Idolator
On Feb. 15th, MP3 files from an advance copy of Modest Mouse's We Were Dead... showed up onto the web, nearly five weeks before the album's official release date. Mouse fans with even the slightest bit of web savvy could now download their own version of the album, and within days, message boards and blogs were bustling with pro-or-con discussions, many of which were poorly hyphenated, and more than a little caustic. The fans had the record, free of charge; there was really no reason to expect they'd show up a month later and actually purchase a copy.
But during its debut week, Dead went on to sell 129,000 copies—enough to put the album at the top of the Billboard chart, and to once again prove what we've been saying for years: Leaks don't hurt.
For comparison's sake, here are a few other high-profile releases that leaked before their official release date, along with their first-week sales:
Jay-Z, Kingdom Come (680,000)
Young Jeezy, The Inspiration (352,000)
Nas, Hip-Hop Is Dead (355,000)
The Shins, Wincing The Night Away (118,000)
Fall Out Boy, Infinity On High (260,000)
The Arcade Fire, Neon Bible (92,000)
Granted, in the days before file-sharing networks, these numbers would likely have been much bigger—especially for Jay-Z, who promoted Kingdom as if it were a summer tent-pole movie (a really unsatisfying summer tent-pole movie, but still). And many of these records experienced massive drop-offs in their second and third weeks of release. But the fact remains that even widespread, long-lead leaks—the Shins record got out a good three months before its release date—aren't as bad as the record industry thinks, and that all the protective measures undertaken by managers and publicists (watermarking, listening sessions) before a record's release aren't worth the effort anymore. Here are a few reasons why:
1) Leaks spur awareness This will sound absurd to those who spend every waking hour obsessing over new releases, but one of the biggest goals of any publicity campaign is to make sure that the people who would presumably want to buy the record know that it's coming out. This has traditionally been accomplished by media saturation, warm-up tours, and costly campaigns. But an Internet leak gets the music to people who will spread the word for free, allowing label executives to jab their tentacles into fans' heads and plant the following message: Take these songs. Play them everywhere. Tell your friends the street date—but don't use the phrase "street date," because it will sound as if my tentacles told you to say that. Help us build buzz! Oh, and don't use "buzz" either.
2) The fans will always show up We're guessing that a good percentage of those 129,000 Modest Mouse consumers already owned the album, and that the only time they pick up the CD is to scan the lyrics sheet. Even as music becomes quicker and easier to access—and therefore, more disposable—there will always be loyalty among die-hard supporters, who feel a personal connection to the artist, and therefore want to support them. This seems especially true for two demographics: American Idol viewers and indie-rock lovers.* All the more reason for Chris Sligh to sign with Merge.
3) They can't stop it anyway Seriously. All the closed-door listening sessions and super-watermarked discs in the world are no match for some 14-year-old in Helsinki who knows someone with Icky Thump. If the labels acknowledge this—instead of spending countless hours and dollars forcing a clamp-down that's doomed to fail—maybe they can create a new promotional cycle, one in which leaks are used to acquire new listeners while rallying the already on-board fans. Some artists are already thinking this way: Just last week, a promo copy of Wilco's Sky Blue Sky showed up at the Idolator flophouse, free of any copy protection whatsoever. We were excited to see that one of the world's most respected bands was embracing the future. And then we went and listened to the copy we had BitTorrented a month ago.
* Your Idolators do not agree on the latter. Feel free to prove us right/wrong.
Comments
"Leaks don't hurt."
I dunno guys. I took a leak once that burned like hell. A little penicillin cleared it right up though.
But I thought leaked recordings don't sound as good as CDs do. Are recordings leaked as wav files rather than mp3 files now?Yeah, but: money's involved. When fewer records sell, the execs get targeted, as do the artists, esp. because of the disparity between what the actual musicians and the execs earn off each sale.
Also, I think you're glossing over how big those second- and third-week dropoffs are and overestimating how many people download the whole album, then buy it for the lyrics. It's so easy just to google "Modest Mouse lyrics" if you really want every word.
Urinary jokes aside, while I would love to believe that 'leaks don't hurt', I just can't convince myself. Why do I say that? Because I know my buying habits. If I've procured an album for free, the chances of me actually buying the same album is somewhere near nil. I might buy other albums by the same artist, but not what I already have for free. I can't help but wonder how many more copies of neon bible would have sold if it hadn't been leaked.
Now labels can't avoid people to know about crappy albums (though Akon's success makes me wonder...), since the consumer already has an opinion about an album days or weeks before the release and can stay away from undesired product, I guess. Otherwise I would have never bought Mötley Crüe's 1994 album (yes I did, but I was 14...)
I like your moxie, Idolators, and I really wish I could follow you to that happy place, but it just seems wishful at best. Fifteen years ago, if AF or the Shins had that much media exposure leading up to a release date, wouldn't they still have sold at least a hundred thousand more copies?
The first week numbers are impressive, sure, but they seem impressive only relative to how poor the expectations are.
I think it's tricky for indie acts. Fifteen years ago, sure, with the level of media exposure AF/Shins have, they would have sold more. But at the same time, without the internet, would they have that same level of exposure?
Catch 23 minus one.
I believe that file sharing provides an easy excuse for record labels with underperforming artists. Why blame poor marketing efforts or just a plain crappy record when you can throw out a nameless faceless entity of evil like INTERNET PIRATES!!!!!
I also believe that most of the artists whose records inspire the most hand wringing when it comes to leaks wouldn't be nearly so popular if it weren't for the original mp3s that got them so much initial exposure (Arcade Fire in particular).
I'm not sure if I agree with you guys or not, but the truth is that, after having downloaded the new Shins album and listened to it, I bought it anyway the first chance I got once it was out. I enjoyed it so much that I had to support the band by doing the legal, right thing.
Of course, that leaves albums which are mediocre at best in the position where they will get downloaded if leaked, but not bought. You can't work up much enthusiasm (or cash) for an under-7/10 record (which is 90% of the albums that get released) that you already have for free.
Personally, I buy albums when I have had said album on my computer, but not all of them. Because of financial restrictions (like, for real)... So really the only thing leaks do is help me prioritize my 'to buy list'. I also know people who feel like they don't have enough money to buy albums, so they rarely do and download a majority of the stuff they listen to. All the while spending money, money they apparently don't have, on stuff that isn't really, umm necessary. Sooo... Basically I would say that it's more of a reflection on societies overall decline in ummm thinking.
in reply to "Hyman Decent" - most often the first copies of a leaked album to make their way around the internet are ripped into iTunes at 192kbps by some disgruntled and misguided label intern. so yes, many people end up hearing a low-quality version of the album to begin with. however, as the release date grows nearer, more and more copies start to surface, and often times at higher bitrates. with technology like FLAC, anyone who knows how can rip a lossless (i.e. cd-quality) copy of the album and put it on the file-sharing networks. I know there was a FLAC of Neon Bible before it got released..
this article has some good points and I think I agree with it. i always purchase an album if I like it enough after downloading. the record industry needs to stop wasting resources on trying to stop the inevitable, and start developing new business practices that are profitable and successful in the internet age.
Also, how important are first week sales anyways?
I love a good leak, so I wish I could agree with you, but I don't really. Leaks may not destroy the prospects of an album but they do hurt, which is one of the reasons people like them, it helps us spot maxi-singles wrapping themselves in album's clothing. Which is great for us consumers, not so great for those whose jobs depend on shifting units by fair means or foul.
I do care about copyright and I personally try not to get, erm, "unofficial downloads" of things that are readily available for sale, and I always intend to get a paid-for copy of whatever I download that I really like (whether music or video), and in fact more often than not I do, but if I'm being honest I have to admit that I don't always do it. The fact that I have a copy does tend to send the item lower down on my list of priorities, and if money is tight or lots of good things are released all at once sometimes they go by the wayside. I'm not proud of that but it's true. So no, while I do see your points about raising awareness, and I agree with you about the inevitability of leaks (though as a pro-leaking argument it's maybe a weeny bit too similar to "lie back and enjoy it" perhaps?), I just can't see that leaking is a victimless crime. What to do about it? I don't know. But I would imagine those sales figures might have been higher had the leak not happened. Yes, the leak raised awareness but in a leak-free universe maybe they would have tried harder using other methods and raised the same level of awareness?
gregcoff's comment is the best one here. The web giveth, the web taketh away.
No way would the current wave of indie-to-mainstream acts even exist without the influence of online fans/communities/MySpace pages, etc. And while CD sales in general were higher before the digital revolution (part of which, by the way, is fueled by legal downloads on iTunes, not just blogs/torrenting/leaking), the very basis of Arcade Fire's popularity is a kind of geeky fanbase that in an earlier generation - I'm talking 25 years ago, not 15 - would've flocked to the now-all-but-dead college radio.
There are lots of half-full/empty glasses to analyze here. But the bottom line is, the three big indie/pseudo-indie debuts we've seen in 2007 were, in large part, fueled by rabid Internet fandom and would have been unthinkable 10 years ago. Bottom line, leaks are pointless for labels to worry about, and the Idolators are right.
@Big Money, No Whammies: Exactly. The execs pull some sales figures from a magical fantasyland (some time in the early '80s) and say, "IF ONLY the internet didn't exist, we would've sold 10 million records!" It's just a convenient way to take all the problems caused by a whole host of factors and attribute them all to some "enemy" they can talk about in meetings.
Having said that, I think that if you really want to cut down on leaking, you should make it seem low-rent and un-classy rather than illegal. Like those new anti-drug ads that make potheads seem boring.
P.S. to all those saying "those sales would've been higher": bullshit, keep dreaming. As a guy who's followed Billboard charts for 20 years, trust me - an album on Merge or Sub Pop selling 100K in its first week is close to historic.
Only the Offspring's 1994 Epitaph-distributed Smash sold better, and that was over time, and that was a wild aberration (i.e., the exception that proves the rule). Even at the height of mid-'90s grunge/mall-ternative, none of the indie-crossover acts (again, except Offspring) were racking up big sales until they signed to a major. Yes, Bleach sold a million - long after Nevermind broke; same goes for Green Day's now-gold indie albums, which sold after Dookie.
Just three years ago, Matador managed to hold onto Interpol for album #2 amid a massive bidding war, and with Antics achieved what was then considered an impressive debut for an all-indie release: top 20, with about 50ish-K in sales. And that was before the major music blogs really took off, and that was with two solid rock-radio hits. Three years later, Shins and Arcade Fire do twice that, and everyone thinks they should be selling better? Wigga please!
Face it, the leaks will never go away. People just like free stuff too much. People also like to be the first kid on their block with the newest stuff, so it will never be seen as particularly classless. I tend to agree with the Idolators on this one.
A substantial number of the first-week/first-time buyers of the Arcade Fire album would never have even known that such "cool music" existed 20 years ago. Besides, had I not downloaded many of these albums myself, I would have just burned them from a friend that HAD bought them anyway.
The labels really should begin to focus their efforts on the elements of an artist that will actually make them the most money, such as tour support. And real boss teeshirts that cost $45.
@GiantPanda: How important are first week sales?!?! It's, like, the ONLY thing that matters to the labels and stores.
These days, CDs aren't the cash cows they once were; they're just a way to promote more lucrative aspects of the industry like concert tours and merchandise sales. If anything, leaks can help artists because they're a free way to get people interested in a band, no manufacturing or distribution required.
I'm not sure leaks don't hurt sales, but all current efforts to stop them further reveal the music industry's suicidal, know-nothing refusal to, you know, ADAPT. I hope musicians will always be able to make a living doing what they do best. But I don't think guilt and bullying have ever kept obsolete technology alive.
PS: The Shins, Arcade Fire, and the rest of the cubicle-indie movement owes its entire existence to the web. The same people who "broke" Pavement are just tagging along now.
Music/Web/Fun = Roadrunner
Majors/RIAA = Wile E. Coyote
I find it hard to agree with the leaks don't hurt much because, like many others here, I simply won't go out and buy music when I can download it DRM free 3 weeks earlier.
HOWEVER, if the darn labels would let Apple/others sell DRM free music in their stores, I'd buy TONS of albums that I could download in an hour anyways just to support the artists. That way, it gives me a choice influenced only by my own morals about the issue: download it illegally or download it legally. When I have to go down to the store, buy the record, rip it to my computer, and then find a place to store all the CDs [which I NEVER use] it motivates me to just stay in my dorm room and download the CD off of a torrent.
Hey Dennis:
"Only the Offspring's 1994 Epitaph-distributed Smash sold better, and that was over time,"
were first week's longer back then or something?
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?