Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother: try Experience Economy instead
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A great book, but read it carefully!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: I will still own the access.
Review: Rifkin's assessments are,in the majority of my opinion, right on track. His coined word " hyper-capitalism," and concept of Access vs. Ownership is a trend that cannot be ignored. Large pools of information and services; absolute convenience. We can still own the "right" to Access. The problem with rights, is that they can be taken away also. "Transfer: the end of the beginning," by Furland, apparently agrees with Rifkin on the assumption that there is a darker side to all of this, which will require watchful consideration.
Rating:
Summary: The Artificial Idea
Review: The Age of Access provides a thorough report on the dissonance of traditional culture in a technological sphere at the turn of the century focussing on the derivatives of capitalism from a social and economic perspective. Jeremy discusses the impact of electronic commerce on society, but omits the role of the individual in the formation of culture; he acknowledges the value of ideas and intangible assets, but disputes the commercial power of multinational corporations. The Age of Access takes the blue tack of economics and the red tack of politics and bounds them together to make them undistinguishable from each other by inadvertently encrypting the concept of capitalism and statism. The main flaw of the book is that it feeds on the readers false assumptions of capitalism. The Age of access more subliminally describes how the shift from individual rights to the violation of privacy is transforming modern life. The author does not take into account that a culture does not come up with ideas, individuals do, and that a superficial society that suppresses individualism will naturally deteriorate.
Rating: 
Summary: Two parts of unequal business interest
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Two parts of unequal business interest
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Concerns About Losing Diversity in the Global Village
Review: 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!
Rating:
Summary: Concerns About Losing Diversity in the Global Village
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent and Timely
Review: This book is vintage Rifkin, which is to say a smart, thoughtful, and important book. As usual, he is on the cutting edge, and provokes thought. This is his best book since END OF WORK. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Beware the Guardian Angels!
Review: This is a book for those who feel a deep urge to achieve a better understanding of the epoch-making transformations affecting our planet at the start of the 21st century.
On reading many of the pages of Rifkin's work I have found myself enlightened, as if my vision and perception of our present world had gained a new touch of insight. But it is quite typical that when you are submerged by an experience you are not in the best condition to judge it objectively, to inventory, classify and minutely describe its processes: you look rather being 'lived' by than actually living the thing yourself! Just this happens today when everybody is speaking about globalization, often following a sort of faddish inclination to appear up-to-date at least as far as words are concerned: but if you are really to develop an informed awareness of what you are talking about books like Rifkin's set a milestone in understanding. In my opinion Rifkin may act effectively, without no risky millenarian side-effects, both with readers already accustomed to the arguments of entrenched futurology (Toffler and Naisbitt are in my opinion just some steps behind Rifkin in terms of analytical and factual depth) and with the total newcomers to this kind of topics. Rifkin's line of reasoning unfolds from a very definite and proven assumption: the new cultural capitalism rising on the horizon throughout the continents - with all the geocultural differences and contrasts to be taken into due account - ushers in a radical turn in the relationship of citizens-consumers to the sources of production on one side and in the relationship of citizens-consumers to goods and services on the other. In both aspects an ever-increasing shift from the notion of production/property to that of distribution/access is taking place. In the industrial era and even in the first period of post-industrial society the marketplace was something still distinct from individual and communitarian experience: the marketplace was a vital and fundamental part of any citizen's or community's life but was perceived as a separate entity, influencing but not totally determining the facts of existence, especially those relating to the most intimate core of being. Psychic experience, in the wider meaning of intellectual, emotional and imaginal events making up the very fabric of individual and societal life was not the prevailing interest of a capitalism which kept considering material mass production its main objective. The new capitalism (should we name it the third or the fourth wave, Mr Toffler?) is opening the door to marketable psychical goods: human experience at large becomes the target of global selling and a host of new ways of producing, presenting and distributing it are being designed and engineered by the new market operators. These ways may be different but are in the end characterised by a substantially uniform modality of fruition: access, not property! The new Erich Fromm of our days (hoping there will soon be one for it is badly needed!) will more aptly write a 'To access or to be', as the idea of possession is now better expressed by the possibility of getting temporarily in touch with an experience rather than directly and materially detaining 'something'. And where there is access, there you find gates, with gatekeepers guarding them and deciding what, when and how you should live your predefined life-windows: doesn't this sound like familiar semantics these days? Beware the Guardian Angels! Rifkin is not easily satisfied by abstract assertions and his book is full of examples of what he says. A lot of pages are devoted to bringing evidence before the eyes of the reader and here and there you feel overwhelmed by factual demonstration. But soon you realize that each example adds an important piece to the overall mosaic of explanation, until a complete and convincing picture takes shape in your mind. The last chapter is particularly rich in insight and reveals in my opinion a depth of discrimination which should be advantageously absorbed and fruitfully applied by all kinds of new economy actors, be they concerned directly with the marketplace or indirectly, thru politics and policies in the higher sense of these terms. Rifkin says that we need an ecology of culture and capitalism if we are to save a global human civilisation from the self-destructive impulses of the new mode of production. The market is in fact something kept alive and trustworthy by culture and creative continuity with the past of human experience: civic and cultural traditions as tangible signs of social identity are the stuff which supports the sense of reciprocal trust and well-rooted community indispensable to the effective functioning of the market. By destroying local cultural and civic traditions with the unconfessed aim of forming a standardized global consumer society the new capitalism is putting at risk the same ground on which it is trying to build its lasting triumphs. Human experience cannot be fragmented and sold to society as experiential frames accessed thru predefined portals: this would simply transform the inherent vitality of human culture into a mediocre jam of insignificance, meaningful communication and links among human beings would gradually turn into mutual mistrust and violence and so, while Communism died by too much failure, Capitalism might eventually disappear by too much success. Believe me: this book is a must!
| 
