Eric Ingrum's Project Blog

In response to this: Reznor Finds NiggyTardust Sales “Disheartening”

Earlier today, Trent Reznor announced the stats for the latest Saul Williams album, “The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust.” While I don’t actually expect either of them will ever read this, I disagreed with a few of the implied conclusions of the report and want to give my take on the whole thing.

Before I even start, I want to dedicate the next paragraph or so to my background and current position on the digital issue. I’m 21. I’m on the edge of the generation gap between those who bought CDs and those who may never even own one. Many of my older friends dislike DRM but purchase music on the internet anyways. My younger friends think paying for music is unheard of, and many of them have never paid for a song in their life.

As I’ve written here before, I’m personally of the opinion that the latter is the future. I think music should primarily be free, and treated as a loss leader for other merchandise. Each newer generation purchases less and less music. I believe not only that this trend will continue until no one pays for music, but also that this can be embraced as a positive marketing strategy.

Having said that, I downloaded NiggyTardust for free hours after it went online and recently downloaded it again for $5. It’s been one of my most listened to albums over the past few months, and I think the “free or $5” strategy is one of the best marketing ideas in the last decade of music.

Alright, so onto the numbers.

I think we have to look at this from a sales standpoint before we talk about artistic merit, so let’s get that out of the way. The big number from the report is 18.3%. That’s the one that makes everyone disappointed. 134,449 people downloaded the record, and only 28,322 payed the $5 for it. 18.3% paid for it, and an overwhelming 81.7% “stole” it. Radiohead’s third party evaluation (although latter claimed to be fraudulent) also reported disappointing sales in comparison to downloads. The old media dinosaurs jumped all over this, pointing at how the model won’t work. I think everyone’s looking at the wrong sets of numbers here.

Let’s ignore the number of downloads for a second and just focus on what sold. Saul’s last record sold 33,897 copies. NiggyTardust “sold” 28,322 copies – that is, 28,322 people payed a sweet price point of $5 for it. To say the last record sold more copies is still a stretch – Niggy Tardust has only been out for two months. Compounded with the fact there was virtually no marketing for album, I think this number is overwhelmingly positive. The album is relying on word of mouth to prosper, and in time I think that will snowball. I’m still meeting Saul Williams fans who haven’t had a chance to check out the album yet. Being a fan of music is a passive and lazy task. Some people leap on it right away, but others take months or longer to get around to listen to something new. Two months is not nearly enough time to judge these numbers.

The numbers also compare the digital sales to CD sales in an environment where CDs actually sold. Had Saul released his last CD in today’s climate, he simply wouldn’t have sold 33,897 copies. I won’t dwell on this point because it’s fairly self evident, but please keep this in mind.

I think the problem with the 18.3% statistic is that it’s a backhanded evaluation of fan morality. This idea hit me when Radiohead’s (again, probably fake) stats came out. Mainstream media headlines had a field day with that. They love to call people thieves. Everyone “stole” the album, no one paid for it. “Radiohead fans universally cheap” was the headline I saw over and over. I cite this not because those stories or statistics had any real meaning, but just to prove my point – they make the argument about morality. They point out how you have to extract money from fans by force because they’ll never pay otherwise. This is really my key point here . . . this just isn’t the right way to look at it. They’re still thinking about album sales in the old model. The next phase is a whole new beast.

So back to the numbers. 106,127 people did NOT pay for the record. Let’s try to understand who these people are. Rather than looking at these people as freeloaders, I think we should compare them to radio listeners. They’re comparable, at least in part, to people who went to their local record store and listened to the album in headphones before buying it. Some of these people are the trial users. I’m one of them! I’d never heard of Saul Williams – in fact, someone had even burned me an unlabeled Saul Williams CD that sat unloved on my shelf for years. I thought I would give NiggyTardust a listen, and I’d keep it if I liked it. At first I wasn’t really into it, but after a few listens I really started to enjoy it. Despite my beliefs on marketing, I even gave five dollars – just to show my support for what I think is an excellent transitional model.

But as far as the report goes, my paying $5 doesn’t go 100% into the statistic. I downloaded the album for free, and then I downloaded it again and paid. If I was the only person in that pool of numbers, the statistics would say only a lousy half of the people who downloaded the album paid for it! This isn’t the case – I downloaded to sample it, and then I paid to keep it. How many others are there like me? How much are these numbers skewed because of it? When you think about it like that, you might start to wonder . . . why would anyone pay for their first download when they could get a free sample first? While I don’t think this is the case for all the paid downloads, I think it’s a safe assumption for a large portion of them.

My point here is that releasing the album online did not cause 106,127 people to not purchase it – it actually did the opposite. It led tens of thousands of people who never would have heard this album to download it IN ITS ENTIRETY. That’s a pretty big deal, especially on an artistic level. If this had been done via radio, a single, or streaming it would have most likely resulted in people only listening to a few tracks. The fact that people now had the entire album on their computers gave them a bigger reason to really hear it first. Even if they didn’t like it, they’ve heard it. Judging by a lot of statements made on his self titled record, that seems like something Saul would really love. While I know the latest hip-hop mainstream froth track, I have no idea what the other tracks on those albums sound like. I knew NiggyTardust from day one, whether or not I wanted to keep it after that.

There’s some other artistically satisfying points, too.

My biggest reason for promoting music as a loss leader has always been complete label freedom. No one owns my rights. I can put the album online for free. I can encourage people to download it, guilt free. I can let people remix it, and do whatever they want with those remixes. I can give people the rights to put it in their YouTube video, their podcast, their radio show, their film, or even sample it on their own album. NO FAN GETS SUED. People know they can burn or share with their friends, for free. These aren’t just generally cool things to let your fans do, but they also help promote your album. Free promotion. No third party, no marketing, no label. Just fans talking about music.

Trent Reznor himself is a constant victim of these issues. He wants to put out a DVD, but it get shelved by his bullshit label. He wants to put up a remix site, but his label is afraid of pending legal pressures. He seems to have trouble every time he has some kind of innovative idea. The only reason I don’t think his label complained about his viral campaign is because they were afraid and annoyed by him.

Alright, that was long as fuck, so let’s review. The numbers seem to suggest NiggyTardust is doing just fine financially. I know they had really high hopes for the record, but that’s going to take some time. I still think Saul Williams has potential to become a household name. It is, after all, an amazing record.

Those people who didn’t download the album? They’re not freeloaders. They’re far more complicated than that. Some of them are trial users. Some tried it and didn’t like, and some tried it first and later bought it. Some of them downloaded it and will never give you cent, but you should love those people most of all. They’re the future. They will come to your concerts and buy your tshirts. These kids will make you.

Free music lends itself so well to the new model. Let people pay for your music if you’d like, but don’t be so discouraged when it’s not the main source of your profits. Take chances. Do things without bloated, outdated labels. This old model has too many hands in the pot. This causes all sorts of nightmares when you have a new creative endeavor, and further stifles that creativity. New innovations are the most exciting part of music! We can get to them so much faster if move forward, and this is a bold step in the right direction.

Best,
Eric Ingrum