Thread by @lizgross144

A rant is brewing. It’s not the most coherent thread I’ve ever published, but I’m going to throw it out to the internet tonight. I’m not subtweeting or throwing shade. Just thinking out loud on a topic that’s been eating at me for years.

AHEM:

Products & services cost something

And often, the cost is correlated with the quality. But we (higher ed, social media pros, marketers) have been spoiled with a glut of tools and resources that appear to be free.

Free social media platforms.
Free management software.
Free analytics.
Free CRMs.
Free training.

Free research.
Free news.
Free web design tools.
Free email marketing software.
Free apps.
Free introductory subscription boxes.
Free productivity software.
Free podcasts.

There is a free version for almost anything we may want. Free to use doesn’t mean created without cost.

Every free product, service, or piece of content, unless offered by an altruistic individual, serves some sort of business purpose. It’s often improving brand awareness, increasing customer/prospect intimacy, building trust, or collecting valuable data.

If the free product/service/content isn’t part of a marketing strategy, the user is likely the product (to serve ads to, or harvest data from to sell). But in any instance, the free thing had a cost to create and likely has a cost to maintain.

But as users, we get spoiled. We want an email marketing tool to send thousands of emails a month. And we also want social media management software that provides access to dozens of users and accounts. And we want the best info and training available.

But we struggle to pay.

Or our bosses struggle to pay, or whatever. The expectation of free or low-cost access to programs and resources that provide value to a user is an imbalanced value exchange. Software development costs money. Data transfer costs money. Server space costs money. Research costs $.

Writing costs money. Designing whitepapers costs money. All of it costs money. Yet I regularly see people complaining that they’re asked to exchange something of value for the “free” thing. Even if that’s just an email address. Ok. That’s fine. Don’t download the thing.

But what really gets me is when people are trying to build out important processes that contribute to an organization’s key priorities and somehow expect to do it all with free or extremely low-cost tools. This is common for social media mgmt, project mgmt, and graphic design.

But lately I’ve seen people looking for free/cheap options for virtual tours, live video streaming, mass text messaging, video editing. The list just goes on and on. The price that falls into the realm of “expensive” for some institutions can be as low as $50 or $100 per month.

I completely understand that budgets are tight. And free tools can be great when you’re experimenting with new tactics or doing “extra” work that isn’t mission critical. But if you’re entrusting some of your core functions to free tools or services, doesn’t that concern you?

I often find that many free tools and services have limited functionality by design, meaning that the user spends extra time trying to make the product do what they actually need. When maybe spending $10, $20, or even $100 more per month would streamline everything.

Comparing that cost to the cost of someone’s time is often a no brainer. When I need to make this decision for my team, moving to a paid tool is often an easy decision. We have limited people, so our tech needs to empower us, not drag us down.

And if something can technically be done for free + 20 hours of work, or for $500...why is it hard for folks to pay the $500? Almost every full-time staffer is worth more than $25/hr after you consider wage+salary+overhead.

And if you work somewhere where there is always more work to be done than time, you can buy time in an instance like this. Time that the staffer could spend on something else, or get back into their personal life and avoid burnout.

I guess what I really want to know is why does this persist? Especially in higher ed, why is the cheapest or free option so often the default? Why do so many institutions find it so hard to budget for tools and services that empower & enable staff?

Or maybe the question is, why do institutions expect employees to engage in activities and execute strategies without the appropriate resources, yet expect the same results that an appropriately-resourced team would get?

I’d love to hear stories of staff who’ve been clear with leadership, saying something like:

Sure, I can do ABC thing. It will cost X dollars and Y hours and we can expect an outcome of 100.

But if we get X-$20,000, it will take Yx3 hours and we expect an outcome of 65.

But more often I hear that staff are expected to deliver the same outcomes with the same time and less money, of course without additional training to increase the efficacy, efficiency, or output of the human resources.

Pro Tip: most of the amazing case studies you see at conferences come from teams that are appropriately resourced for the outcomes they’ve been asked to deliver.

Then after the presentation at least one person will ask, “great, but then how can I do that with no budget?” 🤦‍♀️

Am I crazy? Is this just how it is? Is it silly for me to think that rational argument and a strategic approach can help professionals stop approaching big problems that require elegant, technical, or bold solutions with a deficit mindset?