digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Trent Reznor releases Saul William's album download info

nin.com — 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.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 4nunca33, on 01/04/2008, -31/+22wow. that sucks. particularly when some people, like myself, purchased multiple copies to give this a boost. in retrospect, to attempt something like this in a capitalistic society was an inherently bad move - but it did seem like the light at the end of some sort of ideological tunnel. maybe it still can be.
    • exomni, on 01/04/2008, -10/+36Please stop using the word "capitalist" as you obviously have no idea what it means.
      • damien6669, on 01/04/2008, -3/+2Stop saying what I am thinking... that's creepy.
      • 4nunca33, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1stop saying before thinking...that's even creepier. do you want to know what made this project fail? in a word, you. no, not really "you," you insignificant ***** - i mean people like yourself, concerned only with the discrediting of others. it's mental *****, wherein the intellectually malnourished know that they have nothing to say and as a result add the equivalent of "i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i?" to reply to anyone's honest opinion. you aren't really a part of this conversation, and that's more or less what happened with saul's album - people who want a taste of something without the (meager) risk. kudos, you foolish *****. just because i don't include a synopsis of general capitalism and the inherent flaws, i somehow don't know what it means.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 01/04/2008, -8/+7Maybe if the music industry hadn't come to the point where most music released is deplorable, and people hadn't already turned to illegal downloading as a means to show their discontent with the industry, maybe releasing albums and giving people a choice what to pay would work. The labels brought this upon themselves, but its the artists that are trying to fix things that suffer.
      • ghandi69, on 01/04/2008, -3/+6That is hard to believe.

        Do you really believe that if music was 'better', and therefore there would be higher demand, people would have never started to download music in the first place?

        Stop putting the blame on anyone except the people who download the music. Technology is allowing us to steal without getting caught, and when given that choice, most people choose to do so.
        • Monk22, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1i dont pay for CD's becuause theres a 90% chance what i buy will suck goat balls. his point is dead on why i dont buy music. i got sick of buying a CD and only getting a track maybe two that was worthwhile.
          • ghandi69, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Right,

            When I go to McDonalds, I don't like the food I get there. So instead, that gives me the right to just go steal it instead of paying for it because I don't think the food is of high quality.

            Good logic guys.
      • bitspace, on 01/04/2008, -2/+14While I agree with your general sentiment, I don't think people are downloading music illegally to show their discontent. I think people are downloading music illegally because they can and they don't want to pay for it. There is no idealism behind most music downloading.
      • camilos007, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3So somehow you turn these results into the music industry's fault? I'm no fan of the industry, but your reasoning is just stupid.
    • monospaced, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4I sent them $20 (I could have paid only $5, but I felt generous) because it's worth at least that much. Did I purchase 4?
      • 4nunca33, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1well, yes...seeing as how there wasn't an actual option to pay $20, you had to have gone through the process 4 times.
    • OrangeTide, on 01/04/2008, -3/+13I wonder how many people downloaded it to listen to it. and then decided they liked it and paid later? what i'm saying is: Do we trust these raw statistics enough to extract anything meaningful from them?
      • treed, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8I did exactly that. It did send both copies to my e-mail though, so ideally it'd track unique downloaders based on that.
      • NinjaJedi, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Trent doesn't say whether that's taken into account or not... I don't even know if it's possible to gather those sort of statistics (maybe log IP's for multiple downloads!?)

        Basically, that's how I buy my music - I wanna listen to it and live with it for a couple of weeks before I decide whether to actually pay for it. I don't know Saul Williams or his music so I'm unlikely to go part with my hard earned if I didn't know if it was gonna suck or not!!!

        With the Radiohead album, I paid £1. I started to feel bad after listening to it non-stop and was about to go and re-buy it. Instead I bought the diskbox at £40 (I actually bought 2 by mistake so that's actually £80) Then I bought a couple of tickets for me and my girlfriens to go see Radiohead live - that cost me a further £98 (after booking fees). All of a sudden I'm not feeling so bad about only originally paying £1 for the album as they'd managed to get £178 out of me from just this one release!
      • cdharrison, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2I downloaded it and then a couple of days later, gladly paid the $5 for it. The one thing this doesn't take into account is how many people are REALLY listening to Saul Williams now because of this. It's probably not the success they hoped it would be, but it isn't a complete failure.
    • antler, on 01/04/2008, -0/+28As a former shareware developer, I must say those numbers aren't bad at all. I was lucky to get 1 payment for every 1000 downloads, so 1 in 5 ain't bad. Hell, spammers support themselves off a 1 in 1,000,000 response rate. Plus, are they double-counting the 28,322 who probably downloaded it, liked it, then went back and paid for the higher quality version?
    • hipnerd, on 01/04/2008, -2/+42The downloaders break down into three groups:

      1. Established fans who enjoy the album enough to pay.
      2. People who enjoy the album but choose not to pay
      3. People who downloaded the album as an experiment and decided it wasn't their thing.

      Because the download was 100% free, a lot of people ended up in category three. They do not represent lost sales, they represent new opportunities for sales. Those are people that never would have bought the album just to see if they liked it. A percentage of the people in category three liked the music, moved into category one and paid for it.

      The implication that all the downloaders who choose not to pay are "stealing" is ludicrous. I've never heard of Saul Williams, but I might download the album to see if I like it. If I don't, I didn't steal a thing. I'll delete it. If I do like it, Saul Williams will get one more sale that he never would have gotten with a traditional distribution method.

      The downloads are not sales or thefts, they are marketing opportunities. An 18.3% pay rate is actually quite good -- especially if the artist gets to keep the lion's share of the money. Williams may have made more money with 28,322 donations than he would have if he sold 154,449 CDs through a traditional label who would be screwing him at every turn.
      • JaimeD26, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5For this album I was in group 3, never heard of the guy but gave him a shot b/c he put it out there for free. The Radiohead album I paid for however because I know I like the band and would have purchased the CD anyways. If I dug Saul's CD and he released some new download I would pay for it b/c I like the artist.
      • Vektuz, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9You nailed this on the head.
        If a song is free, a huge amount of people will show up just to try it. Most of those people will not like the song, and would not have purchased it in the first place, so it inflates the numbers.

        To get even 18% pay rate is incredible in this case.
      • idiggitall, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1"The implication that all the downloaders who choose not to pay are "stealing" is ludicrous. I've never heard of Saul Williams, but I might download the album to see if I like it. If I don't, I didn't steal a thing. I'll delete it. If I do like it, Saul Williams will get one more sale that he never would have gotten with a traditional distribution method."

        I don't think it's that cut and dry. You didn't take into account those people who never heard of Saul Williams and wanted to check it out. They may have liked it, but decided not to pay for it or just couldn't be bothered to pay for it.

        But I do agree that these strategies are excellent marketing opportunities for current and future sales despite the apparent fear that you're losing profits by giving something away for free. Haven't you ever eaten or been offered samples at supermarkets or restaurants? Give them a little and leave them wanting more...for those that take a bite that is.
    • l00s3r, on 01/04/2008, -8/+4Yeah that sucks he only made $141,000. YAY, capitalism!
      • Luminoth, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1And we all know every penny of that ended up in his pocket.
      • fkr3, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4$141,000 minus so many things, and only because of Reznor's backing. YAY, unfeasible for anyone else if they want to both eat and produce music!
    • merdiesel, on 01/04/2008, -7/+1I'm sure you buy multiple copies... you're full of *****.
    • nailer, on 01/04/2008, -6/+4I downloaded it, and got over it about the time Saul said:

      'don't you call him, by his name, white people call him Curtis'

      ***** that. If the character is called Niggy Tardust then that's what the ***** I'm calling him.
    • xanadu2113, on 01/04/2008, -8/+3I downloaded the album for free and thought it was a disappointing, overproduced followup to Saul's poetic first album. As I suspected, Reznor ruined the product, and I'm happy I didn't pay.
      • damien6669, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3You're getting dugg down, but that's honest. And I am not sure TR ***** it up as you said, if you read about how it was made, it was more playing around with garageband while on tour then a real album. I would not expect that a seriously large amount of work went into it.
      • smacksaw, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4Man I thought this album was genius. I think it's like Beastie Boys and Paul's Boutique. Everyone thought that record sucked until they heard Check Your Head and Ill Communication and then went back and saw how crazy Paul's Boutique was. In fact I'd say Saul's record sounds a lot like that era in spirit, but with different lyricising.

        The thing is he's making a break with the boring sounds of today. Everything is pretty much exactly the same thump noise. He took something that's overused, chewed on it, spit it out and sprinkled some Bobby McFerrin (LOL?) on it. It's pretty cool how he can take a sound that has pretty much been played out and ***** it up and get some low-fi going over it and come up with this.

        I don't know if it's all that overproduced when he deconstructed overproduced music and hit it back with low-fi. Don't give up yet, I think it's ahead of it's time...just like Rush.
    • danc4498, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Personally, I never heard of Saul Williams, and had this album not been released free, I never would have! I enjoyed the cd, have considered going back to actually purchase it for the $5, but I will certainly be anticipating his next release, and will definitely consider purchasing it right away.

      As a side note, I wonder how many people downloaded it for free, then went back and purchased it. That would change the 1/5 (ratio of paid to free) stat that Trent Reznor seemed to take personally. As well, I would like to see what the ratio would have been if the album was released in a store traditionally (ratio of bought to downloaded through torrent).
    • danarama, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1i wonder if an actual cd will be made? cuz his touring just got a huge boost in exposure and way more people would be willing to get the cd copy.
  • Artemisian, on 01/04/2008, -6/+93As Reznor said, seems a little disappointing. I bought a 320kbps copy on sheer faith - I'm primarily a big NIN fan, and hadn't heard any of Saul's music prior. But I support the idea. In truth, I haven't even listened to the thing yet - I need to clear some space on my phone, as that's often the only times I get the opportunity to listen to music. But hey, I paid my dues, and it's nice to know I'm on the "loyal paying customer" side of the fence.

    Shame on anyone who really enjoyed this record and didn't pay for it. It really perverts the whole idea.
    • Refrag, on 01/04/2008, -4/+54[reposted from the comment I made on nin.com]

      I only liked one song. Which was "Break". Liking one song by an artist is not enough for me to bother cluttering my artist list any further (a new deal I made with myself) so I deleted the entire album. I probably should have kicked a dollar his way for the one song I liked, but since I deleted them all I decided not to.

      I don't know what it is about Saul's music as I like NIN (especially the instrumentation -- Year Zero was the first one that I really got into the vocals on as something deeper than just another harmonic instrument) and I like a lot of rap (Beastie Boys, Tribe Called Quest, Mos Def, etc.), so I expected to like the entire album and then want to go back and pay for it. I didn't. I deleted it all.

      If you could provide a streaming method to allow people to preview the music without counting them in your metrics for unpaid "downloads" you may realize more people are being honest about supporting you and Saul than that ~18% figure.

      Thanks (to Trent) for publishing the facts, anyway. Keep it up, please!

      PS -- (Trent,) If you release an instrumental version of "Closer", I'd pay a few dollars for it alone.
      • anaesthetica, on 01/04/2008, -1/+21You can find an instrumental version of Closer at http://remix.nin.com/ for free, posted by trent_reznor himself.
        • Refrag, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Awesome! I looked for an instrumental of Closer on there as soon as remix.nin.com went up and he hadn't put the instrumentals of The Downward Spiral up there yet. That appears to be the most recent addition.

          Digg Anaesthetica up!
        • Jerky1312, on 01/04/2008, -1/+10Now that you have your instrumental of Closer, you will make good on your word and donate the few dollars you were speaking of.
        • DuxDucis, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3http://remix.nin.com/play/mix?id=2897

          Direct link to the instrumental
        • floatingpoints, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I wish we could snag the multi-tracks for TDS as well.
      • AmishRefugee, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I feel he somewhat missed the point of the 150k downloading it for free too

        I don't listen to rap at all, never really have, but I downloaded this to see if I liked it. I didn't really, so I didn't pay for it. As refrag said, if I could have just streamed it to check it out, I would have and I think that would be a good addition to the choice.
    • fahrvergnuugen, on 01/04/2008, -2/+40Maybe the record isn't what people who downloaded it expected?

      I'm a die hard NIN fan and gave this album 2 uninterrupted listens - only because of Trent Reznor's involvement with it. I chose not to pay for it because I don't like a single track on it. So in a way, it was marketed to a person who didn't have a taste for it's genre. How many other people did this happen to?
      • SiB57, on 01/04/2008, -1/+13Same here. Downloaded the free version with the intent to pay for it after IF I liked it. I didn't like it and won't listen to it again. I may or may not have actually deleted the files, I would have to check, but this wasn't my type of music. And I'm a big NIN fan too.
      • monospaced, on 01/04/2008, -8/+1I've been a Nails fan from the beginning, but stopped listening to them after they released And All That Could Have Been in 2002. Everything since has been so insanely commercial sounding, and I even thought I was listening to a Lenny Kravitz track when I heard them on the radio.
        With this album, though, I feel the independent spirit again. Some of the old beats and rythms Trent used in the early nineties (when he was good) resurface on Niggy Tardust and in the end I enjoyed most of it. Raised to be lowered is an awesome track, as is the track of the same title as the album. Take another listen, fellow NIN fan, I think you may find yourself enjoying something a little off the beaten track.
        • mpobri, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3I, too, have been a fan since the beginning. And strangely, I though Trent finally re-invented himself with the "Still" disc included with the live disc "And All That...", the starkness is so different from everything else, especially the track "Leaving Hope".

          Back to the subject, I also downloaded for free the Saul release, didn't like the first few songs, really enjoyed the U2 cover, and agreed with Refrag that "Break" is good and decided to pay the $5 just on those two tracks. This is precisely what I've wanted to see since I began downloading MP3's in 1998 thru IRC, artists creating music and selling it directly to fans. It's inevitable that that's the only way the business of music will survive. And record companies who are purely in it for profit will not.
        • maexus, on 01/04/2008, -3/+3@mpobri - Finally reinvented himself? You obviously don't listen that closely or haven't heard a lot of NIN. Every full album so far has been a reinvention of NIN.
        • mpobri, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1I own every single NIN release, I've been to 3 concerts (he doesn't tour my town that often). I'm an avid fan. IMO each release builds upon the last (evolutionary vs revolutionary), it sounds similar. Not a bad thing considering how great halo 1 is, but Still was the first real reinvention of NIN.
        • BrapAllgood, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3I have been listening since the day Pretty Hate Machine was released and I agree 100% with mpobri. To say that Trent has reinvented himself COMPLETELY with each new album is just too extreme.

          (And now I need to seek this Still thing...I don't buy live albums, as a rule. Thanks for the tip, mpobri.)
          • maexus, on 01/05/2008, -1/+1First, Still is not an live album. All that Could Have Been is the live album, Still was an album included with ATCHB. Still featured deconstructed versions of existing songs and new muted ambient-like tracks that are not that far from his work on The Fragile. I'm also a little shocked people can honestly say the move from PHM to Broken then to TDS wasn't a reinvention each time... wow. Or that fact that Still is the first reinvention considering it's sound roots began with the Fragile. Listen to the song La Mer.
      • compulsive1, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Same here. Downloaded the freebie, listened to a few tunes and deleted it right away. Not my cup of tea.
      • spectre_25gt, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I haven't gotten a chance to listen to it much, but what I heard wasn't all that enthralling. Still, I paid for it on principal. This is the direction that things need to head in. I'm happy to help out any way I can.
      • pcore, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2It also happened to me. I'm pretty sure if it had different type of music it would have had a different result.
    • exomni, on 01/04/2008, -14/+2Please stop using the word "capitalist" as you obviously have no idea what it means.
    • saucedmike, on 01/04/2008, -2/+4I truly enjoyed the album, but I have no method for paying for it online.
      • webtroll, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1He is offering various ways. You or your parents can't get a Visa, MasterCard or Amex credit card or a PayPal account? What did you expect, that they accept money orders or cheques?
    • Gaarra, on 01/04/2008, -9/+4I personally think it's ridiculous for them to give a free option. At the least, charge something for your time and effort as well as the bandwidth. Sure, you may not have gotten 154K downloads, but I guarantee you would have gotten a lot more sales if you had just charged 3-5 bucks for the CD. The people who downloaded it, probably wouldn't have paid no matter what you offered, but I'm sure there were a ton of people who just said "***** it, why pay when it's free?"
    • zachshmack, on 01/04/2008, -9/+1Sounds to me like you're just being a chump. You shouldn't pay for something just out of principle. I disliked the album, and I'm glad I didn't pay for it. But go ahead, brag to everyone how you paid for something you haven't even listened to.
      • fkr3, on 01/04/2008, -2/+8You pay for things you might not like every day when you're an adult. Might as well get ready for it chump.
      • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4You must not eat out much, see movies, or ever try new things.
    • GOVStooge, on 01/04/2008, -1/+11This is all I ever wanted. Give me access to a free lower quality version and if I like it I will go back and buy the high-qual one. Back in the day, this is exactly what I used napster for, Listen, and if I like I go buy the CD.
    • aryo, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4i believe getting the album out there is (potentially) more important than making money off it. i know that i have dropped a lot of money to see bands live, of which i have never paid a cent for their albums. live shows and merch are where it's at, and that's where i pay my dues.
      some big labels are shooting themselves in the foot by having contracts that require a percentage of ticket and merch sales paid out to them in addition to album sales to cope with their losses due to piracy. (like beyonce's? correct me if i'm wrong.)
      • D1sAssoc1aTe, on 01/16/2008, -0/+0You are 100% correct. Its absolutely ridiculous that someone's intentions are judged based on whether they pay a measely 5 dollars or not. Some people support music with their ears and minds and not their wallets. Alot of kids cant afford to pay but absolutely adore the artists work and then get thrown into some ***** "cheap asshole" category. I , myself make plenty of money and buy albums for sentimental purposes and never open them bc ive already downloaded a free version, or paid a quick 99 cents. Its nothing personal or financial.... just the reality to todays music culture. so yes... props to you for not stereotyping people. Its too damn bad we don't have more open minded individuals like yourself. :) haha.. a definite DIGG!
    • MalDON, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3I didn't really care for the album too much. It was a bit too .. harsh really. Not good programming music. Now the Radiohead album was great and I paid quite a bit for it too.
    • atonement, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3What I used to do (before MP3 players became standard) is download music from various sites, delete stuff I didn't like, then went out and bought the stuff I did like. A sort of try-before-you-buy kind of deal. So, with Saul's album, I'll download it for free and give him $5 for lossless if I enjoyed it. Cool idea, but you can't MAKE people pay even if they DO like the material so... Good luck to Trent, though! NIN is incredible. I wish he'd put up samples - I'd pay tons for samples of his work.
    • rabidvibes, on 01/06/2008, -1/+0could of got it free at albumhunt.com
  • MisterLeckie, on 01/04/2008, -10/+39Super depressing. I just don't get it; have we really gotten to the point where 5 dollars towards a great piece of work isn't believed to be worth it?

    I thought by now the majority of people would have come beyond the capitalistic me first attitude. Hopefully there will be a time when doing the right thing isn't "too expensive."
    • Sajentine, on 01/04/2008, -7/+15No

      We've gotten to a point where a lot of people tried it and only %20 liked it.

      I haven't tried it and probably won't now because it seems like now I would be looked down on now if then didn't like it and so didn't pay anything.
      • OrangeTide, on 01/04/2008, -16/+2I don't even have to try it to know that Trent Reznor has always been derivative and commercial sounding. I do not need to listen to his new album to confirm what I already know. Apparently some people are less cynical than I am, and are at least giving it a free try.
    • Chirp08, on 01/04/2008, -0/+10I didn't download it, or buy it, because its not my thing. I can only imagine how many of the free downloads were people just seeing what his music was all about, and then finding they didn't like it, or didn't feel it was worth paying for. It doesn't necessarily mean the distribution failed, but there are too many factors that can't be accounted for.
    • superkendall, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4If there was any kind of feedback with the percentage of people who liked it but didn't pay, the data would be a lot more meaningful. I aim to download it as a test but have no idea if I'll like it enough to pay $5 for it.
    • xyzunit, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3I downloaded it and didn't like it, so why the hell should I pay for it?
      Not like I've listened to it since I first downloaded it.
    • InSeverance, on 01/04/2008, -2/+4Sorry, but while I think Mr Williams poetry and writing is nothing short of amazing, that album was absolute rubbish (personally).
      Had NIN put this out - I'd expect 30% returns, however given the number of NIN fans vs. Williams fans, I think using Niggytardust as a trial was a bad choice.

      • maexus, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2I honestly think the two groups go well together. Nothing against NIN fans, as I've been a fanatic since PHM, most of the ones I've talked to are so very closed minded about other genres of music.
    • MisterLeckie, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6Thanks for the replies, all of you. It's comforting to know that many of you didn't pay because you didn't like. Which I consider completely fair.

    • shark72, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2The key phrase is "reasonable price." We want music at a "reasonable price" and if iTunes, etc. don't offer a "reasonable price," then we will take it for free. But the catch is that "reasonable price" keeps going down so that it's always below what the going rate is. Many of those people who might have said "$5.00 per album is a reasonable price" were just kidding.
    • Drood, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4I think the problem is Saul is a relative unknown. I went for the free version, simply because what I'd heard of Saul (particular his NIN remixes) I just didn't think it was very good. And I was right, I didn't like the album. I paid $3 for Radiohead "In Rainbows". The thing is, the record labels take such a huge cut, that $5 going straight to the artist is between 2-5 times MORE than they'd get for a CD sale anyway.

      If Trent had released an album with the same business model, I'd have gladly forked over twice what they were asking for Saul's.

      I think the figures are more an indication of Saul's popularity, or lack thereof.
      • acroyear2, on 01/05/2008, -0/+2No, more people bought Saul's previous album. Why on earth is that? Well, maybe a physical release is a better option to attract those curious buyers who may be willing enough to pay for it before they hear it. Or maybe there aren't enough potential Saul fans who are online and realize the album even exists.
    • notcarljung, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0yes. we've gotten to the point where ppl will pay the cheapest price possible. free < $5. if he had sold the the download for $5, it would've cut bandwidth costs and increased the profit margin. then again, it almost certainly increased saul's fan base.
  • cunnybungler, on 01/04/2008, -1/+55I'm glad Trent's not being coy like Radiohead. On the other hand, I'm disappointed a bit in the figures, but at the same time, bet that they're a whole lot better than future attempts at something like this might rear, at least in terms of percentage. I wonder how Radiohead's figures compare. Someone should pursue them to open source their stats too :)
    • MisterLeckie, on 01/04/2008, -2/+13Radiohead is more concerned about boosting their physical CD sales than finding a viable new way to distribute art.
      • aukxsona, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2yeah after they bitched about down loaders I off loaded my actual CD's to the pawn shop. Not because they are a bad band, but because i don't support people that repress others. I don't down load music at all. No need to...I'm old enough to have a job and buy what I want. BUT refuse to buy because of the big music lables, for someone like me it is a viable option...because I don't want to support the companies...just the artist.
        • wingo123, on 01/04/2008, -3/+2Radiohead was repressing you? That makes no sense at all.

          And how much does a pawn shop pay for a used CD - like a quarter? Jeez, man - for a 'grown-up' with enough money to buy anything he wants, that seems like some serious penny-pinching.
          • aukxsona, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1LOL better than tossing it out the window like I had planned.
          • giid, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Help help I'm being repressed!
        • Aidje, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1wanting to be paid for your work = repressing others
    • Theis, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4"More than six out of 10 people who downloaded the new Radiohead album, "In Rainbows," did so for free after the band gave users the freedom to pay whatever they wanted. How does "nothing" sound?
      Of the people that did fork over some cash, the average price paid was about $6. Nearly 1.2 million people downloaded the album -- do the math; that's a total of $2.736 mil.
      That's not nearly as much as they would have made selling the album normally, but then again, they don't have to pay a record label any dues." - http://www.tmz.com/2007/11/06/thanks-for-the-free- ...
      • edjenkins234, on 01/06/2008, -0/+1they havent released numbers but they have said that already (before the actual cd came out) that they have so far made more off in rainbows than all other records because almost the entire thing is profit.
    • sgtpppr, on 01/04/2008, -2/+11People also need to consider the fact that many people downloaded it just to see if they liked it. I doubt many people who didn't like it went on to pay for it. I know I've bought games that got decent reviews and looked good, but just didn't do it for me. If I had downloaded a demo and found out I didn't like it, I wouldn't have bought it. I would think the same would go for music.

      Also, how can you honestly believe in some 'inherent goodness' in people to pay for something they don't have to? People pirate music like it's going out of style. The vast majority don't pirate out of principle or to stick it to the RIAA. The reason piracy is such a 'problem' now is that it was brought to the layman through Kazaa, Limewire, and now the easy-to-use bittorent clients. Do you honestly believe that the average 16 year old downloading gigs of mp3s as a political statement? Rampant piracy was started by people simply wanting free music at their finger tips 24/7 with hardly any computer knowledge. It grew out of control due to the RIAA being completely oblivious to the wants of their customers. I don't see anyone saying restaurants should allow you to pay if you thought their food was good after eating it. I also don't see changing art into a packaged and marketed mass consumer product as something good either. There is in fact a happy medium if people will honestly sit and think about it and stop being so extremist in their views on the topic. Right now, it's just cool to be on the extreme anti-record company side. Record companies are wrong and people leeching music with no regard for the artist and claiming it's for political reasons are wrong too.
    • cthrall, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3I don't think Radiohead's figures are all that accurate...I tried to put in my cc info twice before giving up, their cc processing servers were completely overwhelmed. And that was a while after they announced the download.
    • StriferDiem, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Trent should do this exact same thing with the next NIN record and see what the results are.
  • ApplCmptrDood, on 01/04/2008, -19/+11I'd love to buy his CD, but the only place I can get it is from his website - no Amazon, no iTunes, nothing. If it was on iTunes, Saul would get even more exposure! I can't buy the music because I am a minor and my parents refuse to give their credit card information to the website, even though I tell the it is legit. Saul, I love your work - keep it up!
  • cw1925, on 01/04/2008, -4/+32It's more about the concerts anyways.
    • jeffdjohnson, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3...or radio play. I'm surprised that "Sunday Bloody Sunday" (the U2 cover), which has both Trent and Saul in it, isn't getting more airplay.
      If you like it, request it at your local radio station. In Los Angeles, we have a station called Indie 103.1 which seems to be the perfect outlet for this.
    • Van3ck, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3And where exactly is an independent artist supposed to get the funds to launch a major tour?
  • Olber9999, on 01/04/2008, -17/+38Niggy Tardust is my #1 album of 2007. It reminds me a lot of NIN. I just can't believe people wouldn't pay 5$ for it, especially NIN fans. If a hard copy existed, I would easily pay 20$ or more for it. This is so demoralizing. Please don't tell me you can't afford 5$; a music album is something that will last you YOUR WHOLE LIFE. Ridiculous.
    To NIN & Saul fans who downloaded the CD for free: shame on you.
    To Saul and Trent: This is an incredible record, and I am so grateful to you for it. Thank you.
    • cwilson, on 01/04/2008, -1/+16What if someone downloaded it and didn't pay for it because they did not like the album? Should they be shamed too?

      I didn't hear it, but I saw Saul Williams open for NIN and I did not like his music at all. I'm not saying he's not good. He's just not my style. Everyone I was with that night said the same. I'm not saying that only the 18.3% of the people who downloaded the album liked it but I wouldn't be surprised if many NIN fans checked out the album and just did not care for the music. In that case, do you pay for something you don't like on the principle that you support the distribution method? Seems kind of odd to support art that you don't appreciate.

      Olber, I'm not trying to pick you apart or anything. It's clear that you really enjoyed the album and that's great! I'm just taking into consideration the ones who (perhaps) didn't enjoy the music.
      • xenixninja, on 01/04/2008, -4/+1"What if someone downloaded it and didn't pay for it because they did not like the album? Should they be shamed too?"

        That analogy is getting old and silly. Just because you don't like the music doesn't make it okay to not pay for an album. For f**k sake, it was just 5 dollars. Are you really that poor that you can't afford to support a new way of distributing music, which many of you scream for?
        • cwilson, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2"Just because you don't like the music doesn't make it okay to not pay for an album."

          I'd agree with you if you were talking about the idea of pirating music before buying it but this was offered free.

          If Britney Spears offered her newest album like this tomorrow, would you give her money simply because you are supporting the method? Sorry, I like Trent Reznor and I think this idea of delivering music is curious but I also think that the content should be worth your money. The content's worth varies person to person, of course, but your money is your vote on the quality of the music. I think that should come before anything else.
    • monospaced, on 01/04/2008, -2/+4I wouldn't place it #1 on my list, but I do agree that this album recaptures the independent spirit Trent had in the early nineties. Some of his most intriguing sounds and rhythms from Pretty Hate Machine and even Broken resurface on Niggy Tardust and I know the true NIN fans can recognize it. I'm also glad to be exposed to Saul Williams for the first time; this duo has created something special.
      I did pay $20 when I downloaded my $5 copy because I felt it would be worth it, and it was. Later on, I illegally downloaded some popular radio *****.
    • TTwoA, on 01/04/2008, -0/+18I paid $5 for it. Didn't like it. At all. Listened to the album through once, haven't touched it since, and most likely never will again. However, I knew going in there was very little chance of me enjoying it, but I was okay with that because I support the cause.

      My problem is with the people who digg all the anti-RIAA articles and preach about how much the music industry sucks, but when an opportunity comes along to support a new distribution method without the middleman, they don't man up and give the guys a few dollars. That's really lame.
      • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1There's always going to be freeloaders. It's lnot quite the same, but it still reminds me of the people who eat every bite of their dinner, but complain to the restaurant manager about how terrible the food was to get it comped.
    • migvel, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2I Didn't pay 5$ because im from Venezuela and its difficult in here to buy things with dollars on the internet. I believe a lot of people in other countries don´t have the ability to pay it as you... that make us dicks?
      • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I don't think your case was one of the main complaints, no.
    • robche, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1im sorry dude but i dont think it works like that, just because people download stuff when it costs money, doesnt mean they will pay for it when its free. that being said i downloaded the cd first, liked it, then decided to pay.
  • Jyushin, on 01/04/2008, -0/+44I paid - I only liked 2 songs , but my $5 went to support the revolution.
    "when i say 'how much?' , you say 'nothing' ".
  • PoopfaceMorty, on 01/04/2008, -9/+40Wow, that is pathetic. $5 can get you a decent sized lunch, yet it is too much for people to spend on an entire album, an entire piece of art. I'm glad I purchased this album, and I would have gladly paid a larger denomination if given a choice.
    • monospaced, on 01/04/2008, -3/+8Was I the only one who noticed the option to pay more than $5 as a sort of extra donation?
      • PoopfaceMorty, on 01/04/2008, -1/+0Looking at those numbers, obviously not. If nobody decided to make that donation though, and that trend manifested itself through everyone who tried to ditch the traditional selling avenues, then it's a wonder where the artist would make the money to support themselves, much less record an album.
    • bobartig, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2$5 for lunch? Damn you high cost of living!
    • TripcodeMel, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1$5 For lunch? Where the hell do you live? I want in.
    • MalDON, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1My lunch is cheaper! Double cheeseburger at Mc D's and a dollar.25 soda from the machines at work.
      • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1With medical care, who really pays more in the long run? :p
    • PoopfaceMorty, on 01/05/2008, -1/+0BAH, I knew my $5 lunch example was going to get picked! Only analogy I had in my repertoire at the moment.
  • rushco, on 01/04/2008, -67/+618.3% need to be taught how to use torrents.
    • eternal464, on 01/04/2008, -3/+16you must be proud of your moronic ways. If everyone torrents, who pays for the creation and distribution? Your logic would lead to the worldwide destruction of every form of electronic media nearly overnight, even Trent's attempt at fixing the currently broken system.
      • kidcodea, on 01/04/2008, -3/+3no, it would lead to another destruction. electronic media would still exist. but thats too complex for digg talk.
    • acroyear2, on 01/05/2008, -0/+3The attitude of this new generation that believes all of this music and art is owed to them to consume at their own discretion is disgusting. We owe it back to the artist to show OUR support. Plain and simple.
  • Frostman3D, on 01/04/2008, -35/+2I don't really have a comment, this just looks like a popular submission that will get a lot of diggs, and I'm posting early in it in the hopes that I'll get a lot of diggs as well. Thank you for your time and digg. Either way you want to digg is fine by me.
    • Frostman3D, on 01/04/2008, -7/+1*****.... :( I secretly wanted you guys to digg it up....
      • darkcss, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1the whole thing made me smile, that was worth it alone.
  • mvanhorn, on 01/04/2008, -17/+28I am a big Saul Williams fan and like NIN.. and I paid $5 on the theory. But this album isn't very good
    • bowe, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Maybe the 18.3% is just the percent satisfaction. People shouldn't have to pay if it turned out to be a crappy album. Just because you downloaded the music doesn't necessarily mean that you knew what you were getting.
      • Mr.RX99, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1The only problem with that is if you download it once for free, decide you like it, and then go back and pay, that's two downloads, which will be counted separately. So the percent might not be correct.
  • benitojuarez, on 01/04/2008, -3/+15Well I havent checked it out so I cant judge the quality. Like the whole radiohead rainbows album. I downloaded it from the ranbows site and listened to it....I didnt like the music and I havent listened to it again so I paid them nothing. But there theres going to be some asshole on here that says hey youre a ***** for not paying them money. You can't win no matter what.
    • Frostman3D, on 01/04/2008, -2/+3When I downloaded Rainbows, I paid them $10. I felt like that was fair. I think it's a great way to distribute albums, but record companies won't because they can't stand the thoughts of not making a few cents on every single album.
      • bubba9999, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2you're missing his point - should you have paid if you didn't like what you downloaded?
    • MalDON, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I actually really enjoyed In Rainbows.
  • skeen07, on 01/04/2008, -13/+14I downloaded it, but didn't like it...and removed it. Still, so far he's made $150,000 on this - pure profit. Is that good, or bad? I'm not sure - I don't know much about Saul, how big he us, etc. but I did watch "Slam". And he still has the potential to make plenty more from gigs.
    • dustinmacdonald, on 01/04/2008, -0/+12What makes you think its pure profit? Pretty sure he has to pay for service and bandwidth fees.
      • skeen07, on 01/04/2008, -5/+2Right, minus maybe $1,000 max. then.
        • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -4/+8You are COMPLETELY ignorant on what thngs cost. (and the bandwidth is not the only costs. The studio fronts the cost of producing the album, moron. They then recoup that cost...but it is AFTER all that that a typical artis will get around $1 or so per album sold.) So, he came out behind. Probably much more so since they would almost heavily promte it, leading to more sales.
          • comrademikhail, on 01/04/2008, -6/+2Edited. bury me
          • Sarevok9, on 01/04/2008, -3/+2You suppose that this was made in a studio that wasn't owned and operated exclusively by Trent? Foolish, baseless, and just plain wrong assumption. Saul made money off it, just that simple.... maybe not a million, but hey, 6 figures isn't that bad.
          • actorboy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2@ Sarevok9

            Next time I need something designed, I'll be sure to call someone who owns their own computer and copy of Creative Suite. Surely they will charge me nothing since they have nothing to pay. I'll show them your comment if they think otherwise.
      • kidcodea, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1whoever started taxing bytes should be wiped.
        if we gonna be happy with taxing the immaterial, tax my love for isps and you wont get *****.

        *****.
    • harvested, on 01/04/2008, -0/+15Pure profit? Are you kidding me? Did you even read the article?
    • catalysis, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Actually they probably lost money producing the album. Paying the salaries of an entire team of people plus state of the art recording facilities will run far higher than 150k.
    • ScionAltera, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5Hardly pure profit. The article says he used an A-list staff to produce the album, so he had to pay all those people to work on it. I'd be surprised if that $150K is more than a tiny drop in the bucket. Paying top quality people to do stuff for you is not cheap, even if you are Trent Reznor.
      • piggy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Perhaps there should be a model that focuses on rev share as incentive for A-list producers to make a decent and commercially viable record. I d/led this album w/ the intent of purchasing it if I found any of the tracks moderately enjoyable. Unfortunately I didn't enjoy a single track and promptly removed the album from my computer. I wish people like skeen07 and me were accounted for in these statistics.
    • smls, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2you missed this part of the article:

      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.

    • PoopfaceMorty, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1Not only that, but Musicane gets 20% of the profits, so for every $5, Musicane get's a buck.
  • stealth45, on 01/04/2008, -1/+8Guilty, but i'll purchase a copy to help promote this method of distribution.
    • actorboy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Creating a false market that will evaporate should this method become commonplace is as much a problem as no one paying at all. At least the public being cheapskates gives them honest numbers of what to expect in the future.
  • madk, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6I don't see how the low sales are a surprise to anyone...it would be the same with any product in nearly any society.
  • Snakedal337, on 01/04/2008, -4/+8I honestly didn't care for it after I downloaded, but that shows the beauty of it (for the customers), they dont have to purchase it to hear 9/12 tracks they don't like. though I supposed the numbers show that record companies wouldn't have liked it very much. But who cares about them anyway, $5 from each of those people is $140k directly into the artists pocket.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4Yes...because doing this eliminates ALL costs. Recording studios donated their time for this! As did the bandwidth providers.
  • laterthandawn, on 01/04/2008, -3/+28That definitely really sucks that so few people are willing to actually "support the artist." So much for idealism...there's always this idea that people who steal music are redeemed by the fact that they're generally stealing from the bloated labels, not the starving artists (stealing from the rich to...give to themselves...ha...)...so much for that!

    That said, I really, really respect Williams and Reznor for trying this out, and hopefully others continue to do it and it catches on...perhaps then, eventually completely relieved of the bloated label system we're all used to (and the accompanying mindset), more people will put their dollar where their ideals are. ...hopefully.

    Also: 28,322 x $5 = $141,610...which is just under $1 apiece...ironically about what he would have made in royalties from a major.
    • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -1/+7"Also: 28,322 x $5 = $141,610...which is just under $1 apiece...ironically about what he would have made in royalties from a major."

      You're forgetting all the additional distribution and assorted other costs charged directly to the artist.
      • laterthandawn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Actually, I'm just going on deals I'm familiar with in which the artist makes about a 80 to 100 cents on each full-sale CD. There is, of course, the recoup of costs associated with major label deals (that come almost ENTIRELY out of the artist's measly share -- the distro and assorted costs you mentioned -- making major labels more or less a bank with ludicrous interest rates that still owns your property even after you pay it off your loan in full...I could go off on that tangent for ages...it's horrible and frustrating and breaks artists' spirits). I left those out for the purposes of this discussion because recoup comes on marketing/recording/advance/distro/etc...all things that Williams/Reznor either covered themselves (so they came out of this total -- meaning they were, in fact, recouped) or did without for this release (there was zero marketing/distro costs -- other than bandwidth).

        That said, I recognize that there are fundamental differences in process here...I just thought it was worth mentioning...especially because it suggests that he did really, really well (much better than under the old system)...Reznor's blog mentions his sales on the last record...it's nothing compared to this one's reach. So, basically, he got in the area of 4 to 5 times the listeners, and as much money as if each of those new listeners had purchased the record at full cost...that's what they call a "win win."

        It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people downloaded it without supporting the artist -- whether or not they were "previewing" the tracks.
        • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1Again.,.you are wrong. Your ***** stupid ignorance comes from the fact that you think that the 80 cents to $1 figure (which even that is low) is the BEFORE recouping the costs...and it is not. It is what they get AFTER paying back the costs.
          • laterthandawn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Dude...meds.

            And deep breaths work too.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -9/+2Except that with a major, he would have not paid the expenses. And he would have had more publicity and sold more.
      • laterthandawn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4Actually, yes, he would have paid his expenses -- those are loans that are recouped off of the artist's small share in almost all cases. And, nope, more publicity (especially when a major label can't understand a nuanced work like Williams' new record -- if they actually try to promote it at all -- and just throws a bunch of ideas at a wall...but still does whatever the ***** they want to, with little accepted input from the artist) does not always mean more sales at all (and because those charges are recoupable...that's all on the artist's dime!). Major labels destroy 9 out of every 10 artists they get their hands on, and then shelve them for the length of their contract. You, sir, are clearly either a) a major label rep, or b) completely uninformed about this process.
        • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -3/+1wrong...when you hear things like that an artists gets about $1 per CD sold...that is AFTER the record label recoups their costs of producing the CD. Not before. Technically speaking, artists get for more than $1 per CD. Then they repay the production costs with some of that money (and it is NOT a loan, by the way. If it were a loan, then if a new artist fails, they would be in debt to the record label, which they are not.) For most CDs, what is left over is anywhere from 80 cents to $1.50 per CD sold. Again...after repaying.

          Botton line is if someone selling 150,000 albums with a label, they are going to come out of it with somewhere between $120,000 and $200,000 in profit. Nice to try to make me look uninformed, but clearly you are.

          And the rest of your comment is just typical whining from little bitches like you. Peopel who think that the fact that they like crappy alternative bands makes them superior to others. Newsflash..you are not superiror to ANYONE in this world, and never will be. You are also very ignorant, and laugbaly so.
          • laterthandawn, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Dude, you just said what I said (more or less, save one detail), except with more typos, more whining, and some weird assertion that I think I'm better than other people because I don't think any artist anywhere should get screwed by corporate power structures. Yeah, totally, what a dick I am.

            Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this stuff all the sounds the same...the artist's don't see a cent until labels recoup. Agreed. Ok...lots of bad deals now involve the artists' cut paying the recoup. Labels are desperate to make money, so they're digging deeper now (don't even get me started on the whole power play they're pulling with trying to get a cut of merch/tour revenue/etc).

            As for the loan parallel...fair enough...though when you default on a loan in the real world, there's always the nightmare of bankruptcy (you know, where your creditors own your ass, in one way or another -- but you don't have to pay it all back!)...kinda like if you fail on a major and get shelved.
          • fastsix, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure he's superior to a least a few people in this world and I don't even know who he is. To not be superior to "ANYONE in this world" means that he'd have to be the worst person in the world. What are the chances of that?

            About 1 in 6.7 billion
    • canewediggit, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2"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."

      sad. and yeah, they can tour, but nin sells out arenas already so that's no win for trent. hopefully, people will go out and _buy_ some older saul albums and books.

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-6872350-3 ...
    • tehnico, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2You're forgetting about the artistic freedom. Which is the number one reason Saul went this route. He hated his label coming back and saying "This isn't hip hop, our contract says we get 3 hip hop albums".
    • wfisher11, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Is it really "stealing" if the artist gives you the option to download it for free? Sounds more like "shareware" to me! Maybe in the future the album should be fully available in a streaming flash player or something of that nature. Listen online, if you like it, buy it ... if not, keep moving.

      I personally bought the album as I am a huge supporter of pretty much anything Trent does. And while I like the album, my main goal was to contribute to proving this is a viable means to get your music out there so that Trent wouldn't end up back on a label with release dates that take forever to arrive!
  • DietMountainDew, on 01/04/2008, -2/+57But you also have to think about how many of those 154,449 people would have purchased the album in a store. A good majority of those I am sure were just discovering new music, didn't like it, removed the songs, and didn't pay.

    Just because 154,449 people downloaded it, doesn't mean it would have sold 154,449 in a traditional store.
    • HayString, on 01/04/2008, -1/+9Exactly!
      Instead of looking at it as "only 18% of the people paid for it" they should be looking at it as "540% more people were exposed to it than would have been"
    • BrapAllgood, on 01/04/2008, -2/+9EXACTLY. When the word 'free' pops up, you get a lot more people willing to experiment. You end up with number of people downloading the album, but no idea how many *liked* it or how many even *would* like the music in question.

      That said, I paid my $5 and I really like the album, though it took a good 6 or 7 listens before that really happened. THAT said, $154,000 sounds like plenty to rake in without a label (or *any manufacturing at all*) in so short a time. That's what I call a green product.
    • DestroyFascism, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I have to agree! I once made a cd with a few friends and the total cost in an average studio was just under 12k. After pressing 2000 CD's to flog off at shows the costs rose considerably to 15k (or thereabouts). So that's just on 5k each or rent for 1 year...
      We only sold 20% of which I got 20%.....I lost allot of money, this is repeated everywhere by others everyday around the world. For the cost of a pro server, (about $55 per week) you will have plenty of headroom for downloads. (About 500gb or unlimited on some $50 + dedicated deals). So what you are doing is effectively Nothing, and people are coming to you, You did not spend $100 bucks on gas and help the Drummer lift his god damned stand case up 2 flights of stairs, you did not break down, you did not get bashed by a drunken fool. You sold 1 in 5 Hits a CD. and made $5 for the cost of doing very little. If you sold more its because in some part the other 4 hits played it to a friend...I would not think "free" is the thing here, I would think "free broadcasting" by the person who downloaded it is more likely. For what it is you are doing obscenely better than most artists could dream of....The real test is how many tickets and T shirts you sell?
    • tehnico, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Also, I downloaded it for free, and then re downloaded it for 5 bucks after test driving it. I wonder how many other double downloads there were.
  • riverstyx, on 01/04/2008, -2/+17More appropriate name for this article: "The Download Spiral". har dee har.

    I know Trent reads this site, so I'll be nice :)
    I checked out a few songs after downloading it, I didn't much care for it though so I deleted it. Honestly, I haven't listened to a new nine inch nails record ever since The Fragile. I did buy that one though. Along with The Downward Spiral.
    But I still respect him and what he did for his friend. Radiohead are still being secretive and stupid, but they have a lot of fans.

    20% paid? Doesnt surprise me, like I said I didn't like the album so I deleted it. If Trent releases an album online, his sales will show a different number, same goes for Radiohead since they have a lot more fans then Niggy Tardust.

    • basic0, on 01/04/2008, -0/+5That was my first thought. I liked the Saul Williams album, but let's be honest here, his previous album only sold 33,000 copies. I'd never heard of him before this whole thing, and I'm sure a lot of people have still never heard of him. I wonder if the statistics would be different if the winner of next season's "American Idol" released their first album in this manner.
      • sinrtb, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3I dunno it just might be bigger numbers, but with a similar ratio. I think 1/5 is a good sales rate.
    • Refrag, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2You really should check out Year Zero. I think it is one of NIN's best efforts.
  • redcyren, on 01/04/2008, -1/+20After a full year, I'd like to see the results of this effort, including touring, merch, and any other income Saul can bring in. Then compare it to the income of an artist with a major label to see who has the better margins. I'm *hoping* it's Saul ftw.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -10/+2It is bad enough when pathetic losers use ftw. But you don't even know how to use it correctly.
      • redcyren, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I have yet to see a record of flawless comments from you, or a single post that was void of your need to bitch about anything and everything. Fix your basics like spelling and correct use of caps lock, and then we might take you seriously.

        p.s. Note the "Check Spelling" button before you post. It's free to use!
  • exomni, on 01/04/2008, -14/+3Could people please stop using the word "capitalist" when they have jack ***** no idea what it means?
    • BrapAllgood, on 01/04/2008, -0/+4For crying out loud, STFU. We got it the FIRST time you typed it.
      • exomni, on 01/04/2008, -3/+0That was actually the first time I typed it. xD
        • BrapAllgood, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1My bad. Did the point make it across, tho? kthxbai
  • MBX1, on 01/04/2008, -9/+3Why is he offering the free download anyway? Doesn't seem to make sense. I understand his good-will but if people want to get it for free they can try to find torrents.
    • dyllama, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah I figure he could just put a torrent file on his site and seed it, that way bandwidth costs are distributed over the swarm and they end up paying less on bandwidth the more popular it is. I wouldn't mind seeding it for a week as a form of donation even though Its not my kind of music and I didnt pay for it.
      • spectre_25gt, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I'd definitely be up for seeding as well. Hell, I've got a server that sits idle most of the day. It can do some work :).
  • allanpat, on 01/04/2008, -2/+30Lesson #1 - if you're going to work off of the donation model, don't host the files on your own server. upload them to bittorrent networks as a zip file with a readme file that links them back to your website if they want to donate. That'll save you tons of money in bandwidth fees and make the experiment more profitable - especially with lesser name artists like Saul Williams
    • catalysis, on 01/04/2008, -1/+12Do you honestly think bandwidth fees were the main expense? Production costs can easily run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a professional album.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -3/+6Yeah...because EVERYBODY reads the README files that come with bit torrent files!

      I love how you think you are smarter than the people that came up with this idea. Like they didn't think of this, but correctly realizing that the mere fact that people will use bit torrent will psychologically make them feel it is free, and therefore make them MUCH less ikely to pay anything for it. Even with a silly README file that most people will not even download if the use a client that allows you to choose.
      • aadnk, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1There will always be a transition period with the adoption of a new business model. Once a "try before you pay"/donationware approach become more widespread, people might stop associating BitTorrent with free content and also support the artists, if he or she requests it.

        And, why not include the donation request in the album itself, like a separate track at the beginning or (preferably) at the end? That way, people can donate even if they get their MP3's (or burned copies) elsewhere.
        • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Do you realize what would happen if there was a PLEASE DOANTE track including n the download? Tehre would be dozens of front paged submissions on Digg bitching about it.

          The point is moot. It is NOt going to happen. Anyone that thinks a "donation" system for ANY product is a good idea is compeltely ignorant of how commerce works.
    • bubs180, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0Remember, only the 128k MP3's are offered completely free. The 192k and FLAC files were only available for purchase. You wouldn't want to torrent those.
  • xenoputtss, on 01/04/2008, -2/+15I have to say that I can understand why people wouldn't pay $5 for it. I went and listened to 4 of the songs and even though I love NIN, I do not like this album and I will not even download it.

    Perhaps the remaining 88% of the people that downloaded it don't like the music, but only downloaded it to listen to it to see if they liked it.
    • allanpat, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2yup - i normally wouldn't buy a saul williams album, but i downloaded it to check it out since it was free. honestly, i haven't listened to more than a few tracks yet
    • digitallysick, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I agree, i just don't care for the album i listed to a few tracks, and deleted it the same day.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -8/+3Perhaps...but no.
      It is hilarious to see everyone trying to come up wit hsome kind of excuses to hide teh fact that people don't ***** CARE about some fight against the RIAA. They download off torrents and P2P becuase it is FREE and relatively risk free. They are not doing it to send some kind of message to "the man." Therefore, when an opportunity comes along to get the music for free, with even LESS of a risk (none), they will take it.
      • alarchy, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3Realistically, even if every single person that downloaded the album paid 5 dollars for it there would be no perceptible change in the music industry. These musicians are experimenting with new business models, and one example (high or low rate of success) won't rewrite the rules of the establishment.

        However, what is important to gain from this, is that (to date) the album has "sold" nearly the same amount as Saul William's previous album but reached a five times greater audience. Even if they didn't like it and didn't pay, that exposure interests people. This whole experiment itself is free, great marketing. While the first attempts may be less than stellar successes, it seems to be working in getting people to try it and maintaining a decent purchase ratio to boot.

        Would you pay 5 dollars to buy a brand new Milli Vanilli album if it was released in a similar matter? Probably not, unless you really like Milli Vanilli. But I'm sure if it was free to try out the entire album, you'd get a lot more people looking/talking about it and at it than if it was a 20 dollar CD released in tiny music shops.

        You can't blame people for not liking things and not wanting to support entertainment they don't like simply out of "principle" in some battle with the establishment.
  • facelesscoward, on 01/04/2008, -0/+8Oh, this reminds me that I need to buy it. I downloaded it for free a while back because I was broke, and it completely slipped my mind that I need to pay for it. I'll make a note and buy it when I get access to a credit card.
  • idesign, on 01/04/2008, -9/+7wait... so he still made over $140,000 in how many months?
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -4/+10REally? it cost him ZERO to produce and distribute this album? Bandwidth is free? Studio costs are free?
      • bfdhud, on 01/04/2008, -3/+3Out of curiosity, Did you read the article?


      • Seph7, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1please link me to your web host :P
    • smls, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1come on ppl, how many times do i have to repost this:

      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.
  • reed311, on 01/04/2008, -10/+8This is why the honor system doesn't work. Imagine, if in real life, Walmart made it optional to pay for their goods. Sure, you'd get more people using that particular good; but it wouldn't work out well in the end.
    • BrapAllgood, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2What?!? It's a new idea and this was one of the first forays into the area...and you are ready to write it off already? Beside that, Wal-Mart 'goods' are manufactured and physically distributed. How do digital files relate?
    • thenutty1, on 01/04/2008, -2/+4Its not the same, because your 'Walmart' would have to have an infinite supply of products available to even compare scenarios.

      Walmart doesn't like thieves because then Walmart has to eat the cost of the stolen goods, where as Trent or Saul don't really lose anything from someone not paying. In fact, its still one more person that has heard his music, regardless of whether or not they paid or even liked it. Which is something some artists care about.
      • cparker, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1"Trent or Saul don't really lose anything from someone not paying."

        Except for bandwidth fees. Oh, and they're not compensated for up-front production costs, Musicane fees, and sample clearance fees. But yeah, you're totally right.
    • pirloui, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2It's a matter of culture; I'm sure it can get better.
  • McGuinness, on 01/04/2008, -13/+7I didnt pay for it. But then again, I didnt download it.
  • exomni, on 01/04/2008, -10/+4How the hell is one in five disenheartening? I'll bet you it's better than most artists.

    Seriously, what the ***** did Trent expect? Those numbers are slightly higher than what I expected.
    • acroyear2, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Well, maybe that figure isn't bad but compared to how many people purchased Saul's previous album, it either means it was too risky to give it away, Saul didn't gain fans from his previous album, or that a fair amount of Saul's fans are extremely cheap.
  • techmaster, on 01/04/2008, -4/+11I liked the idea they used in the album, and downloaded it to check it out. (in comparison, I didn't even bother downloading radiohead's rubbish) But I truly was unimpressed by what I heard. I listened through the whole album, twice, and it wasn't to my liking. I'm a huge fan of industrial music, and was a massive fan of Trent's first 3 albums. But I've honestly found his later works less inspiring, and the Niggy Tardust album, to me, just sounds very random. I find about as much enjoyment from it as I do from listening to a powernoise album, which is to say not much. So, no I didn't download it. But, you have to be fair. If roughly 20% of the people that downloaded it, paid for it... then that means that some people downloaded it for free, liked what they heard, and went back and paid their $5. So, really it's more than 20% of the total. I'd be willing to go as far as saying it's in thirds. One third of the people paid for it, one third downloaded it and enjoyed it (and should go back and pay their $5), and one third downloaded it, listened to it, and deleted it. When you do the math, that means he made nearly $150,000 off the album so far. I doubt Trent is raping him on the production fees, considering it was more of an experiment on how to bypass the RIAA, so you could probably say $50,000 went to production and distribution (web site and bandwidth fees), and he made $100,000. If it had been published by BMG, Warner, Capital, etc... then he would've been lucky to make $50,000 after they took their "small" cut of the profits. So, I consider it a HUGE success, seeing that he made $100,000 (so far! remember, it will keep selling!) and it cost consumers 1/3 to 1/4 of what it would've been through retail. All that, from a very niche album that most people will honestly not enjoy. I mean seriously, this is not U2 or Britney Spears. If Trent Reznor releases his next album in this way, he will see MUCH larger numbers.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -5/+4Just because you CLAIM that people are downoading it for free, and then later going back nd paying for it does not make it a fact. And to try to jump from 18.3% to 33.3% is absurd. That is basically like saying that every single person that paid for it also downloaded it for free once before andthencame back to pay.
      You are desperate for this to work. And it is not going to.
    • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -3/+4Ialso love how you just throw out random numbers without providing any evidence to back them up.
      • techmaster, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2Random numbers? I was going by the numbers they provided, being that almost 20% of the downloads were paid for. I'm not saying every one of them downloaded it for free, liked what they heard, and went and paid for a download. I'm sure this happened with some people. Maybe half of the group? Maybe a quarter? Nobody knows, and that is where speculation comes in. But it is a valid argument that some people did buy the album after hearing it for free. Add to that the fact that some people downloaded it on one pc, went to another pc and downloaded it, plus some people probably started downloading it, lost their internet connection and had to start over, etc... The web site counts people that sign up to download the album, so if you have to come back multiple times, it counts each one of those as a seperate download. Niggy Tardust is an experiment by Trent Reznor, and there is plenty of room for speculation on numbers, and trying to get a rope around some of the facts involved. But, considering that this is an album by an artist that nobody was familiar with before its release, and it had zero marketing effort behind it, I personally consider it a huge success. With more effort and a better and more mainstream product, it could sell many more copies. I'm sorry, but Trent needs to give himself a pat on the back. He did get a decent amount of success with an unknown product in a very turbulent industry, with very little effort. That speaks volumes.
    • catalysis, on 01/04/2008, -2/+8RTFA, there was an "A-list" team working on this. So you are talking about salaries for studio musicians, sound engineers, mastering engineers, technicians, consultants, etc. This ***** is not cheap. Diggers really need to learn about what it takes to make a professional album before considering themselves experts on the industry. The utter lack of any knowledge, research, or even common sense in these comments is astounding
      • techmaster, on 01/04/2008, -4/+1Yes, he did say there was an A-list, but with a guy like Trent, that honestly doesn't mean much. Trent himself is capable of handling every step along the way, except maybe mastering. Of course, mastering fees can sometimes be the priciest part of the process, so you do bring up a good point. But, don't make assumptions on my knowledge of music, as I do my own studio work, and am very familiar with the recording process.
        • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1"I do my own studio work, and am very familiar with the recording process."

          So when you get famous, you're going to spend your time working for free, and spending ungodly amounts on the upkeep of your studio and A-list staff?
          • techmaster, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Yeah, you're right. Trent Reznor would never do music production for a measly $50,000. He obviously charged $2,500,000 for the process. Gotta pay for his new Hollywood mansion somehow.
    • TwoDeuces, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0It's a fact that should be easily determined by data.

      TRENT: How many unique IP addresses downloaded the album? Or how many unique User ID's?
    • wfisher11, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1I love how these numbers were pulled directly from his nether regions ...
  • markoa, on 01/04/2008, -5/+3Yeah but c'mon, the very basic fact is that not all people who are interested in this have a credit card. Maybe they are just not that old or live in some not so rich country.
  • hgomez, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I really wonder what the percentage of people that bought it vs. total people that have it would've been if they had promoted it like crazy.
  • airencracken, on 01/04/2008, -0/+6I paid my five dollars and went ahead and downloaded the FLAC version. I felt like it was actually worth paying for since I was getting a decent format unlike what Radiohead pushed out when they did their digital "release".

    Five dollars really isn't that much to pay for good music. Even though Saul isn't my favorite artists I've definitely gotten five dollars worth of enjoyment out of the record.

    What really felt awesome though was the ability to bypass the bureaucracy of the recording industry.
    • kidcodea, on 01/04/2008, -7/+1u get a lotta bureaucracy where u grab your cds?
  • nurvus, on 01/04/2008, -4/+22People act like they can't afford $5! And they all say "***** THE RIAA!!". The contradiction is just blistering.
    • LordMaul, on 01/04/2008, -6/+1Wrong. I spent more than five bucks on anti-RIAA and anti-MPAA stickers, easily... the difference? I find the stickers entertaining.
      • actorboy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3You certainly showed the RIAA -- you bought stickers.
  • verto351, on 01/04/2008, -3/+15The website should have allowed you to preview the songs before downloading. I've never heard of the guy, or any of the songs, so the only way I could see if I liked it was to download it..and hell if I'm gonna pay money blindly.
    • nurvus, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Trent was 'leaking' tracks on well before the release! It was all over digg...
      • nurvus, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2On TPB. Sorry. Don't know how that was left out >_>
    • frederoil, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2me too. I believe I heard a track he did off of Year Zero remixed. But that's the only one.
  • bingobongony, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2Of course, the early downloaders are FAR more likely to pay for it since they are tring to send a message.
  • z23rdhsuan, on 01/04/2008, -2/+5does trent account for the people who downloaded it for free, listened to it, liked it and then went back thru and payed for it?
    i know i show up on both the stats
    oh and im not a fan of nin, but im glad he is producing again
    • patrickgun, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0same here, 'cept im a big nin fan
  • jonnyeuchre, on 01/04/2008, -1/+2

    In that business model, the $$ is in the tour. I think it's a great way to market a new artist. If half of those people come to his show, he's way the ***** ahead...not to mention the exposure, which is usually where all your $$ is spent, and he got it for free

    Trent is a great musician, but not much of an MBA student. Your $$ isn't always front-end.
    • actorboy, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2"In that business model, the $$ is in the tour. I think it's a great way to market a new artist"

      What an amazing concept this "touring" is. Why did musicians even enter the recording industry? The money is clearly in "tour".
  • charbarred, on 01/04/2008, -6/+6Selling 28,332 copies of an album by a new previously unknown artist without a very expensive marketing campaign is not that bad. I know many artists who have released free downloads of their albums on the net and didn't get a 10th of that audience to download it. Let's face it, how many of us have heard of Saul Williams prior to all of this? If Trent Reznor were to open a traditional label and try to shift CD's I doubt he would sell half of that, let alone make any money. That's more than $140000 they made without putting a lot of money into it.
    • xenixninja, on 01/04/2008, -1/+3New previously unknown artist? You must be joking right? Just because you haven't heard of him doesn't make him new or unknown.
      • chaosium, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1He's not unknown, but he's hardly mainstream.
    • cparker, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1"Without putting a lot of money into it"? Did you even read the blog?
  • Okari, on 01/04/2008, -1/+4Here's the problem with these sales figures. They don't take into account the fact people just downloaded it because they could. Those people probably wouldn't have spent the time to torrent it anyways.
    • acroyear2, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1That's a good point. I think a major issue is the marketing. I know of some moderate or casual Saul Williams fans who had NO IDEA this album existed. Only nerds like me are reading technology blogs, nin blog, and ***** digg.
  • wentwj, on 01/04/2008, -0/+818% actually seems fairly high to me. Especially when you take into consideration that the real percentage is probably much higher. I'm not really sure on how they distributed it (didn't download it at all), but I'd wager a few people went and got it for free, and then after they liked it went and purchased it. Meaning they got counted twice, once as a freeloader, and once as a paying customer.

    I think the advantage of online distribution for 'free' is that you can get your stuff out to a MUCH larger audience without relying on radio and old school marketing. If something is free people will gladly go and download it, the trick is how many will feel obligated to pay? A good percentage (as evidence from other comments on here), simply didn't like the material. And I don't think anyone can really fault them. They gave it a shot and at least claimed they'd have paid if they liked it.

    If this kind of distribution catches on you'll be able to judge the quality of a record by the percentage of people who choose to gave money for it, which... would be interesting.
  • digitallysick, on 01/04/2008, -2/+6Problem is , i downloaded it, and i don't like his music, to me it sucks. I'm a huge nin fan, great music, but not so much a Saul Williams fan, if i was, i would of paid. He isn't out anything though, because i surely would not of purchased the cd
    • xenixninja, on 01/04/2008, -2/+2Okay. So you didn't like? Then it's all okay you didn't pay for it. Right?
      • tattertech, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Either someone doesn't get the point of this new distribution model (do you work for the RIAA maybe?), or they forgot to add a sarcasm tag...
        • xenixninja, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Thought the sarcasm was obvious. :) Sorry.

          It just more or less ***** me off that people rather not pay AND support a new way of distributing music by paying a meagre 5 USD.
          • fastsix, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Send me $5 and I'll send you a .mp3 of me playing guitar.
            I guarantee you won't like it, but at least you'll be supporting a new way of distributing music.
    • br0ken1128, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah, yeah it is .. the fault is not on those who downloaded it using the "free" option that was given to them and then didn't care for it.. are you serious?
  • halfemptyfilms, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I'm actually quite a big fan of Saul Williams and used to be a big fan of NIN, still respect what Trent does... I downloaded the album for free, expecting to later go and buy X copies for friends based on what it was worth. Well, honestly, I didn't think it was very good at all. There were a couple of songs that I dug and one I really liked, but if it was released to stores I wouldn't buy it (I did go back and buy another copy at $5, for what its worth, but only out of guilt).

    I hope this doesn't deter Trent and Saul from attempting something like this in the future...
  • katrayun, on 01/04/2008, -0/+9So, how much would they have made from physical cd sales through a major label?
    • acroyear2, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1depends on the marketing. I say they would have made more but the music would've been *****.
  • JenadaeXX, on 01/04/2008, -0/+15This blog seems very misguided and doesn't really answer the question is asked itself.

    How much was the bottom line compared to his last CD? Did you make more with this way? Less? Can we see some numbers after these expenses? Was Saul's last CD widely available in many record stores? How many of those fans even knew about this CD being released online? How many of those downloaders even knew about this artist before this?

    The fact is they don't even know the bottom line yet. No one knows in 3 years from now how much the artist will make from this venture or how much will be lost. I don't really see why he even chose to write this. It's almost like he admitted defeat.
    • jorgenmz, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2Dude, I'd digg you twice if I could.
      Also, as noticed by the comments and seeing they didn't make any promotion for the album, I think it missed its audience (i.e. was obtained more by e.g. 'geek' people than Saul fans).
      Shame on how few people chose FLAC instead of MP3 though...
    • gwinerreniwg, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1I agree JenadaeXX. He seems to be missing the larger lesson here: You can't look at an album as a single money-making event any longer, just like companies don't hang their businesses on a single product launch. The music business needs to be considered more of a continuum where each project serves to further establish and promote the artist, rather than worrying about breaking even on each release.

      As Trent says at the end of the article: "Saul's music is in more peoples' 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." Clearly that is more valuable than album "sales".
      • Craptacularama, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0Um, if Trent said that, then how is he missing the lesson? He stated the lesson right there in print.

        I think he's just explaining his dissatisfaction that he poured heart, soul and wallet into a piece of collaborative art and an experiment designed to buck the system, and all of the "I'm downloading music because the record companies are stiffing the artist" crowd didn't own up to their side of the deal. He's disappointed that he gave the fanbase the benefit of the doubt, and they abused his trust.

        I mean look at many responses here. "I downloaded the album, but didn't pay for it because it sucked." Well, then why didn't you just sample a few tracks and save Trent and Saul some bandwidth for people that actually wanted it?

        Is it really ok to walk into a store, steal a cd, take it home, listen to it, and justify your theft by saying the music sucked anyway? (Granted, the analogy is flawed because they gave it away, but still the idea is similar enough.)

        The problem here is that Trent was hoping to slay a major blow to the current capitalist, artist-devouring machine, and he hoped that at least his and Saul's fan-base, people of a certain level of intellect and awareness, would stand behind him as he fought.

        Unfortunately, most of the fan-base is still in disillusion.

        The point here, is that there is a problem with the current system. Fans choose to not support bands that deserve support. If you downloaded the album thinking you'd like it, and you didn't...well then next time you'll be smart. But if you downloaded the album knowing that you wouldn't like it, well that's just a waste.
        • gwinerreniwg, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1You place too much commodity value on the content - its not like cars or mac&cheese - tangible goods. We're discussing intellectual property. The whole beauty of the "arts patronage-based model", is that the contributor CHOOSES which works to donate to. Blindly downloading an album then expecting someone to pay for it if they don't like it seems awfully old-school model to me. The whole beauty of this is that you could decide after you had it if it was worth anything or not. Your proposition seems to be that it is a legitimate revenue stream for artists to capitalize off people who don't want or like their work. That's not congruent with the principles of this experiment, in my opinion.
        • Craptacularama, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0Well, I don't know where everyone else was, but I was able to sample the album prior to purchase. I liked what I heard, and bought the thing.

          Let's use another hypothetical. You like NIN, you like Saul. You feel like they deserve to be supported. Do you pay for the download with the understanding that you may or may not like the work, but at least the artists deserve your money for the years of positive work that they've provided for you? Or do you download the album, think it sucks, and essentially spit in the face of an innovative experiment and 2 artists that have more than proven themselves to be trying their best.

          If 22,800 bought the album, but 38000 bought his last album, that means that a significant portion of Saul's fanbase either chose to not pay, or does not like him anymore. It's inconceivable that an artist like Saul would LOSE 10,000 fans over the course of 3 years, especially with his cross-genre performing. So it's safe to say that about a 1/4 of Saul Williams' fan base decided that he wasn't worth the five dollars before sampling the album.

          I believe the experiment was more that Trent and Saul want to change the industry's distribution model. They expected it (naively in my opinion) to happen with one well executed experiment. It didn't, and he's disappointed that he put his faith in the fanbase and they didn't come through.

  • thinman1189, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3I support what you're doing but I've never really listened to your music, and it quite frankly isn't that enticing to me. Keep in mind that since you didn't really advertise this, even the most hardcore fan may have missed it purely because of computer and internet illiteracy. The people that downloaded this album are the people who are fans that use Digg and similar sites, and have some computer knowledge. The majority of people I talk to offline know who NiN is but had no idea this was happening, because they just know nothing about the internet. I mean, if you thought people online were annoying and stupid, just look at the people who can't even use aol. Do you really think they found out about this? The rest of the people that downloaded may not necessarily be fans but simply support the cause, though chances are those are the people who downloaded, and then decided not to pay when they didn't like it.
    • nurvus, on 01/04/2008, -2/+1Ever heard of word of mouth outside the internet? Or do you rarely find time to make it out there?
      • gwinerreniwg, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2I spoke to several music fans and NIN-philes who had not heard of this until I mentioned it to them around Christmas. These are folks fairly well informed and net savvy. So, yes there is some word of mouth, but it didn't make it far. Thinman has a very valid point.
    • skinturtle, on 01/04/2008, -2/+0"I mean, if you thought people online were annoying and stupid, just look at the people who can't even use aol."

      You'd better believe they are stupid. The line that cracks me up when some people admit they can't figure out how a computers works is, "I'm not very computer illiterate!"

      Well shoot!...I can see the problem already! They are not very "literate" either!
      • fastsix, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1If people who can't use the Internet (or even AOL) are stupid, one has to wonder how either was ever invented as presumably the people who invented the Internet (or AOL) didn't know how to use it before they invented it.
  • writeman, on 01/04/2008, -1/+6In cases like this, I don't think you can measure success in dollars, although a hundred plus grand ain't anything to sneeze at. Most independents would be overjoyed with that kind of intake.

    This is more than not that bad. It's fantastic for an unknown without marketing. Imagine if, rather than offering it for free, it had been offered for a couple bucks. I think most of us would have been willing to risk a couple bucks. And then the money situation would be a LOT different.
    • fkr3, on 01/04/2008, -0/+3Trent specifically says nobody got rich on this album and he spent way too much producing. That means the net profit was somewhere between -$dismal and +$dismal.

      Profit's that thing that's left after all the bills are paid.
      • gwinerreniwg, on 01/04/2008, -1/+1As you say, Trent admits that he did not consider his business approach in the outcome. So who's fault is it if one does everything the "old"