarios that address these and many other questions. You may or may not agree with issues and perspectives in the book but its one book you can't afford to pass up.

This book is really two books. The first (Part I -- The New Capitalist Frontier) describes the changing ways that businesses are improving the value and cost of providing goods and services, by doing just what is needed and in a more pleasant way. This eliminates a lot of waste and inefficiency. Also, business has usually provided poor service, so competition is shifting into making better, more memorable service the key element. That book is clearly a five star book. Read all of it.

The second book (Part II -- Enclosing the Cultural Commons) focuses on concentration of services being provided globally by fewer and fewer players. These global giants try to find the lowest common denominator in order to expand consumption. On the other hand, it all costs money, and most people in the world cannot afford these services. Does this create a loss for all? That's one fundamental question raised here. Unfortunately, the book focuses on the pessimistic side and fails to consider inherent counterbalances. The second fundamental question is whether 'virtual' experiences (whether on-line or in other forms) harms perception to such an extent that creativity and connection are lost at a more basic level. I rated this part of the book at 3 stars because it was an incomplete analysis, and had few recommendations. The author would have been better off writing two books and developing both properly, than in combining both. You can get most of what you need from the second part in the last chapter in the book. Then you can decide if you want to read the rest of that part.

Let me address some of the author's concerns in the second part. Skip this part of my review if you are not interested in these issues.

The book seems to ignore the role that family plays in establishing values, cultural norms, and in creating focus. The family does not appear in this book. With more ways for the family unit to be effective with one another, we actually have the potential for an age of enhanced 'authentic' living in our family units.

The author also seems to give any credit to the idea that with technology costs plummeting there is no reason why access to the new forms of service may not become more universal than in the industrial economy. For example, there should be enough money to provide funds for the equivalent of electronic libraries in any community that has any way to tax its citizens. These should be one form of universal access. Charitable grants can provide much of the rest (in the same way that Andrew Carnegie helped establish the broadscale use of community public libraries).

Next, he ignores the fact that electronic storage makes it easier to capture and maintain diverse cultural influences than ever before. As one bit of evidence, look at the proliferation of personal Web sites and their individuality. These electronic scrapbooks would not have existed before the Internet, even in paper form. Scholars and marketers will be reaching out ever more broadly to find what is unique and helpful in other cultures. Those influences will then be quickly brought into mass culture, where they will provide more benefit than they could as isolated cultures.

Finally, there are many benefits of a more common world culture. It provides the basis of better understanding, more ways to share information and knowledge, greater recognition of important problems, and improved effectiveness in resolving those problems. The failure of the Tower of Babel kept diversity going, but at a high price after the ability to communicate with one another was lost.

When the Industrial Age began, many argued that important aspects of rural life would soon be lost. An example related to the close relation between humans and their horses. Yet there are more horses in the United States today than there were before the Industrial Age began. Humans seek out 'authentic' experiences that have more meaning for them, regardless of how the whole economy evolves. For example, in this age of mass-produced commodity culture, fine art museum attendance is rapidly growing.

Conversely, capitalism seems to be more effective than government in solving most problems that humans have. The book seems to suggest that we need an expanded role for government, just at the time that government is starting to shrivel away because of its ineffectiveness. This is clearly a Luddite argument by the author against the experience economy.

Frankly, (and as the author points out) less and less work will be required to provide basic goods and services in the future. People will be healthier and will live longer. If we do not find more interesting things for people to do, life will be poorer. Authentic struggles will be harder to find, so simulated ones will be more valuable. In the same way that a fine novel can stimulate better character, why can't new forms of experience do the same thing?

When you are done reading this book, ask yourself what experiences with biological and cultural diversity you would like to have. Then consider how you can most enjoyably experience those. If you act on those impulses and thoughts, you will have solved Mr. Rifkin's problem for him. And he will have done you a service by raising the question. That is a good example of an experience economy working well.

Live long, prosper, and enjoy your experiences while being enriched by them!

This book is in fact two books in one. The first part develops the interesting perspective that we are moving from an economy of buyers and sellers of things to an economy of suppliers (grantors of access) and users . That affects everything as tangible things turn into intangible services. That part has some useful business implications but the author only develops the theme and falls short of providing any useful recommendation. Part II goes into a second transformation: from industrial capitalism to a cultural capitalism in which everything that the human race has created in the cultural realm is becoming a paid for experience. This part is treated more from a sociological perspective and not at all from a business perspective. It is actually a disguised criticism of this evolution that borrows some of its arguments from leftist French philosophers. We are left with the feeling that this evolution is bad and orchestrated by the big companies. The good side of this evolution is not developed at all, and personally I see many. The role that the internet with the fantastic power that it gives to individuals is not even mentioned as a possible counterweight to this evolution if don't like it. After all aren't we the poeple who makes that whole system work. The author does not even suggest any remedies to the issues that are raised. The author also hammers his point over and over again like if he wanted to make sure that the two themes "transformation from industrial capitalism to cultural capitalism" and from "propoerty rights to access rights" will stick to his name. This is becomning really annoying as the pages unfold. In summary, the two themes in this book are interesting and they make you think. That's its value. but the eway the themes are treated makes this book of little practical value both as a business book or as a solution to the issues that the authors bring up.

In the Age of Access, Jeremy Rifkin claims that the fundamental way that organizations and individuals conduct business is changing dramatically. The change is a shift from ownership of assets to the payment for the right to access the assets of others. Rifkin calls this state of existence the "hypercapitalistic economy." In this type of economy everything is service-based where "just-in-time" access is standard and achieved through expansive commercial networks residing in cyberspace. All managers could learn about the upcoming Age of Access from Rifkin's book. It is imperative for managers to understand the impact that the Age of Access will have on their businesses and their lives. Unfortunately, Rifkin does not indicate how to use this information to achieve success and take advantage of the dramatic changes that are occurring in our world. For this reason, I do not recommend The Age of Access to managers looking for answers to their questions but I do recommend The Age of Access for those who are ignorant of the "new culture of hypercapitalism" and need the to understand where the world is going so they can create their own game plan.

Rifkin states that the new economy is one in which cultural experiences are exchanged for money such as in tourism. He sees this development as the growth of capitalism into the cultural sphere in which cultural experiences become commercialized. He thinks that the work that we do now will be done by robots or computers in the future. The waning blue and white collar work will be replaced by opportunities in cultural work. The commodification of relationships means that people will buy the time, attention, and affection of other people.

Another feature of the new economy is that it deals in ideas and images, more than physical assets. Companies outsource the manufacturing of their product and concentrate on the design of the product only, such as with computers and cars. Companies also like to outsource manufacturing to non-union subcontractors so that they don't have deal with unions. Cheap labor overseas manufactures the product.

The intangible asset of the new economy is the knowledge or imagination of the associates in firms such as Microsoft. This company does not own many physical assets, but its stock still is valuable because of innovativeness of its knowledge workers in coming up with priceless commercial ideas. A new way of accounting needs to be devised to measure intangible assets such as knowledge, morale, progressive leadership, and creativity of different firms. Although Rifkin is excited about the new economy, he worries that non-commercial ideas will go by the wayside in a world in which only commercialized ideas are important.

Franchisees do not have as many rights as business owners do. In fact, the supplier often controls how the business is to be run. The contract can be broken if the franchisee violates any of the rules. Franchisees pay for the business formula and the name of the business, hoping for success without the risk of ownership. Rifkin predicts that small business will become extinct and will be replaced by franchises because the new economy is based on supplier/user relationships, not ownership. The franchisee is not autonomous and therefore cannot come up with any creative ideas on how the business should be run.

What we formally owned in the past will no longer be ours in the new economy. Rifkin informs us that we don't even own our genes because life science companies have patented them. If we want gene therapy, we will have to pay for the privilege of using their knowledge of the patent. Gene therapy may increase health care costs because of the expense of the genetic tests. We also will not own our seeds in the future because life science companies have patented the seeds that they have genetically modified. The seeds will be leased to the farmer for one growing season only. Heavy fines will be put on those who save the seeds to grow next season. Rifkin suggests that we need to revamp our anti-trusts laws for the knowledge economy so that monopolies will not control intellectual property.

The leasing of cars shows that businesses are turning to a service-based rather than a product-based economy. They seek the lifetime loyalty of the customer by establishing a relationship with him. I suppose that this will have an advantage for the customer since the supplier will seek the satisfaction of the customer over a lifetime, not wanting to betray trust. In the future, it will be assumed that products will come with long term service; if they don't, they could be rip-offs because the seller does not wish to maintain the product over the years. Invasions of privacy may occur if such suppliers are always seeking to find out what your buying habits are. Service relationships have also helped companies save money and the environment by having a service find out a way to provide that service more cheaply and less wastefully. The relationship between PPG painting and Ford Motor Company is given as an example.

The switch to product based economy to one in which service is emphasized has come about because there is more profit in providing added long-term services for a product, rather than selling the product as a one-time event. An over-production of goods means that it is difficult to sell products as one-offs and still make money. Products that are similar also have to have services that will differentiate them from the competition. The ability to customize a product to the customers needs is now able to be done. This mass customization replaces mass production of the previous era. In the new era, products are given away as the bait that will hook the customer into a relationship with the business over the long-term.

With the commodification of relationships in the new era, customers are ones that businesses seek to control, not so much the products. Companies will increasingly seek to sell to the same customer over the lifetime many different products. The customer is the market in this sense. With new technology, companies are able to find out what the buying habits of customers are and then cater to their preferences. Controlling the customer means that the company wants to become so "embedded" into the lives of customers that they can't live without the company. Changes to another company may become too much of a hassle, given the complexity of the commercial relationship. Corporate institutions wish to control the customer, just as they did the worker during the industrial era. They want to control economic life as opposed to having the masses control it. The purpose of capitalism is to keep increasing its power over our lives, even to the point of setting up communities of interests to help sell their services. Planned communities are also a way that corporations sell a lifestyle while abridging the ownership rights of the people who live there.

Attention is key to communication in any society....listening, seeing and experiencing-- so important to getting any message across, let alone establishing social networks and personal relationships. Rifkin is a master at spotting what is a major issue in our society-- I can't wait to read his European book...He understands trends before they hit the "Tipping Point" -- a salute to him. This book belongs on every marketer's shelf and on every student of branding and next-gen advertising and mass communications.....wonder why no one's paying attention -- Rifkin covers some of the possible answers here.

Jeremy Rifkin is part of what P.J. O'Rourke calls "the perenially indignant." Not that he's angry--merely that he's seen the future and has wept. (Actually, one could almost argue that his writing betrays what Nietzsche would call "the bad conscience"). Rifkin and others like him have much in common with The Decadents in literary Europe at the end of the 19th century: an overwheling feeling of apocalypse, general angst about life, a hidden hunger for the end of things. They appear quite scholarly (inasmuch as Oscar Wilde and Walter Pater appear "scholarly"), but they're merely nihilists: from The Decadents we got "art for art's sake" (Pater) and a whole mess of bad behavior (Wilde). Their nihilism also produced such artists as Yoko Ono and, one could argue, the punk rock movement of the late 1970's. These are Rifkin's ancestors, as well as other leftish economists'.

Although nominally on the Left, Rifkin is not a doctrinaire Marxist. In fact, I'm guessing he's never read Marx. Marx saw all of history (and the study of history) as proceeding from commerce and the satisfaction of needs. Rifkin, in Age of Access, says numerous times (as if wanting desperately to believe himself), that "culture precedes commerce," and that, somehow, the two should not intertwine. (A not-so-subtle jab at The Experience Economy). This is where the book collapses of its own weight: not only does Rifkin fail to define "culture," he fails to demonstrate any historical proof that culture prefigured commerce in any culture or setting. His thesis requires this proof, but, alas, none is forthcoming.

Marx, early in The German Ideology, argues that "as needs are satisfied, new needs are made: the production of new needs is the first historical act." We can't, in other words, put a halt to "history" or "economics" without first putting a halt on human needs. Rifkin appears to stand athwart history and yell "Stop!" (much as William Buckley did in the first edition of National Review). Rifkin, however, fails even to give Marx a slot in the bibliography, although much of Age of Access is a counter to Marx's reversal of culture/commerce. Rifkin does, however, prop up his tired old thesis by appealing to David Ricardo and Adam Smith, two "classical economists." But the specter of Marx haunts the book. A book purporting to span the history of capitalism in the West, yet failing to mention Marx, is suspect at best and insidious at worst. Marx's presence in this book is similar to what Marx called "the specter" that haunted Europe in 1848 with the publication of the Manifesto. Age of Access is a decidedly conservative, reactionary take on postindustrial society.

There is now no excuse why the experts in matters economic haven't read the classics in their field. They therefore forfeit their right to our attention (and money). I'm planning to try for a full refund from the local bookstore...

The Experience Economy (by Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore), as a book and a thing, while not explicitly nodding to Marx as ubermensch, collapses culture with commerce as neatly as it's ever been done. One need only look at Hollywood, or how many of us make our livings, for proof that indeed all the world's a stage. The Experience Economy posits that, although traditional mechanisms of value may be giving way to "creative" ones, the sky isn't falling. An invisible economy, one built less on things than ideas and performances, can still produce enough "labor" to sustain a given population. (In fact, it already does).

In fact, while Rifkin decries what he sees as the end of work, The Experience Economy subtly redefines and redeploys the concept of "work" across a field of plenitude, not scarcity (scarcity being the "foundation" of classical economics). Value, Pine and Gilmore assert, can be derived from almost anything that tickles desire in the human heart. As long as desire is around, we'll never run out of work or money (or history). Whereas Rifkin has read Ruskin (see "Unto This Last"), Pine and Gilmore have read Schumpeter (and, probably, Nietzsche). Pine and Gilmore see at least a glimmer of hope in the future. Rifkin, in Age of Access as elsewhere, sees none. I strongly advise against Age of Access on grounds of gross intellectual negligence and overweening bad conscience.

Indeed an outstanding analysis of capitalist transitions. Very infomred study of how the mode of reproduction in capitalist society is redefining itself and who the agents of change are.
A must read for all students of politcal and social sciences; a strong recommednation for everyone who wants to step back and reflect on where we are heading and how things got rolling. The only short-coming I see, is that Rifkin strangely avoids building on marxist thought, hardly any references and it seems he tried to "skip" Marxism in an effort to stay popular amongst a largely US readership. Still, a most important book, any current day social researcher and political analyst should make this book a key reference point.

This book makes you turn 180 degrees fast! It takes all that you have learned in school about the ways of modernity and it pushes you into the global economy where experiences, ideas and relationships are valued above all else.

If you are wondering why the world has changed and how you can leverage those changes, you should take some time and read this book.