Saul Williams Agrees That It's Way Too Early To Be Disheartened

from the it's-an-emo-thing dept

Earlier this month, we wrote about Trent Reznor's disappointment in how his "free download" experiment with Saul Williams had progressed. He wasn't completely disappointed. He was quite happy about how much attention the album had received, but he had hoped that more people would choose to pay for the higher quality downloads. He did an interview with News.com yesterday that got some attention for a throw away line about having ISPs pay a $5/month "music tax" to let people download, but most of the interview reiterated the points he made in his original blog post: he's excited about the attention Williams was getting and how many people were listening to the music, but in the back of his mind he had hoped more people would pay.

What's much more interesting, however, is that News.com has now interviewed Saul Williams, and he appears to be much more pleased with the results, and seems to agree with our view that it's way too early to be disappointed:

"I'm actually extremely optimistic. The only thing that I really have kept in mind is that, one, we're two months into a project.... I think it's early in the game. I'm not disappointed at all."

He also notes that, since the music business is all about touring these days, anyway, the direct money from sales is less important:

"the lifespan from my last album, from touring, which is really how I made my income and everything, lasted for two years."

As for Reznor's disheartened response, Williams chalks it up to two factors. First, it's just Reznor's nature:

"I don't think Trent is as truly disappointed as he sounds in that blog. You got to think of him this way...listen to his music (he laughs). In my opinion, oh, he might not like this, but I think he's the king of emo."

Secondly, given the amount of time he's spent in the traditional recording industry, it's hardwired into his brain:

"I think Trent's disappointment probably stems from being in the music business for over 20 years and remembering a time that was very different, when sales reflected something different, when there was no such thing as downloads.... Trent comes from that world. So I think his disappointed stems from being heavily invested in the past. For modern times, for modern numbers we're looking great, especially for being just two months into a project."

It's nice to see Williams recognize that this is a long-term experiment and the early results are more encouraging than disheartening.

Filed Under: business models, free, saul williams, trent reznor

Dear Trent Reznor: Don't Be Disheartened Yet

from the it-ain't-over-yet dept

Back in October, we had mentioned that Trent Reznor was producing an album by Saul Williams and had decided to mimic the Radiohead name your own price model for downloads. At the time, I was a little worried that musicians would simply mimic Radiohead's first part of the promotion (the name your own price part) without recognizing two important things: (1) the "name your own price" part was just one part of a larger strategy to get publicity for a variety of things that would earn money and that (2) whether or not anyone pays a dime for the album is meaningless in that larger context. We've already seen a few people make that mistake, and it's rather "disheartening" to see that Trent Reznor is making that mistake himself (in part...).

For reasons that are not at all clear, Reznor's site is a blog that has no history. There's no way to link to a specific post and once a new post goes up the current one will disappear. However, as pointed out via Digg, the current front page of Reznor's site has some stats about how the "name your own price" experiment went: "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." Reznor then says: "I'm not sure what I was expecting but that percentage - primarily from fans - seems disheartening."

Chris Anderson has already challenged Reznor's math, by pointing out that by avoiding a record label, they still probably made more money this way, but even that is missing the larger point. You don't do a "name your own price" offering to make money directly off the downloads. Any money you actually make is a bonus. You do it to get publicity and to add value to other things that you're selling, creating a larger market for them. Reznor seems to admit to that part at the end, stating: "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." When you begin to focus on that larger picture, how much is made directly from sales, and what percentage pays vs. what percentage "freeloads" is meaningless. It will be more interesting to see the eventual results going forward.

Of course -- there is one more thing that should be mentioned when discussing all of this. None of these business models work if no one actually likes the music. This isn't a comment on Saul Williams' music (which I have not heard), but if you can't make music that people like, no business model is going to be effective. And, especially in the case of a new act that people have not heard of, they may be even more reluctant to pay upfront for the music, because they're unsure how much they actually like the musician, especially if the music itself is an acquired taste. It's yet another case where obscurity should be a much bigger worry than "piracy" or "freeloaders." Every one of those "freeloaders" or "pirates" is not just a potential future buyer, but a potential marketer, promoter or sales person for future endeavors by that artist. To understand the business models in the future of music, you need to take a long-term view. So, don't be disheartened, Trent. Focus on that final thought and look to the future.

Filed Under: free models, saul williams, trent reznor

Trent Reznor Explains Why OiNK Was Cool

from the filling-a-void dept

Trent Reznor has certainly been doing some interesting things lately in trying to embrace file sharing and free music in a way that still makes business sense. It sounds like he's open to plenty of new ideas as well. A few people wrote in last week when it was announced that in collaborating with musician Saul Williams, the two decided to follow Radiohead's path and offer a new album with a "name your own price" system. They admitted that they had been toying with the idea, but once Radiohead did it, they figured why not do the same thing (how long until someone who is confused about how this all works accuses them of "stealing" the idea?).

However, what's much more interesting is that in a NY Mag interview with Reznor and Williams, Reznor admits that he was an active member of OiNK, the file sharing site that was recently shut down, and then gives an eloquent explanation for why OiNK exists and why iTunes sucks. It's not about "stealing," even though Reznor does refer to it as stealing. It's about people who love music:

"I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that's what's such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they're grateful for the person that uploaded it -- they're the hero. They're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band. I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want."

Filed Under: radiohead, saul williams, trent reznor