Market Places For 3D Prints

In the opinion of several of my business colleagues, 3D printing and specifically the market places for 3D prints may mimic what happened in the music and film industry – a place where big corporations with big labels, big brands and big budgets dominate.

3D Printing Media Giants

If the Goliaths of the digital content industry believe there is a consumer market of profitable size for designs that can be 3D printed, they will come and they will overshadow what we see today: replacing an environment of relatively small players with what some would argue are fairly innocuous designs of questionable usefulness and quality.

Before major digital content providers jump in with both feet, the issue of protecting intellectual property rights from ‘copy & share’ will need to be addressed. If not, these businesses will stay away unless they can find a complementary revenue stream, producing the necessary profits. Ones which support the production of content which in this case are design files for 3D printing.

3D Printing Pop

In many ways, 3D printing is like the inception of pop music during the late 50’s and 60’s. Bands formed and just played at local gigs. Successful groups which gained audiences went further, hired managers, went on tour, cut vinyl records and the rest we all know; culminating in market places like iTunes and large media empires run by Sony, EMI, etc. Big corporations built a huge digital content industry from very humble beginnings.

The power of these corporations did not solely rest in control of the intellectual property or contracts they had with musicians. That frankly is only half the story. There has always been copying and sharing to some degree; with reel to reel tape decks, cassette recorders, video recorders, DVD burners, etc. Now, we think of pirate bay and bit torrent sites. Of course the latter has been especially damaging to corporate profits as sharing is virtually instant and no longer localised between friends or small groups of people. The race is always on to find complementary revenue streams to the digital product itself.

Editor comment: “Don’t tell me you never copied music or a film without the legal right to do so. You did copy and many still do – regularly.”

Consumer Marketing

All that aside, the real power of the digital content companies actually rests in their consumer marketing machines. It is their ability to tell you that you need it, want it or it’s cool to own it. Of course if you don’t own it, you are a lesser mortal, something is missing in your life or you are blind to the opportunity that the sequel to some film will enrich your life. You can deny the clever (some may say slightly dishonest) marketing manipulation all you like but it is true and that is why you part with your cash or get your card out of your wallet.

Another editor comment: “Baaa – humbug – it is philosophical #monday.

The advertising budgets of a Sony, EMI or a Warner for example are immense. The skill with which they deliver advertising is also undeniable. Without doubt, they understand emotions and behavioural science better than doctors and scientists do. And the exploitation of emotion with a constant and repetitive bombardment through advertising is the key to their success. They are the masters of psychological conditioning.

As consumer marketeers will tell you, they reach mass markets through the net and all of the different types of media channels from television to magazines but these are just their tools. Their goal is to emotionally sensitize all of the individuals watching, listening or reading and get them to make a purchase. A sale in the shortest possible time and as frequently as possible. More to the point, have a consumer make a transaction without even thinking or resorting to ‘rational’ decision making. They have been extremely efficient and effective at doing so.

Editor comment: “I know its not a film but I can’t get that jingle out of my head for Fairy washing up liquid.”

What About Market Places For 3D Prints?

So where is all this going? This article is meant to be about 3D printing (#3dprinting).

In 3D printing, we are served by fledgling market places, each taking one of 3 different approaches. We have Thingiverse, Shapeways, YouMagine, Ponoko, Sculpteo, CGTrader, Hum3d, Pinshape, etc. As each month passes more are joining the list. However, they all fall into one of 3 main categories or in the jargon of commerce, they are using one of 3 business models:

Open Source 3D Printing

With repositories of 3D print files that are open source, two issues are evident. Firstly there is no effective way to achieve quality control. Sure you can have consumer reviews regarding 3D printability but it’s debatable how effective reviews are in reality. The other issue with open source market places is the lack of marketing. There is nobody pushing the desirability of the end product onto consumers (there are no profits to be made directly). Indirectly, an important goal of some repositories of open source 3D print files is to use it to advertise (e.g Makerbot is a manufacturer of 3D printers but owns Thingiverse).

Many designers who have something truly useful or of high quality will rightfully or wrongly refrain from posting their creations to a repository which uses open source licensing from creative commons or GNU. Designers want to be paid for their work, they want it promoted and preferably protected against unlicensed copying and sharing

Fans of open source licensing will say, what about . . . yes there are some exceptional designs but generally speaking it is not the case. A quick scan between the quality of items on Shapeways (No. 2 above) and Thingiverse, emphasizes the point. That said, we offer occasionally offer a few free 3D models to print which rest assured have been tested.

Closed Source

For those running a business model based on closed source, they cannot really be called a market place at all. Well not in terms of the end consumer who wish to produce 3D prints on their own machines.

Shapeways is perhaps the best known example using a business model which is closed source. In fact, this business is like a record company but with a key difference. You don’t get a copy of the digital content, only the final product itself.

Shapeways are protecting the intellectual property of the artist/designer and they are differentiating themselves through high quality and a choice of ‘advanced’ 3D printing materials (bronze, gold, silver, platinum, brass, etc).

Whilst Shapeways may be a great advert for the potential of what 3D printing can do and without meaning to be negative, the business is basically a shopfront for designers. One with a sophisticated additive manufacturing capability sitting behind it. It is not a market place for consumers with 3D printers.

Paid Downloads

The third business model is the most interesting for several reasons because it has the possibility to meet consumer needs and expectations. As more 3D printers and technically betters ones are sold to consumers and micro-enterpises, the opportunity becomes more compelling. This market is of course attractive to corporations and the professional designers which are needed to provide the content.

The potential market of consumers with 3D printers may be growing but unfortunately there is a ‘fly in the ointment’ according to many business people.

The significant issue that the suppliers of digital content face is how do you supply a download for 3D printing and not find it posted on a bit torrent site, the very next day?

To some extent legal battles rage but in practical terms, with music and films there is an opportunity to replace lost revenue by offering merchandise around them.

Technical solutions like Digital Rights Management (DRM) exist but have gradually fallen out of favour. It is all too easy to find a way around DRM and data streaming of files. With 3D prints which end up being physical objects of perceived value (the largest part of our economies), how do businesses make up for their perceived losses or justify any investment in product design and going to market?

Businesses wishing to offer files for 3D printing are in a kind of a paradoxical position where solutions to their problems are thin on the ground and those that do exist need proving. There is no real way to use complementary merchandising so to speak either. Hence, those who are selling design files are relying on protection from copyright law but in practical terms the good faith of those who buy them.

A Conclusion

The effect of ‘copy & share’ and the potential disregard for intellectual property rights is a major hurdle for consumer based 3D printing. It stunts the growth and availability of ‘quality designs’ for consumers who own 3D printers.

Market places containing designs which are open source, whilst admirable are unlikely to get the traction needed to make a major impact. The issue of ‘copy & share’ unfortunately dilutes the potential of consumer based 3D printing. That is the possibility to replace so many items that are currently mass produced, often at the expense of the environment and some would say are symptomatic of inequalities in our society.

In the absence of proven solutions to protect copyright, what this all comes down to is price. Realistically, market places for paid downloads are more likely to succeed if the price for a download is made insignificant. Attempts at DRM and streaming will be circumvented as in the music and film industry. They may offer protection for a limited amount of time but will get cracked by the hacking community. In other words, the best solution is where it makes little sense pirating a design file for 3D printing because its monetary value is small.

Editor’s comment: “to be clear, fully protecting a design from being copied in a public system is difficult. In the context of a closed private network (i.e within a company for example) like that proposed by 3DPrintShield, it is an entirely different matter.”