Comments on: Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5?

In an exclusive interview, the Nine Inch Nails front man said his realization that fans think "music should be looked at as free" was a bitter pill to gulp down.

[scurrlin1]

5$

Trent. Consider the content, not the price, as the true reason it didn't sell as well as you thought. Who the hell is Saul Williams????? There's your problem right there!

[Coco.Rivera]

Concerts!!

You are an artist...perform! You must grab fans by your performance. Give them a show.
Right now, anyone with GarageBand or a similar program can make music and can record a song.

But if you are a performer, and you can wow that audience with your lyrics, delivery, show style -then you will make money.

People want to be entertained. A downloaded song should be viewed as both your 'commercial' and a 'souvenir'. Sorry - i know that's harsh to hear - but in the 21st century that is what it's shaping up to be.

Go put on a live performance. And please don't compare music to meal from McDonald's. Eating directly satisfies one of a person's basic needs for survival. Listening to a song does not.

[Coco.Rivera]

P.S. ....

I understand the need and intense desire to make money from a product that you've created. I am an artist myself.
But think of why you made that piece of art in the first place. Hopefully, because you had something to say - something to share with the world - not because you wanted to just make money. Adjust to the new way of the market, Get out there and do what you love - Then you will build a market of fans who want to have a piece of you in thier home, iPod, Mp3, PSP, Car etc. And will pay to have that.

A general tax - I don't think so.

[The_Decider]

pre-With Teeth

Almost everything Trent did was very artistic. From albums, videos(although some were more then disturbing-Sin, Happiness in Slavery), to amazing live shows.

These days he isn't that far removed from every other crappy performer, but he was arguably the best performer of the 90's.

[Papa Chango]

taxing as a solution?

Reznor wants to tax ISPs to give to the artists?
There are at least a dozen things wrong with that to make this totally unworkable.
Besides, they tax CD's, flash memory, iPods (I believe), hard drives in Canada and I have yet to meet anyone in the indie music industry who has ever seen a penny of this money.

Im sure the record labels that give under a dollar per cd (in a market where 100,000 sold is a gold album) to their artist get their cut. They always do.

[Papa Chango]

Why should the ISP do it?

The problem with a per-song tax is that the ISPs must add functionality to track song downloads, identify the song and the user downloading it, and then add the tax to the user's bill. They won't like having to do that.

Why should they?
They end up playing the **AA game for them and you KNOW that just like in the drug war, steroids and doping, jsut like with technology, its always a cat and mouse game with newer technologies being used.
Encryption used to cloak torrent traffic like RC4 is yesterday's news yet still very effective (in the last year inthe UK, its use has gone up from four to 40%) Content filtering software like Audible Magic cant see inside encrypted packets.

What happen when the Pirate Bay comes out with their new new file sharing protocol?

Or when someone comes up with the P2P killer app that will mimic existing protocols that network managers can?t afford to throttle, block, RST attack, prioritize, QoS manage, or otherwise non-neutrally handle. If P2P traffic is indistinguishable from HTTPS/SSH traffic, what are they gonna do?

Why should the ISP deal with this nightmare?
I used to work at one and let me tell you the profit margins are minuscule for small and medium ISPs.

I also know that catching 6 steroid users every olympic out of 12-15,000 athletes is a clear indication that the athletes are always a step.
Just like the torrenters will be in this battle.

I dont see why ISP's would want to get involved in this battle which can only bring them the wrath of their clients, bad press, higher infrastructure costs, staff for more cat and mous games, etc.

Making my living from music, I can relate to what Reznor is saying even more than he can (I make a hell of a lot less than I do) but this is a poorly thought out plan by placing everything on the ISP level.
If people are willing to pay $15 a month for Sirius (where they still dont get the songs THEY want), I have to believe that people would be willing to have a buffet style subscription for 20-25$ a month where they could choose to listen to any song they want in a catalogue.
Hmmm, I want to hear Manu Chao's Rainin in Paradize now. Boom! You got it!
A la carte radio is every music lover's dream.

[ckani]

Ditch the labels-get sponsorship like athletes etc.

Why can't music be done like athletics, Nascar etc and be sponsored by say Pepsi or Ibanez (guitar manuf.). Maybe a combination of them (Ibanez Print Ads). Pepsi for the tour/album?

[ckani]

Agree There

I agree there. I don't listen to any new US artists anymore. My listening tastes have drifted to Britain, Norway, Sweden, Finland etc.

[powerclam]

Good music = good sales...

I gladly pay $1 per track (mp3, no drm).
However, I have pretty much no interest in stuff like what Reznor puts out.
I just dropped more than his lamented $5 on old Tubeway Army.
I've never hear any NIN that I would download for free.
When I listen to the radio (rarely these days) I almost never hear anything of merit.
These days I have to to Germany, Japan, or the past to find any music I find interesting.
I think the last domestic group I found really engaging was Govt Mule.
Britney? Fake-a## vomit-metal? Gangstas and they ho's? No thanks.
Make real music and the audience will come back. And they WILL buy.

[bipple]

simply put if he didn't offer the 192 free

If there wasn't a formally available free version of a suitable format liek 192 mp3 which is essentially PROMOTION, the rest is up to the fan to buy the CD, not download AGAIN. though i'm sure that will become a normal thing in the future for now, one download of this nature is expected however...if it was exactly like radiohead, pay what you want, people would have payed more. Nuff said, live and learn, and maybe come up with an alias and do some weirder ****.

[jbozzo2003]

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are not the same thing!!!

did reznor ever beleive that maybe the album really wasnt that good. and secondly, they give themselves too much credit to even think they are on the same level as radiohead. I am a fan of both bands and listen to both but would never waist my money on nine inch nails cd. radiohead is up there with oasis, u2, coldplay, rolling stones etc etc. only a bands like that can pull something like this off.

[hohloma]

You 're mistaken my friend...

This article wasn't about NIN but the album he produced for Saul Williams and his mix emotions about making public the outcome of it.If you take another look at the article you will find he even states that by any means did he though that Saul was at the same level of Radiohead (in terms of popularity).Trent just want it to try something new and voice his results to the public. I'm positive that if this had been an NIN cd his results would have been completely different because in my opinion NIN is at the same level of popularity as Radiohead.

[internetexplorer]

What's the originial headline (big secret?)

If the reference in the upper right of this page as I write this comment is correct, the original headline for this story was "Trent Reznor favors an ISP 'tax on music'. And I guess my curiosity is assuaged to a certain extent by that, but now I am wondering if there was something else going on behind the scenes to cause the headline to be changed, without in the article stating what the original one was-which is certainly a newsworthy piece of information. Fortunately, I found this apparent original headline without knowing where to look for it, otherwise I would be more likely to believe there must be some secret hiding here. When the journalist (or headline writer) becomes an issue in the story, then that must be covered thoroughly or their integrity will be questioned. Therefore, their failure to include all relevant facts in this report offsets the journalist good in the rest of this article, to their detriment.

[Rswain136]

isp tax

I can imagine that the music industry would like every one to pay $5.00 on their bill, regardless of whether they download music or not. Nice work if you can get it.

[powerclam]

NFL's trying the same thing

NFLwants to get TimeWarner to add $5 to everyone's bill, regardless of who watches.
What happened to PayPerView?
Greedy S.O.B.s

[random753]

business and art

People are at best lazy and will not bother entering credit card data if they do not have to. If you want to be in business you should admit that you expect to be paid and require people to pay before they get the download or most will not bother even if they are willing to pay the asking price.

The internet may become a popular marketplace for artists but it will still be subject to the same forces that every local shopping mall faces. If every artist has a different web site there will be a disadvantage because people will not see you unless they go search for you and most will not search.

Web sites that have a large number of artists and can handle payments would be a bare minimum. Once you start adding any interesting content to attract customers it starts to seem a lot like a record label. Selling music online isn't any different than selling other products and its a lot easier to fail in business than it is to do well.

[inachu]

If Pretty Hate Machine was sold for $5

Back in the 1990's when Pretty Hate Machine came out I would have bought only the one song(head like a hole) for $5

the other songgs on that CD was nonsense drivel as if on drugs.
Only If More of the songs were more techie sounding and not sounding borish overly hyped up fiction of some dude having girl problems.

Please keep it sharp hard and loud.
When listening to NIN it reminds me of Chemlab.

Please keep it like that.

[The_Decider]

What you are saying is

You let some arbitrary list define your music tastes.

PHM is, from beginning to end an outstanding album. Head like a hole is a good song, but not even close to the best on PHM.

"More techie sounding"? That song was the most standard song on the album. Are you sure you have listened to it?

[Sentinel]

Here's a thought - Don't give it for free!

If you want profit, you shouldn't distribute your album for free, unless you work for the love of the art. Offering a "higer quality" version is simply not appealing enough. Take the new disc formats, HD-DVD and Bluray. None of them appeal to me, because frankly, I need something other than "high definition" to impress me (and I think it's the same for many people). How about offering extra tracks not included in the free version? That, at least has some more appeal. Because, unless the free version is full background static, I don't see many people emptying their wallets paying the $5.

Still, it is discouraging. The truth of the matter is, that if people can get something for free, they will. Not a very promising future for the independent music industry.

[rexhandle]

No Music Preview!

Under this model, the potential purchaser runs the risk of ending
up with crap without some sort of preview. Then you just blew $5.
Being an avid Reznor fan, I downloaded the free album with the
rule to buy it if I like it. Although musically well done and
challenging, I really hated this album. With a preview of the music,
I wouldn't have wasted the bandwidth. The album is no longer on
my hard drive.

[trifster]

I downloaded it for free...

And I didn't think it was anything good. I had it on my iPhone for a flight and put it in my unrated smart playlist. I went through and rated most of the songs a 1 or 2 star. Then deleted them back on the desktop as is the fate of 1 or 2 star songs. Sorry Trent, release better music?

[giantsteps]

he's kidding, right?

Typical major label mindset... Indies have been using the Internet to promote and sell our music for about a dozen years now. Radiohead and Mr. Reznor are just now figuring out things that we've known for quite a while already...

[saddend]

actually that is not true

this article is not correct, its should be edited and fixed.

[rdpete]

story is bunk

go to nin.com and read blog... or just read this;

I was asked by Saul's camp to do some press with CNET explaining my position on releasing Saul's download numbers to the public. It seemed like a good opportunity to explain where I was coming from. We spoke for over an hour and I left the conversation thinking I'd cleared up the misconception that I thought the entire release of "niggytardust" was a failure.

Well, it appears the story was written before I was involved, and I woke up the next day to find out I'm a supporter of an ISP tax. Thanks, CNET. I believe I was asked for possible solutions for the recording industry to which I replied something along the lines of "perhaps an additional 5 dollars on your ISP bill that allowed you complete, easy access to all the music in the world would work". Of course in reality this would never work because it would require accurate accounting, agreement among thieves, etc. And, who the **** cares what I think about this, anyway?

Well, that became the attention-grabbing headline and thanks to Google alerts I can see that lazy journalists all through the internet love a good headline to borrow.

Aside from all that...
Here's a good read a friend sent:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,2241544,00.html

[TimD43]

Musicians don't get it yet.

The musicians like Reznor just don't get consumers. They think consumers just want "free" music, and don't understand why, when they say "It's free" they don't get paid for it. What they don't understand is that consumers are willing and happy to pay a fair price, as long as they know the artist is getting ALL of that money. I know I feel sick to my stomach any time I buy music, because 95% or more of my money is going into the pockets of some fat cat executive, and the artist is starving.

If the artist would just give me a reliable digital distribution channel and say "Here's my album, it'll cost you $5," I'd happily pay $5, enjoy my music and also enjoy the reassurance that my money went directly to the artist. The problem is they play this "pay what it's worth" or "pay if you like it" game, and then whine when they aren't swimming in money. Don't be coy or try to measure what the music worth by what you can make on a voluntary pay system - charge a FAIR price and watch people come running.

That's why I buy merchandise at concerts... I know that's the only way to really financially support the acts I like. They make jack s--- off of album sales (unless they're an established megastar with leverage to negotiate terms), but they keep most, if not all, of the proceeds from merchandise sales at live performances.

In the end, the whole problem is the outmoded music industry. Artists have the ability to get these things done for themselves... anyone can set up a website with an online store. The content will sell itself, and someone will always be around to create a portal that allows people to discover new music (look at sites like GarageBand or IndieAirplay). Artists just lack the will to deviate from the established model, even when they've been screwed by it for years.

My plea to musicians:

Make good music.

Make it available digitally, in a flexible, DRM-free format and distribute it directly to the consumer.

Make it available for a reasonable price - the free market will weed out the greedy and reward great performers who know their real value.

That's all I ask - three simple steps. In a world where people will pay several dollars to have a stupid ringtone on their phone, you can't possibly convince anyone that people aren't desperate to pay what they think is a fair price for music.

[jordanneill]

Reznor gets it

Huh? Saul William and Reznor did everything you asked for in your comment. I don't understand your problem.

> My plea to musicians:
> Make good music.

Subjective, but plenty of people seem to think Saul's album is pretty damn good

> Make it available digitally, in a flexible, DRM-free format and distribute it directly to the consumer.

http://niggytardust.com
direct to you, the consumer, at 192 or 320kbps mp3 or lossless flac. all DRM free

> Make it available for a reasonable price

$5 seems pretty reasonable to me.