free or pay? Result of trent reznors/saul williams experiment (1 Viewer)

[Shane D]

this is from nin.com. A few months ago trent reznor convinced saul williams to put his new album out for free or let people pay 5 bucks for a better quality one. Here is trent explaining the numbers and his take on it. I copied and pasted the entire article cause his front page changes weekly and i've not found a archive yet of old pages. So it could be gone in a couple days.

nin.com [the official nine inch nails website]

It's a strange time to be an artist in the recording business. It's pretty easy to see what NOT to do these days, but less obvious to know what's right. As I find myself free from the bloated bureaucracy of major labels, finally able to do whatever I want... well, what is that? What is the "right" way to release records, treat your music and your audience with respect and attempt to make a living as well? I have a number of musician friends who are either in a similar situation or feel they soon will be, and it's a real source of anxiety and uncertainty.
I'd like to share my experience releasing Saul Williams' "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust" and what I've learned from the process. Perhaps by revealing of all our data - our "dirty laundry" - we can contribute to a better solution.

A quick history: Saul makes a great record that I produce. We can't find the right home at a major label. We decide to release it ourselves, digitally. Saul does not have limitless financial resources so we shop around for a company that can fulfill our needs. We choose Musicane because they are competent and are willing to adapt to what we want. The results are here: niggytardust.com

We offer the entire record free (as in totally free to the visitor - we pay bandwidth costs) as 192 MP3s, or for $5 you can choose higher fidelity versions and feel good about supporting the artist directly. We offer all major CCs and PayPal as payment options.
Here's what I was thinking: Fans are interested in music as soon as it's available (that's a good thing, remember) and usually that's a leak from the label's manufacturing plants. Offering the record digitally as its first appearance in the marketplace eliminates that problem. I thought if you offered the whole record free at reasonable quality - no strings attached - and offered a hassle free way to show support that clearly goes straight to the artists who made it at an unquestionably low price people would "do the right thing". I know, I know...
Well, now I DO know and you will too.

Saul's previous record was released in 2004 and has sold 33,897 copies.

As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul's new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.

Of those paying,

3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC

Keep in mind not one cent was spent on marketing this record. The only marketing was Saul and myself talking as loudly as we could to anybody that would listen.
If 33,897 people went out and bought Saul's last record 3 years ago (when more people bought CDs) and over 150K - five times as many - sought out this new record, that's great - right?
I have to assume the people knowing about this project must either be primarily Saul or NIN fans, as there was very little media coverage outside our direct influence. If that assumption is correct - that most of the people that chose to download Saul's record came from his or my own fan-base - is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5? I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening.
Add to that: we spent too much (correction, I spent too much) making the record utilizing an A-list team and studio, Musicane fees, an old publishing deal, sample clearance fees, paying to give the record away (bandwidth costs), and nobody's getting rich off this project.

But...
Saul's music is in more peoples' iPods than ever before and people are interested in him. He'll be touring throughout the year and we will continue to get the word out however we can.

So - if you're an artist looking to utilize this method of distribution, make of these figures what you will and hopefully this info is enlightening.

Best,
TR

 

[SD_Brian]

I wonder how Radiohead made out with their similar, but much higher profile, "Pay-if-you-want-to" release?

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I'd be curious to see how many copies Saul's first disc sold in the amount of time that the new one's been available.

I'd never heard of Saul Williams before this, but I'd certainly heard of Trent Reznor. I would guess that a large majority of the people who downloaded the free version were NIN fans who were hearing of him for the first time. I'll have to check it out for myself.

I forgot to download the Radiohead album while it was available, but bought the regular CD on the advice of friends who said it was a good album. (It actually just arrived a few minutes ago, so I haven't heard it at all yet.)

 

[Shane D]

i paid the 5 bucks for the download, mainly to help support NIN, because this does indirectly. But after listening to saul williams i really like it. Its good driving music, and i really like the cover to sunday, bloody sunday.

There was a discussion on arstechnica about this too. Most people were putting up the opinion it failed because 1, saul isn't that known, and 2, you gave away 192 files for people to 'test' instead of making them like 98. Others piped up that giving a choice of 0$ or 5$ was a bad idea and that maybe leaving it up to the person would have been better.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but i know if he does the next NIN album like this, i'd gladly fork over $10 for the exact same options.

 

[KurtEP]

It's good to see some follow up on this. I downloaded the flac version, but promptly messed up the computer in question and haven't gotten around to going back to it.

I see this as the wave of the future for smaller acts. Why involve a record label if there won't be any marketing in the first place. Plus, this kind of thing has the potential to give fans easier access. There are a number of acts where I literally spent years tracking down their albums (pre internet). This would eliminate the need altogether. My only suggestion would be to include some sort of printable cover for the CD case....

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I think the $0 and $5 choices are fine. Check it out for free, and then pay a very reasonable amount for a better quality download. Personally, I'd prefer to buy a regular uncompressed CD, but in this case I appreciate being able to listen to the whole thing and discover that I didn't like it at all without having to pay up front.

Honestly, it did absolutely nothing for me. If industrialish hip-hop electronica is your thing, check it out. I hope he sells plenty.

On to the new Radiohead (speaking of do-it-yourself CD covers). . .

 

[Shane D]

follow up interview

Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5? | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

 

[TravisR]

"Why won't people pay $5?" Because alot people are cheapskates and think music that's online is free.

Fortunately for Trent, he's got a fanbase that's going to pay money because they're already fans and want to 'reward' him but for a new artist, very few people are going to pay when they have an option to pay zero.

Either way, this got Saul Williams much more publicity and more people heard his music than would have if he tried it on his own so he did end up with a win.

 

[KurtEP]

I've run into a few sites that will give you the option of streaming the music, a paid download or a physical disk via the mail. I've always thought this was a great option. You can taste the goods, and buy them if you like them.

The "pay if you want to" model seems to be a little silly. Of course I don't want to pay. Even when I have so much money that I won't bend over to grab a $20 bill I've dropped, the hassle of paypal or a credit card are enough to dissuade me from paying if I don't have to. I like the idea of a nominal fee much better, or a graduated scale for bad through amazing quality.

 

[TravisR]

To me, that seems like the best way too. That way, it's an inexpensive way for the consumer to explore something new and the artist doesn't get nothing.