Trent Reznor and downloading music - Is it downloading working for NIN?

[TBJ]

Sorry for the lame Title, I was gonna use something even more dramatic and cheesy like " Is Trent starting a revolution?" but I don't work for Rolling Stone Magazine

Anywhoo's,

I wanted post this excerpt from a Blabbermouth article to see what you guys think. What he is doing seems very interesting to me, mainly because I am starting to feel that Trent(along with other big names that are trying this) are probably starting a REALLY great trend in music marketing and distribution. Fuck Cd's, fuck Record Companies, do grassroots internet marketing and put different versions of your music online, charge a minimal fee for "great" versions and offer lower grade versions of songs for free.

Here is the post:

"Cortney Harding of Billboard.com reports that NINE INCH NAILS frontman Trent Reznor has posted the download and sales numbers for "The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust", the SAUL WILLIAMS album he produced and helped release.

The album was originally posted on Nov. 1 and offered for free as a lower quality, 192kbps MP3 download, or $5 for a higher fidelity 320kbps MP3 or FLAC version. On NIN.com, Reznor claims, "not one cent was spent on marketing this record," although he and Williams did launch a fairly comprehensive press campaign.

According to Reznor, since Nov. 1, 154,449 people had downloaded the record; of those, 28,322, or 18.3%, chose to pay anything for it. Of those paying, 3220 chose 192kbps MP3, 19,764 chose 320kbps MP3 and 5338 chose FLAC.

Read more at Billboard.com."

I think that so far the money he's made back from this venture is proving successful, assuming he used his own studio to record the album. He's giving people options, and even though there will always be lamers who will never pay for shit, he at least is building a loyal customer base who will probably support him even more now for doing this. I can see this working pretty well for well known groups, however, the formula might not prove so successful for unknown bands.

What do you guys think?

 

[lady_space]

I think if you're going to do that, the "free" version should be lower quality than 192 kbps. With that quality, there's no incentive for me personally to pay for a higher-quality download, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I don't think it would change the numbers drastically, but when you're talking about 30K sales, another 3K is a 10% increase.

 

[The Fiddler]

According to Reznor, since Nov. 1, 154,449 people had downloaded the record; of those, 28,322, or 18.3%, chose to pay anything for it.

In other words, 81.7% of the people who downloaded it chose to pay Trent $0.00 for their download of his music. Maybe they plan on paying him later.

 

[jkohn]

I'd love to be able to buy albums from the bands I listend to in FLAC format for $5 a piece.

 

[eaeolian]

Well, yes, they did no promotion that they paid for. However, having Trent Reznor attached to it really doesn't make this a valid test, now, does it?

Let's see an unknown, fledgling band do something like this, and then I'll be impressed. Of course, it won't happen. Why?

1.) Trent already had the resources to front the album recording.

2.) Trent is an established "name" who got plenty of promotion the old fashioned way - by getting music journalists to fellate him, er, write about his latest project.

This is *not* a viable model for an artist that isn't already a star. It's the same kind of stunt that Radiohead pulled. Let, say, oh, I dunno, Imagika do this, and see if they sell 30K copies. No chance. Why? Mainly because they don't have the hooks into the existing marketing machine. Billboard's not going to do an article on them.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

In other words, 81.7% of the people who downloaded it chose to pay Trent $0.00 for their download of his music. Maybe they plan on paying him later.

Perhaps they indeed plan on buying it later. However the one variable we (including yourself) cannot answer is whether or not that 81.7% would have bought the album even if it wasn't up on the net for free download.

Do we know how much of that 81.7% would have even heard that band in the first place (note that this is not a NIN album, but some debut band that Trent helped release) if this album was ONLY in stores? Nope.

We know, at least from Trent, that very little was spent on promotion/marketing. In fact, he alleges that 0.00$ was spent on the marketing for that album. If this was the case, then 20,000+ sales is without a doubt is a success.

 

[The Fiddler]

Another failed attempt at the "set-your-own-price" experiment to get people to pay at least $0.01 for an album download. 62% found $0.00 to be "The Nice Price":

"...According to a study examining how consumers reacted to Radiohead's "set your own price" gamble with the digital release of the new album "In Rainbows," 38% paid an average of $6. The rest paid nothing..."This shows pretty conclusively that the majority of music consumers felt that digital recorded music should be free and is not worth paying for," said Fred Wilson, managing partner of Union Square Ventures. "It's time to come up with new business models for the freeloader market. In the 29 days after the album was made available, the Radiohead site received more than 1.2 million visitors, most to download the album, according to ComScore."

Figure 200,000 visited the site w/o downloading the album. Then, 1.0 million x 0.62 = 622,000 who didn't choose to pay $0.01 for the download.

Study: Most Paid Nothing For Radiohead Album

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Well, yes, they did no promotion that they paid for. However, having Trent Reznor attached to it really doesn't make this a valid test, now, does it?

Let's see an unknown, fledgling band do something like this, and then I'll be impressed. Of course, it won't happen. Why?

1.) Trent already had the resources to front the album recording.

2.) Trent is an established "name" who got plenty of promotion the old fashioned way - by getting music journalists to fellate him, er, write about his latest project.

This is *not* a viable model for an artist that isn't already a star. It's the same kind of stunt that Radiohead pulled. Let, say, oh, I dunno, Imagika do this, and see if they sell 30K copies. No chance. Why? Mainly because they don't have the hooks into the existing marketing machine. Billboard's not going to do an article on them.

But they didn't spend a cent on marketing. Therefore it is a viable model. You cannot compare this to some basement musician who puts out his recordings online. This situation is meant to be compared to signed artists on record labels.

I might also add, that whenever an artist starts a record label, most of the time it doesn't do well. Remember the dude from System Of A Down who signed Satyricon and Amen to his label? How long did that last? Satyricon is now back with Century Media etc. It's because these guys don't really have it all together when it comes to the business aspect of the music industry, even with the name brand and the connections. Very rarely do we see high album sales from labels who are started by "name brand" artists. Therefore once again, this is indeed a viable business model if it can sell as many copies as Nuclear Blast's or Century Media's biggest bands.

 

[eaeolian]

But they didn't spend a cent on marketing. Therefore it is a viable model. You cannot compare this to some basement musician who puts out his recordings online. This situation is meant to be compared to signed artists on record labels.

How, exactly, do you get an artist to that level using this model? Reznor got plenty of pub for this, he just didn't *pay* for it. It's a limited-angle thing that only a few artists can do - it does nothing for developing new audiences for smaller artists, unless, of course, they somehow have a Trent Reznor attached to them. Even then, they got an 18% hit rate on payment from people who were mostly already fans of Reznor's work. That doesn't strike me as particularly impressive.

I might also add, that whenever an artist starts a record label, most of the time it doesn't do well. Remember the dude from System Of A Down who signed Satyricon and Amen to his label? How long did that last? Satyricon is now back with Century Media etc. It's because these guys don't really have it all together when it comes to the business aspect of the music industry, even with the name brand and the connections. Very rarely do we see high album sales from labels who are started by "name brand" artists. Therefore once again, this is indeed a viable business model if it can sell as many copies as Nuclear Blast's or Century Media's biggest bands.

Again, it's viable business model if you're Trent Reznor. It's not so useful to the awesome band down the street that doesn't already know all the writers by their first name and drug of choice, and that isn't sitting on a bankroll from previous major-label success. Next time, since it's not a novelty, let's see how well it does, since that free promotion won't be so easily available.

 

[The Fiddler]

We know, at least from Trent, that very little was spent on promotion/marketing. In fact, he alleges that 0.00$ was spent on the marketing for that album. If this was the case, then 20,000+ sales is without a doubt is a success.

That's certainly a point that can be made. However, do you think Trent considers 20,000 sales enough of a success to outweigh the fact that 126,185+ people paid $0.00 for his and the band's efforts? If those 126,185 people had paid just $1.00 for the download, the band would have had $126,185 put directly into their pockets, and not the record label's pockets, but they got $0.00 from those 126,185 people. How do you think they feel about that?

 

[TBJ]

Well, yes, they did no promotion that they paid for. However, having Trent Reznor attached to it really doesn't make this a valid test, now, does it?

Let's see an unknown, fledgling band do something like this, and then I'll be impressed. Of course, it won't happen. Why?

1.) Trent already had the resources to front the album recording.

2.) Trent is an established "name" who got plenty of promotion the old fashioned way - by getting music journalists to fellate him, er, write about his latest project.

This is *not* a viable model for an artist that isn't already a star. It's the same kind of stunt that Radiohead pulled. Let, say, oh, I dunno, Imagika do this, and see if they sell 30K copies. No chance. Why? Mainly because they don't have the hooks into the existing marketing machine. Billboard's not going to do an article on them.

I am by no means a seasoned musician like you probably are, and I agree with you on the fact that Trent is already a known musician vs, Jo Blo's Bar Band from Salem's Lot, Maine, so this model has not been proven outside certain boundaries. However, I think there are ways unknown bands can gather resources for producing and marketing their music with minimal investment and maybe making nice profits out of their work.

I know a little about music recording practices and lately it has been getting cheaper and cheaper to actually get a good recording studio setup in your home, garage or what have you. This would make it a lot cheaper for bands to actually record their music for a minimal price, which could probably be compensated with money from live shows. Add to that practically $0 expense in internet marketing and I would say selling downloadable albums for $5 bucks a piece might be a slightly profitable affair even if not 100% of downloaders are buying it.

Maybe I am crazy, but i think this business model NIN and Radiohead are exploring could morph into something way more profitable for bands with limited exposure/resources in the near future. Or maybe i am just blowing this out of my ass cause i need caffeine.

 

[The Fiddler]

Again, it's viable business model if you're Trent Reznor.

Do you think Trent is actually satisfied with the results of this "pay what you want" business model and will do this again, perhaps with the next NIN album? Perhaps for exposure, but certainly not for income. I certainly don't consider it a successful business model when 80%+ of the public chooses to pay $0.00 for your product when you give them the choice.

Again, if those 126,185 people (who paid nothing) had paid just $1.00 for the download, the band would have had $126,185 put directly into their pockets, and not the record label's pockets, but they got $0.00 from those 126,185 people. How do you think Trent feels about that?

 

[eaeolian]

I am by no means a seasoned musician like you probably are, and I agree with you on the fact that Trent is already a known musician vs, Jo Blo's Bar Band from Salem, Main so this model has not been proven outside certain boundaries. However, I think there are ways unknown bands can gather resources for producing and marketing their music with minimal investment.

I agree. In fact, I'm counting on it. I just don't think publicity stunts like this are the real answer.

edit: WTF happened the first time?

I know a little about music recording practices and lately it has been getting cheaper and cheaper to actually get a good recording studio setup in your home, garage or what have you. This would make it a lot cheaper for bands to actually record their music for a minimal price, which could probably be compensated with money from live shows. Add to that practically $0 expense in internet marketing and I would say selling downloadable albums for $5 bucks a piece might be a slightly profitable affair even if not 100% of downloaders are buying it.

Yes, but you'd still have to market it. The original entry barrier to the music business - studios with any quality are ridiculously expensive - has been lowered due to both technology and falling standards (most people don't notice the difference between higher and lower quality formats on their iPOD or in their car).

The marketing curve is harder to crack. Most of the money majors spend on albums is not recording or pressing them, it's marketing them.

Maybe I am crazy, but i think this business model NIN and Radiohead are exploring could morph into something way more profitable for bands with limited exposure/resources in the near future. Or maybe i am just blowing this out of my ass cause i need caffeine.

Caffeine = good.

I think there's a lot to be said for net distribution. I just think I'm reading it with a different slant than everyone else is - that Reznor wants it to be played up as a big success, when it would have been a total bomb without all the free press coverage he got. Same with Radiohead, although they were less self-congratulatory about it.

I think 'net distribution will be the ONLY viable model at some point in the not too distant future. However, the problem will become: how the heck do you reach your intended fan base through the noise of 10,000,000 bands doing the same thing?

The best marketing ideas will win.

 

[eaeolian]

Do you think Trent is actually satisfied with the results of this "pay what you want" business model and will do this again, perhaps with the next NIN album? Perhaps for exposure, but certainly not for income. I certainly don't consider it a successful business model when 80%+ of the public chooses to pay $0.00 for your product when you give them the choice.

Again, if those 126,185 people (who paid nothing) had paid just $1.00 for the download, the band would have had $126,185 put directly into their pockets, and not the record label's pockets, but they got $0.00 from those 126,185 people. How do you think Trent feels about that?

I think he feels like it's a viable percentage for him to continue forward in this fashion. Reznor's not an idiot - he knows it will be downloaded regardless. However, he's already got the capital to fund himself going forward, and he now has a rough idea how much he can spend (projecting, of course, that he'll have to pay for some promotion next time out.)

For him, it's a cutting-his-losses move. I can certainly see the advantage of leveraging all of the resources at your disposal - I'd certainly like free press in Billboard just for being me, for example - and in this case the artist get ALL the profits.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

That's certainly a point that can be made. However, do you think Trent considers 20,000 sales enough of a success to outweigh the fact that 126,185+ people paid $0.00 for his and the band's efforts? If those 126,185 people had paid just $1.00 for the download, the band would have had $126,185 put directly into their pockets, and not the record label's pockets, but they got $0.00 from those 126,185 people. How do you think they feel about that?

I doubt they care. I dislike NIN and Trent (as a songwriter that is), but I know that he has been anti-record label and pro free art for a while now. You have to honestly be living in a cave if you are a band that decides to work with him and not expect Trent to do something like this. For years now he's been talking about how he feels the fans are getting screwed by being forced to spend too much on CDs. I highly doubt he'll suddenly drop his very well publicized views because YOU thought this one instance was a failure. Which it wasn't; you're just overly conservative when it comes to the music industry and it shows.

And once again, you fail to grasp the concept that NOBODY knows whether or not those 126,185 people would have bought the album otherwise. You don't know, I don't know. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.

I mean using your logic, how come all 6 billion people on this planet didn't buy this album? How do you think this poor band feels knowing that they could have made billions?!

 

[OdinsCourt]

Well, yes, they did no promotion that they paid for. However, having Trent Reznor attached to it really doesn't make this a valid test, now, does it?

Let's see an unknown, fledgling band do something like this, and then I'll be impressed. Of course, it won't happen. Why?

1.) Trent already had the resources to front the album recording.

2.) Trent is an established "name" who got plenty of promotion the old fashioned way - by getting music journalists to fellate him, er, write about his latest project.

This is *not* a viable model for an artist that isn't already a star. It's the same kind of stunt that Radiohead pulled. Let, say, oh, I dunno, Imagika do this, and see if they sell 30K copies. No chance. Why? Mainly because they don't have the hooks into the existing marketing machine. Billboard's not going to do an article on them.

100% agreed. I saw an article about Trent/Saul over 2 months ago on MSN.com and MSN.NBC.com. Not after digging for it, but as the featured Entertainment article of the day on the front page, and in the top article category for at least a week. Same thing with Radiohead – they made a big deal of both of these things on these Internet news sites and others (I also saw stuff on TV).

Add in the fact that both examples already include mega "rockstars", and no marketing is necessary. Even if Division (for example) got the same treatment from MSN, many people wouldn't check it out since they don't know the band name. And never mind the fact that MSN would never do an article feature like this on an unknown.

So I don’t see how this can work long term and sustain the industry. As soon as the established artists are burnt out or pass away, it will boil down to luck (and hard work) to rise up to the top of all the other unknowns when people are getting your music for free (if they even know about you and decide to get it AT ALL)…

 

[The Fiddler]

I doubt they care.

I do think Trent does care about sales, unless he is lying to us...

"Reznor goes on to state that he is conflicted about the numbers; while he was disheartened that so few chose to pay, he is also excited that more people are hearing Williams' music."

Billboard.com.

 

[The Fiddler]

I think he feels like it's a viable percentage for him to continue forward in this fashion.

I guess we will have to wait until his next project comes out and see what he does. People owning your music for free doesn't pay the bills. I do agree that internet distribution is the way of the future, but I certainly don't see the, "pay only if you want" business model being appealing to many musicians who have a family to feed.

"Reznor goes on to state that he is conflicted about the numbers; while he was disheartened that so few chose to pay, he is also excited that more people are hearing Williams' music."

Billboard.com.

 

[eaeolian]

I guess we will have to wait until his next project comes out and see what he does. People owning your music for free doesn't pay the bills.

No, but a smaller number buying your music with less overhead involved can, if managed correctly.

Oh, and I can read. As I said, Trent's not an idiot.

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

I do think Trent does care about sales, unless he is lying to us...

"Reznor goes on to state that he is conflicted about the numbers; while he was disheartened that so few chose to pay, he is also excited that more people are hearing Williams' music."

Billboard.com.

You know what? I'm just not going to bother anymore. Are you this stubborn and narrow-minded in person as well? It's as if your brain chooses to ignore my entire argument in favor for a few words that you can take out of context to support yours. It's unbelievable.

I said that I don't think the BAND cares, NOT Trent. Being "disheartened" only means that he may have expected the album to sell more than it has. But that doesn't mean he's going to disregard everything that he previously stood for. If he does, he'll lose respect from all his fans.

And once again, all your backpedaling does is prove to me that you are wrong but refuse to admit it. Their personal expectations have nothing to do with the fact that your argument is complete BS. You can't hold that 81% accountable for anything since you do not know the intent of every person that downloaded the album without paying. You may as well hold every human being on the planet accountable for not buying the album either.

You know what the funny thing is though? Your general view seems to be that "illegal" file sharing is wrong and go on and on about how the artist deserves the right to make money, but when the artist tries to do something revolutionary by changing the method by which records are sold in order to provide a legal alternative you bitch about that too. It's people like you that will hold the music industry back and it's quite frankly, sickening.