mancabbage
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 8068
Location: london |
| Saul Williams download sales data - free/paid |
 |
|
Quote:
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 in in more people's 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
http://www.nin.com/ |
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:15 pm |
|
|
breakreep
homophobic yet curious
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6200
Location: Fifth Jerusalem |
It's nice to see that the majority of the people that sensibly chose to support the artist (and thereby increased the chance of future $5 full-quality albums as a direct result of the artist being able to continue making music while simultaneously releasing it so cheaply), chose the most sensible bitrate option. It seems the sensible options are rather consistent with each other.
I'm willing to bet there were a lot of Saul fans that did not pay to acquire the record, which is pretty disappointing. But I kind of expected the NIN fans to not give a shit. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:22 pm |
|
|
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 19715
|
I have a lot to say about this, but first I'd like to thank Trent for being transparent with their results. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:24 pm |
|
|
Stumbleweed
Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 9630
Location: Denver |
Sage Francis wrote:
I have a lot to say about this, but first I'd like to thank Trent for being transparent with their results.
Looking forward to your take on this.
He's right that is sort of disappointing that only 18% actually paid for it, but it's hard to quantify exposure... I guess it'll remain to be seen if touring and the extra support given by these sorts of releases is a big enough piece financially to make this viable for the future. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:29 pm |
|
|
mancabbage
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 8068
Location: london |
I would like to think radiohead would do the same. would be an interesting comparison considering their a household name already. bet my right arm they won't tho. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:32 pm |
|
|
MC Pope
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 2986
Location: Adelaide, Australia |
I downloaded this for free, listened to a few tracks, and thought it was pretty rubbish. I'm never going to listen to it. If I'd liked it, though, I would've paid. 18% doesn't seem that disheartening. What percentage of people end up buying in any 'try before you buy' situation?
Maybe I should pay just to support the experiment, but I feel weird about going 'Your record's kind of shit, but have my five bucks because I like your distribution model' ... |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:39 pm |
|
|
Fladlien
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 776
Location: Iowa |
You're lucky if you get it right the first time, anyway. This is a good test run. Now tweak the model and see if you can't make it work better. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:57 pm |
|
|
knowrites
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 2016
Location: Oz. |
MC Pope wrote:
I downloaded this for free, listened to a few tracks, and thought it was pretty rubbish. I'm never going to listen to it. If I'd liked it, though, I would've paid. 18% doesn't seem that disheartening. What percentage of people end up buying in any 'try before you buy' situation?
Maybe I should pay just to support the experiment, but I feel weird about going 'Your record's kind of shit, but have my five bucks because I like your distribution model' ...
agreed. on all fronts.
this isn't his best work in my opinion, his first album only got half of my attention, as only half of the songs really inspired me.
this one had a lower percentage. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:57 pm |
|
|
Basilisk
Joined: 03 May 2004
Posts: 1765
Location: NH |
gone
Last edited by Basilisk on Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:13 pm |
|
|
tom inhaler
me too!
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 4406
Location: providence |
this is cool to see!
in other news, the cd version of Radiohead's album came out on tuesday.. i bought it at target tonight for $7.98 . cheap!! a very smart move if you ask me. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:20 pm |
|
|
BKGSP
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 2346
|
Basilisk wrote:
I'm sure they could have reduced bandwidth costs significantly if they'd made use of bit-torrent technology. Just a thought, since I'm sure people will be looking for ways to improve this.
I agree with this but from the tone of his blog entry, Trent Reznor seems more down about how many people actually paid for the album than how much money it is costing him...although both are related |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:44 pm |
|
|
R. Kamidees
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 4829
Location: where the wild things are |
tom inhaler wrote:
in other news, the cd version of Radiohead's album came out on tuesday.. i bought it at target tonight for $7.98 . cheap!! a very smart move if you ask me.
I bought a copy of this version as well even though I already bought the discbox. I had $5 Best Buy bucks burning a hole in my wallet, so I really only paid $3 for it, and its nice to have a sacrificial copy to keep in the car. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:49 pm |
|
|
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 19715
|
tom inhaler wrote:
this is cool to see!
in other news, the cd version of Radiohead's album came out on tuesday.. i bought it at target tonight for $7.98 . cheap!! a very smart move if you ask me.
This, in itself, is proof that Radiohead quickly folded. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
|
futuristxen
Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 18328
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt |
It's hard to really read those numbers. I don't know what I'm supposed to compare them to. The only thing there is last years sales, which he's only a few thousand short of it looks like.
I don't think it's as easy as "well only 18 percent actually paid for the album". Like was said above, would like to see the numbers on other try before you buy programs. I'm willing to be that that number is probably in-line with that type of trend. It would have to be.
Anyways the album has gotten positive word of mouth. I haven't really listened to it yet. I listened to some of it on myspace but couldn't get into it that much. I wasn't even really interested in it as a free download. |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:05 pm |
|
|
tom inhaler
me too!
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 4406
Location: providence |
Sage Francis wrote:
tom inhaler wrote:
this is cool to see!
in other news, the cd version of Radiohead's album came out on tuesday.. i bought it at target tonight for $7.98 . cheap!! a very smart move if you ask me.
This, in itself, is proof that Radiohead quickly folded.
quickly folded? |
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:41 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Thu Sep 02, 2010 11:53 pm
|
|
|
|
| |
