Despite Being Leaked Three Months Earlier, Shins Album Sets Sales Record
from the does-not-compute dept
Plenty of content businesses like to point the finger at piracy when their sales don't meet expectations, but very rarely do they own up to the idea that file sharing can help their businesses. The latest case in point is indie band The Shins, whose latest album was released towards the end of January, and sold 118,000 copies in its first week, which put it second on the Billboard chart. The album's release even created enough fanfare to revive the midnight record-store opening, which had fallen out of favor with indie retailers, since file-sharing and online sales meant people no longer needed to be in a store at midnight to get the earliest access to new music. What makes these points notable is that The Shins' album has been widely available on file-sharing networks -- since October. The way the record labels tell it, you'd have imagined everybody that wanted the record would have downloaded it by now. But it would appear something else happened, something terrible enough to help the band shift more records in a single week than ever before.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FIRST, if I have not spent too long actually writing a comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. Get Music 2.? 3. Profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
did price have anything to do with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: did price have anything to do with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The leak coulda helped in the form of a lot of people got it.. liked it.. told their friends about it who probably werent into torrents or p2p and bought it. I guess like underground exposure.
As far as who all knew about the leak of it... I mean first of all its limited to people who regularly use p2p programs and then limit that to people who know about the shins.
But anyways good for them. I listen to the Shins and cant get enough of "Phantom Limb".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think this report goes to show that there are alot of people like me out there. If it's good you'll pay for it. If it's kfed you'll consider paying not to hear it. But this shouldn't be news to people with MBA's. How the RIAA gets so bound up in it's own BS proves my assertion that if you go to colledge stupid all you come out being is pompous and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA can [censor]
And with this demographic, they support the artist.
I could be totally wrong, it's just a guess. I'm just throwing it out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA can [censor]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RIAA can [censor]
that would be my guess as well, but for (what i assume is) a different reason: the demographic that likes music for some hot, half-naked girlie, is most likely served this very slickly packaged thing by a large record company, because hot half-naked girlies are industry bread & butter.
all i'm saying is having a taste for T&A pop doesn't make you less likely to support artists, it just means you are less likely to be given the opportunity to do so.
i like to think if everyone were offered this choice, that the outcome would be sufficient to support the music, without screwing the music buyers or the music makers, as is the business model now (screw everyone). but then i've always been one o' them crazy dreamers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use CD's and AIFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use CD's and AIFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not clear on this.
The way I'm reading you and Mikester is that downloads/file-sharing should be free and legal and that record companies will still make plenty of money. Is that a fair restatement?
I don't know if this has ever had a real-life test because file sharing is fairly controversial and not so widely used (not with you but among the general public). Again, if the record companies were to offer high bit rate MP3's as free downloads you guys believe that will not canibilize sales - right? Or are you saying that only crappy low bit rate MP3's (or whatever format) will not canibilize sales?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not clear on this.
he standard RIAA line is that file-sharing is bad for business. Despite the fact that the album was available on file-sharing networks, the album sold 118,000 copies in its first week. Despite the availability of 'free' music, iTunes generates a nice revenue stream for Apple. Despite file-sharing, people are still buying CDs or download music from pay services. On and on it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
I never ever stated that record companies should tell people to "copy all our stuff". I am saying that record companies should FOCUS on adding value to their content.
As to cannibalizing sales, well, all I can say is that iTunes somehow manages to compete very well with free music. And here we have an example of band landing at #2 on Billboard DESPITE their album being available on file-sharing networks since October.
Let's look at this from another perspective. Despite the lawsuits, despite DRM and copy protection, despite extending the length of copyright and despite attempts to criminalize civil matters, music continues to be shared on P2P networks. All those actions taken by the RIAA have had little impact on file-sharing. Rather than fight file-sharing they should embrace it as a form marketing.
The problem is that the bean counters at the record companies see every illegal download as lost revenue, when in reality, that illegal download represents, at most, a potential lost opportunity. The RIAA seems to believe that those illegal downloads can be converted into sales. Given that most people have a finite amount of cash, that is impossible without having a negative impact on some other sector of the economy.
By "adding value", I'm not referring simply to lyrics and pictures. It could be one-time codes used to download bonus material like unreleased material, behind-the-scene videos, discounts off merchandise, etc. It could be a multitude of things. Heck it could even be promoting the not-so-mainstream. Different strokes for different folks.
The record companies fear the internet because for them to succeed they have to loosen their control over their content. They view that loss of control as loss of revenue and loss of profit. That is so 'old-school' ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
The threat of lawsuit and jailtime/fines would be enough to keep most people from committing an illegal act anyway. It won't stop the diehards, no matter how strong your laws are enforced or how many people you sue. But they can still litigate on cases in which they have irrefutable proof that the offender is guilty and even better to go with those who are file sharing for a profit. Going with cases such as these can still keep them in the news to let Joe Public know that there's a chance they can get caught if he does bad bad things but the industry and our laws wouldn't have to suffer with changes that amount to nothing except headaches and abuse of fair use.
If they can't stop file sharing via lawsuits and DRM then they can at least appeal to people's good sense and morales to support the music they love at prices that are fair. The labels will still make a profit. People really do want to buy and support their favorite artists. The labels should forget about dreams of making 800% more profit if file sharing didn't exist. They might as well dream that their competitors would all disappear next week and the one left standing would reap in 5000% more in profits. Not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
How hard would it be to include a small "thank you" inside a CD or DVD? Instead one of the first things you see when you play a DVD is the Interpol and FBI warnings about copyright. Wait a minute, I just bought a DVD and I'm being treated like a criminal. Meanwhile, the real 'criminals' are removing the warnings and selling the DVDs at the local market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not clear on this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pay for Good music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt for dummies
When P2P's start widely using FLAC lossless compression and sharing sites organize data better and begin approaching i-tunes quality (because the riaa and mpaa will stop going after them and they will be free to ramp up their services) why would you continue to purchase music? I don't believe the added value offerings would be enough for anyone but diehard fans to be motivated to purchase music.
I think PT said it well that the threat of lawsuits keeps most people from downloading on P2P. That's what I mean that this is not a real market situation. The Techdirt people keep saying that companies are competing against "free" but when you look at the threat of a lawsuit there is a cost. Some, like Vincent, may not see that cost but I think the RIAA has such done a good job of suing little old ladies that the average joe is very aware of the potential cost. I'm not supporting that but I think the RIAA is crazy like a fox. They have gotten quite a bit of publicity with these crazy lawsuits. They have to maintain a certain amount of control over their markets or everything would quickly spin out of control for them. And that means maintaining the lawsuits, DRM, copy protection etc.
I just don't believe it's realistic to think the RIAA would back off and let people download music freely. The line has to be drawn somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt for dummies
Why? Despite all their efforts, the RIAA has had no impact on file-sharing. How many P2P networks have come online since Napster? And don't forget that during the Napster era, music sales increased. People were exposed to music that they have never heard of. The biggest change was that the consumer was in charge, not the record company.
I don't believe the added value offerings would be enough for anyone but diehard fans to be motivated to purchase music.
Plenty of people have readily available drinking water in the form of tap water, yet the bottled water industry makes a lot of money. Look, I'm not saying that added value offerings are the saviour of the music industry, but they should at least try. It may work. It may not. Locking down content and suing customers is not working. Maybe, just maybe, it is time to focus on marketing music?
They have to maintain a certain amount of control over their markets or everything would quickly spin out of control for them.
Sorry, but that is downright false, and in all honestly, so what? The movie studios said the same thing about the VCR. Who would buy movies when they can just copy them? Yet, sales of movies on VHS created a new revenue stream for the movie companies, changing the face of entertainment.
You keep saying that you want to understand, but you seem to be set in your ways. You can't see how for-pay services can compete with free. You can't see the RIAA relinquishing control. You can't see the benefit of adding value to content. I'm not sure what else I could say to make you understand or least consider alternative points-of-view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal downloading, much like cheap TDK cassettes, should be ignored by the industry. It is not hurting business. Putting out crap artist? That hurts business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think in the next decade you will see more and more music getting away from music labels, because of their controling nature and bad reputation, and move more towards having their own label and production.
Movies will enventually follow as big name directors start doing their financing through financial firms, like George Lucas did. He only used Fox for marketing and distribution. That these days can be done with any company that can do that.
The sooner the MAFIAA dies, the sooner the public gets better quality products, the profit goes to those who deserve it, and the sooner the public gets their rights back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt for dummies
Would you publicly state that you would not sue anyone for file sharing? That FLAC lossless compression downloads are ok? No line need to be drawn?
How long before an i-Tunes copy comes up that makes money from advertising, gives free FLAC downloads, gives no money to artists and cuts the record companies out completely? Which site would you download from i-Tunes or the free i-Tunes copy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple and DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Q.E.D.
For permalinks to this and other threads by Bill along with a recap of how the stories "got it wrong" go to thewisdomofBill.com.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]