From nin.com :

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


Still a great record and still available!

Prost!

Saul Williams got 141,610 dollars. Now how much were the studio/bandwidtch/musicane fees?

Still a bit low...

If all of the people that downloaded the album payed, there would have been 772,245 dollars. I think that's more than huge label would profit from a platinum release.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong!

Only 18.3 percent? I knew that was going to happen.

I give Mr. Reznor much respect for this attempt.
If I had the bank and starpower, I'd give it a shot, too.
People seem to, by nature, I'm guessing, take things without much thought about why it's given nor whom is giving. Even if there is an alternative to trade something absolutely reasonable for it.

If nothing else, it's a moral document of music consumers.


Prost!

nayroo2002 said:

...You don't think you're being a little dramatic here, man?

Look, that's just human nature, to some extent. If you offer something to people with the choice to either pay for it or get it free, they're going to choose not to pay for it (I didn't pay for it either).

That whole NIN blog post just reads as one long attempt to lay a guilt trip on fans for not paying for it - "is it good news that less than one in five feel it was worth $5?" C'mon, now - how many people actually paid for it isn't any indication of how good the music is. If he wants to know that, he should put up a poll someplace or something - "What did you think of Niggy Tardust?"

Not only that, musicians make the bulk of their profits via touring, anyway.

And Trent has downloaded music for free (that he could've paid for) himself.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't a "shit on Reznor" post, more like, "Stop bitching, man."

I don't think GreenLeaves is being dramatic at all. In fact, for you to say that it's human nature for people to want to choose not to pay for it, that's like telling an interracial couple, "if you have a mixed-race baby, it's human nature for people to want to discriminate against the child." Saying something is a fact or human nature not an excuse to keep perpetuating human nature.

GreenLeaves said:

Oh, and by the way, I paid for the album, because the last time I checked, a kind word doesn't pay the bills or cover costs.

TANKAEFC said:

Furthermore, I think there's no harm in asking people to take the high road.

TANKAEFC said:

You do realize how silly it is to compare discrimination and racism to something as relatively trivial as illegal music downloading, right?

At any rate -


Okay - can you point me to the exact point in my post where I said it was okay to steal music? I never said that. It isn't okay, but it is what it is. I steal music, plenty of other people steal music. Shit, Trent steals music (if you don't believe me, I would link you to the interview where he mentions having frequented the Oink site, but I'm just to lazy to Google it right now). This is something that is going to continue no matter what. I think offering the music at an official site for pay or for free was an interesting experiment and everything, but I knew it was going to turn out the way it did.

And Yeah, you're right - kind words don't cover costs. But TOURING does, and that's where artists usually make the bulk of their money, ANYway.

At this point Trent's contradicting himself, too - didn't he do some interview recently (primarily about the whole Year Zero thing) where he brings up downloading, mentions that there are other routes to make money ("maybe you'll buy a t-shirt" at the concerts, or some shit like that), and says that he's just glad the music gets out and that people hear it, and WANT to hear it? He also said that he's had a long run, and is doing well.

So you or anyone else implying that by downloading NIN music for free, I'm helping put Reznor in the poor house, is either out and out lying, or misinformed.

GreenLeaves said:

Yes.
It's evident how much you knew that was going happen by your
"why should anyone pay?" preachings upon this release.

http://prince.org/msg/8/2...sg_5161324

GreenLeaves said:

Are you a musician?

nayroo2002 said:

When I said "to pay or not to pay", I was talking about myself. My posts weren't intended as an attempt to talk anyone else into not paying. I actually specified as much, in that particular thread, more than once.

nayroo2002 said:

No, I'm not.

I was making the comparison to point out that there is a deeper issue at work in things like racial discrimination and music downloading - namely of status quo. You'd be surprised how many different things, more and less importantly, all come down to that principle.

GreenLeaves said:

TANKAEFC said:

I honestly don't see where "status quo" or "groupthink" come into this, at all. At the end of the day, this shit is common sense, basically. You offer people the option to get something for free, and they will take it - Reznor too, I suspect.

At the end of the day, this free-downloading, musical piracy shit isn't going to put him in the poor house. More than likely, he just wants to buy a private jet or some shit like that and now he'll have to wait a bit, so he's whining.

Don't get me wrong, he's one of my favorite musicians, but he needs to stop bitching and "man up" about this.

Yeah. He wants a jet. You got it.

Once an asshole, always an asshole. Maybe you should "man up" and quit questioning someone else's intentions. All he was doing was giving the results to the experiment. Show me whining. He isn't even whining about music piracy.

As quoted in this thread... "Trent steals music". Yes, he does. So do I. So do you. The difference, though, is that he and I don't feel the need to make excuses and justify it. I still buy music too- usually, stuff I downloaded already. In regards to your "Trent would take something without paying for it too", Trent was the one who paid $80,000 for "In Rainbows". Which was offered free.

Oh, and for the record, I have read your threads. This is a "Shit on Reznor" post. Call me a fanboy, but your record speaks for itself.
[Edited 1/5/08 19:31pm]

SleezyG said:

I'll question his (or anyone else's) intentions if I damned well please (after all, you felt free to question mine, didn't you?). You know, you can be a fan without being a blind syncophant - there's whining throughout that blog entry, right down to bitching about how it wasn't cheap to produce Niggy Tardust, and how the funds came out of his own pocket.

Again, did you read the thread properly - that was your problem in the last NIN thread, too. Nowhere did I say downloading is okay, and frankly, I'm not going to pay any attention to a bullshit lecture from someone who ALSO steals music, about stealing music... from a musician who ALSO steals music. Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit. How much he spent on the last Radiohead release is irrelevent, the point is that Reznor himself has stolen music - PERIOD. And again, so do you. So any rants you issue are absolutely worthless and hypocritical.

I've never started any threads, but I have posted IN threads - although, how that would connect to your (incorrect) opinion that I'm shitting on Trent, I just don't see.

At the end of the day, when your post is boiled down, all you're trying to do is rationalize and justify your hero's occasionally less than stellar choices and shit on me for making the same choices. Do you see how irrational you're being?


...Probably not.

And, you're right. I AM an asshole.

Is this really what to expect in the long term though? Part of me feels like there's a certain percentage of those people who simply opted to download it for free just because they can. Considering all the confusion and lawsuits over downloading music online, it's a bit surprising to see some acts finally giving stuff away for free. Maybe people just wanted to test it out and see if they were for real.

I'm kind of thinking that once the dust settles on all of this, people will start feeling more of a responsibility to support artists they like, and those numbers will change.

The other part of it is those of us who had no idea who Saul Williams was, and simply downloaded it to check him out. Are all of these people expected to buy it too? Not all NIN fans are going to be Saul Williams fans as well, but at least he got some people to check out his stuff.