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.

[johnsin]

You made 140K!!

Stop complaining.. I mean jesh, 140k with little or no expenses on your part.. is pretty good.. better then what most people make at a day job!

[Below Meigh]

That's $840,000 for the year!

If they grossed $140K in 2 months, that could equal $840K total for a year. $70K each for something distributed for only 2 months.

That is not bad. What did they expect?

Residuals? Airtime with stations and streaming?
Losses would be promotions and overhead.

PS. I never heard of this release. There you go.

[Opaquemurdock]

Little or no expenses? lol

Please go learn the craft of making music, rent or buy the
instruments you need, book the studio time, record an album
that is considered pro quality with the help of costly sound
engineers and producers, hire artist to design the cover art...
then get back to me on that statement.

I am not trying to be rude, but even if you did it all yourself the
time involved would be shocking. I seriously doubt the costs
were covered.

[stochasticgirl]

Think again.

It costs money to cut an album. According to Trent himself on NIN.com, "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."

[grimmda]

Seriously?

Trent is right, music downloads aren't popular at all. <rolls eyes>

According to Steve Jobs Apple/iTunes has sold over 2 Billion songs. On top of every other online music provider...
http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote/

I hate to break it to you Trent but after those who listened once to your latest "project" only 1 in 5 cared to actually pay for it.

[theBike45]

Why download crap?

The fact that ANYBODY downloaded and paid is quite an indictment of the sorry state of music tastes these days. Perhaps they hit a buttom by mistake. The music totally sucks.

[dbrawders]

subjective

Just because you don't care for the type of music doesn't reflect on everyone else's tastes. I think it's a good model, try before you buy it. $5 is minimal vs. the $10-20 you can pay depending on the location. The only thing he didn't do is use a better form of marketting (as one other poster said, Amazon, etc) to get the news out about the new album..
The entitlement position that is being expressed by others in this forum is beyond amusing, let me determine how much you should make based on what I "think" is fair, my knowledge of said industry, etc.

not saying to give them the world, but come on folks...

[bobby_brady]

Music is a commodity now, the value of it has gone down

Thanks to the digital revolution. That's why the RIAA (labels) have been trying to employ as many DRM restrictions as possible. As we all know it backfired.

[i_made_this]

Tax ISP's ?? Reznor Must Be Kidding!

What do ISP's have to do with the cost of NIN's or other's media?? As if ISP's aren't taxed highly enough by an idiot FCC already, sheesh - we remain the highest cost broadband industry on earth the way it is. Sorry, Trent, breaking Americans even more for the excessive charges of broadband ISP's so that even fewer Americans have access to broadband is not the answer.

Why won't Americans pay the $5 you quote for a Big Mac to NIN instead for a NIN album? Easy. MacDonald's is selling food (or something like it) which ppl need to live. You're selling music which - in NIN's case in particular some might say - is a very discretionary item today, just as it was a half century ago.

How do you solve your financial mess? Jump-start the system. It's your's to create or re-create. There are tons of bands who give it away on-line to their fans for the few months before a new album release and then a few years after release. And no, you won't find them doing this on MySpace. Get creative. That's your business, right?

[elektrobank]

I agree with an ISP tax!

I download tons of music, not because I'm cheap or want to rip off artists but because it exposes me to so many artists that I would have never had known about before. I used to buy tons of CDs back in the days and I would say that at least 70% were a waste of money.

The ISPs should get together and designate a standard port for legal music file sharing and only allow ISP users access to that port for a monthly fee, all of which could go to the music companies. I would gladly pay $5/month, even $20-30+/month to legally file share all the music I want. That's a lot more than I ever used to spend on CDs.

Trent's experiment proved nothing because he used a virtually unknown artist. Who would pay to download an album from someone they never heard before if they had the option not to? I downloaded the album and didn't pay for it and I'm glad I didn't, it was horrible. I'm a big fan of NIN and practically all of the bands Trent has signed on in the past, but I can't stand Saul Williams. The 'pay what you think' model doesn't work for everyone, it only worked for Radiohead because they are so popular and so many paid to support them. If every artist started doing the same, they would all go broke.

File sharing has drastically increased my love for music and the amount of artists I listen to. I in now way want to rip off musicians, I just wish they could find a way to profit off file sharing so everyone could be happy. An ISP tax could be the way.

[Librum]

Human nature

It's simply human nature to get something free if you can, so I don't see why ol' Trent is so surprised by this.

[seb33sf]

Completely Agree

I agree, and this is no suprise to anyone who has every contributed to free or open source software projects.

For some time now, developers have been authoring and distributing incredibly useful programs free of charge, with only a request that satisfied users make a nominal donation. Very few people (or corporations!) who use these programs bother to donate anything.

To your comment, I would add that it is also human naure to behave differently when no is looking. (Most people would not refuse the suggested donation to enter a museum, for example.) Likewise, if the downloaders had to personally interact with one of Trent Reznor's representatives in order to obtain the album, many more of them would have ponied up the $5.

He was spot on in his comments. He gave people waaaay too much credit.

[Morienus]

How much does this guy receive from these $5? EVERYTHING

How much does this guy receive from this $5? EVERYTHING.
They hardly get $1 when they sell one CD with a label, so **** off. It´s all about money, there are no heroes.

[scennimo]

Wish i knew about it.

If I knew about it it i would have checked it out and if i liked it i would have paid five bucks in a flash. i bet there are a lot of people out there like me that did not know about it. You at least need to do some advertizing. At least some.

[journeymansix]

Get sophisticated

It seems the experiment should only be used to evaluate the *percent* of people who download who are willing to pay. The absolute numbers are a function of publicity, which is probably a value that the recording companies do add. Word of mouth and guerilla PR is great, but marketing is important too, especially for a relatively obscure artist.

But given that, Renzor doesn't even know the extent of overlap between the free and paid downloads. Clearly he needs some guidance from his web folks. I'd guess there's a large percentage of try-before-buy.

[Atari05]

You did this all wrong Mr. Trent.....

For one, you tried this with an artist that is ....an acquired taste. Had this been an NIN album, people would of ponied up 5 to 10 bucks easy.

For two how bad did you make the free stuff. it was remotely tolerable, why pay for it. Especially when you don't know the artist.

I can tell you, I heard it and I wasn't very impressed by the artist myself. I would of downloaded, listened and deleted the tracks.

So, in this way I think your idea's are right on track, you just need the right band. Just like if that band made a cd and it tanked. Not everyone will be a money maker.

[Leria]

The unknown or little known artists was a problem

The unknown and little known artist thing was the big problem here. They should have tried it with a big name person: Hilary Duff, Brittney Spears, etc.

Not a person who is an niche market person at best and who most people haven't heard about.

[kiwi47]

Simple .... Maybe thousand didn't like it

downloaded it and thought it was crap !

maybe others thought the same.... glad I didn't pay for it !!

[lihall]

Our society does not value art

That is so sad and obvious by most of these posts. Artists should be compensated for their work. Period. If we were talking about something other than art, it would immediately be obvious to everyone that stealing it was wrong.

But there are 2 ideas at work here, that need to be separated:
1. Stealing is always wrong and unjust.
2. Taking someone up on their offer of "take this for free" is fair.

When you walk into Costco and they give you a free sample, do you ever buy it? If you like it, then yes. Should you feel guilty if you don't buy it? You shouldn't - they gave it to you. The gamble is that you will like it enough to pay for it.

But nobody has the right to steal something they were never offered. Whether that is a song, car, or anything else.

[ztienapm]

you're wrong about not valuing art

Just check out the prices Monet's or Picasso's fetch.

By the way neither died as wealthy as most of today's pop artists?

The question is what is the "art" of (plug in name of musician/band/singer) really worth?

Is $9.99 or even $5 for an album by someone most people have never heard of produced by Trent Reznor the right price?

As far as file sharing is concerned, I see that more as individuals sticking to the labels now that they have the opportunity. The funny thing is how the label rolls out some musician to explain how this is hurting them. Not the song writer, not the producer, the singer.

[bobo67676]

no trent, its just not a good album

i have purchased cds from both artists.
saul is amazing.... as a poet.

but he cant sing at all, let alone to the harsher tones and robotic beats of trents music.

i got the free tracks and then deleted them.

[sadchild]

agreed

i downloaded it for free and it was deleted within the hour. it was terrible.

[ztienapm]

If they say hear take one if you like, it's not stealing but...

I don't believe music should be free but people are taking out their frustrations with the music industry now that they have the opportunity. How may albums have been purchased only to find out it's 2 good songs and a load of crap. Now we just get the 2 good songs on itunes,file sharing, whatever. Clearly the CEO of Sony BMG isn't going to attempt to explain how much this hurts them so they roll some somewhat well know act of theirs to attempt to garner sympathy.
How long have musicians been making big money from record sales? Since Frampton Comes Alive shipped huge volumes? Is the last 30 or 40 years really the norm. How many multi-millionaire musicians were their before 1960?
And, can we stop calling what you're doing art. I agree not everyone can do what you're doing, but you make music to be sold. It's a product. Products that are good are rewarded in the marketplace those that aren't aren't. The real question is what is YOUR art worth?

You put out Pretty Hate Machine, no one knew who you were it blew up and you probably got more money from your label for Broken. That's the system.

Now you want to DIY. How hard is it to figure out your break even point? price to make album = "album" price * expected number of units shipped (downloaded). Don't say you can download it for free or pay if you would like and then get upset when the majority don't offer up any cash. How much did it cost to make this? 28000 people at $5 each is $130,000. Did that cover your costs? What if you had set the price at $3 and instead of $130K you made $180K because 60,000 people paid to download? That's $3 to download the music of someone most people have never heard of produced by someone some people have heard of.
Don't blame us for taking what you give us.

[lihall]

Why are you afraid of calling it art?

"And, can we stop calling what you're doing art. I agree not everyone can do what you're doing, but you make music to be sold. It's a product."

That is such a sad statement. Art is so much more than just a "product". Why are you afraid of that?

Our culture and educational institutions have been systematically devaluing art as a healthy and necessary component of our lives. Just because art is sold, and it is a product in that commercial context, does not mean that is ALL it is. It is SO MUCH more.

Is a puppy just a "product", because you can buy one from a breeder? Is that ALL it is?

If you believe that, I fear that your world is rather bleak, and say hi to Gordon Gekko...

[Maccess]

Many want to, but can't.

People around the world can download your music, but many can't pay the $5 even if they wanted to. There are no locally accessible payment mechanisms in most countries.

[Millerboy]

# of sales = massive advertising + good music

Don't give up on the Internet yet. The Internet is the future medium to end all media. There are several reasons why your album didn't sell that well as you hoped:

1) Not everyone has the internet, or know how to pay for something using a credit card (i.e. too young to own a credit card).
2) Media advertising (people have to know your product is out there)

The most important part is advertising. In the past, record labels would push an album and it would be all over the media. Everyone and their grandmother knew about it. The album would be advertised on TV, commercials, movies, magazines, billboards, benches, poles, radio, newspapers, every type of media you can think of. Even retail stores such as Wal-Mart would advertise an upcoming album's release.

When you cut the record labels out of the picture, you lose all of that advertising exposure. But alas, don't worry because in the future, once the Internet begins to replace all of the traditional media, artists will be in control, not the labels.

In the future, I see a digital world where everything is connected by wireless Internet access. Your cell phone, your laptop, your computer, your TV, your game console, your MP3 player, your radio, daily newspaper, e-book, email, etc. And in that world, anyone with enough clout and recognition, and the funds to back it up, which shouldn't be that much money, basically anyone can be their own advertiser.

Artists will be able to rival and even surpass the distribution and advertising of the big record labels using just their Internet connections with people on the World Wide Web.

So to sum it all up, people must have access to the Internet to buy your music, and people must know or been exposed to advertisements of your music. All of this would replicate the massive sales seen through distributing music the old "traditional" road.

[nukepicnic]

The reason many didn't buy is the FLAC format

I for one actually bought the record and like it quite a bit (I like
both Saul Williams AND NIN, so figures I would like this). The
FLAC format proved a bit difficult to deal with in order to get
this music onto my ipod since Itunes and Ipod don't support this
format natively... it required burning a CD from Roxio, then
importing the cd into Itunes... something I was willing to do, but
I guarantee plenty wouldn't be. I was willing to pay to have a top
quality copy, but if I know if you have a choice between a FREE
download that can be instantly transferred onto your ipod and a
$5 better quality copy (and the quality WAS one of the reasons I
was willing to pay) that takes a lot more work to do the same
thing... well... the choice for most is rather clear.

[tarrantm]

You people killed indy net radio

And I have absolutely no sympathy for any of you.

I've been giving my money to artists from labels like Metropolis Records who actually supported indy net radio instead of the ones that slaughtered it and threw it to the CRB to impose billions of dollars in fees on it.

So it's a pity I end up supporting British and European artists more than the American ones, but their music is so much better than ours anyhow.

[Stephen Russell]

Tax your butt not MINE

Thanks for thinking that your legendary and we should all pay a tax for the garbage you produce.

This is the lamest idea.

Why don't you go out on tour and sell seats to concerts instead. Music should be and event and not just some crap you add to your phone.