Print 22 comment(s) - last by sporr.. on Mar 9 at 7:58 AM

Hyperpower! The Good Soldier sends Ghosts Into the Void

Normally, when Big Name Band X releases Brand New CD Y, it’s not newsworthy anymore to report that said Brand New CD Y can easily be found through the regular pirate channels. New music appears on these networks all the time, and I think that most of us can agree that the presence of new, free music is about half the reason the pirate underground exists in the first place.

What to think, then, when Big Name Band X is really Nine Inch Nails, and Brand New CD Y is really its latest 36-track, 2-CD release, “Ghosts I-IV”? Nothing, right? What if I told you that the first chunk of the CD was uploaded to the BitTorrent scene by the band itself, and not only to the big dogs like The Pirate Bay, but smaller, invite-only fish like and

Now, Nine Inch Nails fans in the loop know this isn’t unexpected. Trent Reznor, the band’s frontman and only official member, spends a good amount of time examining the online music economy; free of the burdens of a record contract, the man’s certainly come up with a few of his own conclusions. Further, he’s demonstrated that he’s not afraid to test ideas or honestly discuss their results: a recent blog post finds Reznor ruminating on the less-than-stellar sales for “The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust,” a record he produced for artist Saul Williams that was subsequently released online for free, with an optional $5 price:

“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...

 “…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….

 “…[If it could be assumed] 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.”

Reznor’s no stranger to experimenting with the internet community: offers complete, high quality multitrack recordings of Nine Inch Nails songs available for remixing, and he has a reputation for leaving USB drives with unreleased music in the bathrooms of his concert venues. The fans love it: one leaked, unreleased track gained so much notoriety that it received over-the-air radio play, with the station in question later receiving a cease-and-desist order from Nine Inch Nails’ label.

Meanwhile, Nine Inch Nails’ remix site eventually blossomed into a full-fledged remix portal that allows fans to show off their work. Further, a few artists actually saw their hard work published: selected interpretations of Nine Inch Nails’ 2007 “Year Zero” album found their way into “Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D,” which received a publishing deal with Interscope Records.

This brings us back to Ghosts, with its “25% free!” campaign and its implicit support of the piracy scene that so many musicians claim to fear. Personally, compared to lessons past, Nine Inch Nails’ approach seems more evolutionary than revolutionary; a version 2.0 of Reznor’s Saul Williams (not to mention Radiohead’s “In Rainbows”) experiment with a bit of psychology thrown in for good measure. If it worked for “Steal This Film II,” can it work for Ghosts?

If early markers are any indication, the answer is yes. The “luxurious” $300 “ultra-deluxe limited edition package” sold out of its 2500-unit allocation within a few days, earning the band $750,000 in revenue from that SKU alone. Personally, I’m curious on how the purchasable downloads are doing, particularly with respect to the packages that offer tangible media – what are their sales like? Are the numbers just as disappointing this time around?

And what about the BitTorrent downloads? “Our website had to go down for maintenance” due to the incredible traffic, says Nine Inch Nails Art Director Rob Sheridan, “[so] we linked directly to our Pirate Bay torrent as a way for people to get the music while we were offline.“

“We use torrents ourselves, and we know that most Nine Inch Nails fans are tech-savvy and familiar with file-sharing, so we want to experiment with ways to use that to our advantage,” added Sheridan, “instead of making the mistake of trying to fight or ignore it, as so many artists and labels do.”

In the end, Nine Inch Nails finds itself in the unique position of both commanding a huge fanbase and being free of labels’ allegedly oppressive influence. Rather than rest on his laurels, Reznor’s chosen to run with his opportunities to see what results, while the rest of the world watches. If Ghosts continues to be the success that it appears to be, I am certain that we’ll see a lot more artists explore Nine Inch Nails’ brand of generosity in the near future.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

One explanation...
By jskirwin on 3/6/2008 11:15:19 AM , Rating: 2
... 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.

I'm not sure the Saul Williams record is a good test - at least to me. I know NIN but I don't know Williams, so I'd have to hear the stuff before I bought it.

The guy still took in $140k. How much would a record deal have netted him?

RE: One explanation...
By SavagePotato on 3/6/2008 11:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that it has anything to do with what people feel it's worth at all.

If you offer something free people are going to take it. The majority are going to pick it up and walk away and not think twice about it. Chances are they think it does have a value, if it didn't they wouldn't be taking it. Getting something for nothing is human nature.

RE: One explanation...
By Tyler 86 on 3/6/2008 12:23:17 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe you are the kind of person to pick up roadkill for the free meal, and sign up for spam for the coupons and free samples... Mister somethin'-for-nothin' man.

RE: One explanation...
By robinthakur on 3/7/2008 9:21:37 AM , Rating: 3
I think that if you look at how much piracy there is of music, its often far more convenient for most people to get it for free with less restriction, before its even released so why WOULDN'T you do that?

RE: One explanation...
By sporr on 3/9/2008 7:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
Most people would. Most people do .

I say well done to Trent and co, they are reacting to the changing world around them in a positive manner, adapting the way they do their business according to the way customers want that business.

Unlike the RIAA/MPAA folk, who have clearly demonstrated there unwillingness to adapt.

RE: One explanation...
By xsilver on 3/6/2008 8:52:59 PM , Rating: 3
It worked for radiohead and they laughed all the way to the bank.
Maybe there is a link with the type of fans involved and how savvy they are. I'm not a NIN fan, but is it safe to assume they are of a younger audience?

It would be really interesting if a group with primarily "older" listeners were given the choice to "pay what they want" or "choose to pay $5 or get it for free" and see what would happen.

Oh and also since it hasnt been mentioned; even if you're giving the album away for free, it can still make you money.
say of every 100 people that got it for free, 1 of them goes to the concert now when they wouldnt have before. Around $30 of a ticket goes to the band (educated guess) so effectivly, each of those 100 people paid $3 for their album based on the very modest conversion number of 1 to 100.

RE: One explanation...
By pauluskc on 3/7/2008 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
your math, I'm guessing, is not very educated.

$30 / 100 people = $0.30 per album.

Coulda made more on I-tunes if they only bought the one track they hear on the radio.

RE: One explanation...
By xsilver on 3/7/2008 6:57:26 PM , Rating: 2
lol - you made me do a double take and think about the funny quote that i think kris K made here.
"my state funded education has failed me - let the lashings commence!"

yes my apologies, for some reason I wrote 1 in 100 when in my mind I was thinking 1 in 30. These numbers would be highly speculative anyways as it would be different for every band as to how many would be tempted to go to the concert if they downloaded the album for free. 1 in 30 though I think is still a plausible number.
Also dont forget about good word of mouth (free publicity) that this kind of action can generate.

RE: One explanation...
By piroroadkill on 3/7/2008 5:37:11 AM , Rating: 2
maybe, but I torrented it (the whole thing in full quality) and paid my $5 as well, without listening to a single track, because I support the concept and pricing model

RE: One explanation...
By R Nilla on 3/6/2008 2:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
I took a chance on the Saul Williams album and enjoyed it (well, I listened to some of it before purchasing). Some similarities to Trent's more recent work, but definitely different than NIN. I would have liked an option for a physical copy, though. I had no problem paying $5 for DRM-free FLAC, but I like to have something physical to show for my purchase.

RE: One explanation...
By Hydrofirex on 3/6/2008 5:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, see I listened to a few tracks and was completely turned off by it. I love the Ziggy Stardust album, and hold no modern artist in higher regard than Trent, but I immediately hated Niggy Tardust.

So, I would like to propose that maybe people just didn't like the album. This is what's difficult about this game is that you can't just take the pricing and distribution and look at it in a vacuum. If we had 2 identical markets which were totally isolated from each other we could then perform experiments on these factors. Albums, even from the same artist, are not always met with the same reception.

I do think Trent has hit the nail on the head with Ghosts though. I would actually argue that he should just cut to the chase and hand it out. Offering the different packages for money that come with physical products in differing amounts is the way to go. If I had the disposable income I would happily pay for the $300.00 kit - and for something I could download off of pirate bay!

Then again, I'd rather Trent had to tour to make money - it might encourage him to do so since he tends to do so far too rarely....


P.S - Ghosts is interesting. Nice work!

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki