Bomb or Dud: U2 Release Their First Single For Free?

[Chill Mike D]

I'd pay $5 for a whole album of high-quality DRM free songs.

 

[U2girl]

A second attempt:

Nine Inch Nails releases another online album--this one's free | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Should have done that before, offer a few songs for free, and then if people like it they can go to your site and buy it.

 

[jay canseco]

If I were an artist today who had made it to big star status, I would only release material online in digital format, drm'ed, and at about 64kbps for about 3 dollars an album. This bitrate is listenable if not accurate with the right codec. Any transcodes from these files would be unlistenable, therefore worthless.

 

[shart1780]

Trent Reznor cares more about his art than money in my estimation. Same with Radiohead. They know they're set for life so why let record companies hold back their creativity back for more money they'll never be able to spend? Releasing a free album at full quality, or even better than CD quality as a thank you to the fans? That's amazing IMO and makes me respect Trent Reznor even If I didn't like his music.

U2 on the other hand... I wish they'd start their own label or something and get interesting again. God knows they can afford it as they have to be some of the richest celebrities around. I'd be willing to bet my life that they'd never do anything like that for their fans.

 

[Zoots]

They should just rename themselves to a symbol... this symbol to be precise: $

 

[popacrobat]

so what makes people deserve free work? would you work for free even if you had worked at your company for 25 years? no. it's work. they're working. they can get paid whatever they want. this notion that people are entitled to free shit is just that- shit.

 

[GibsonGirl]

McGuine$$$$$$ is referring to examples like these when he says "get it on our site and pay whatever you want" may not work as much as it is hyped, and it won't be the real solution to the crisis of the industry.

How much would people pay for music when bypassing the label/CD store etc... ? - Apparently not much, and still preferrably nothing when possible.

Ah, but that's not what Moser is talking about, is it? Moser reckons that releasing a free single (ala Coldplay or Sigur Ros) would be a fantastic PR builder...and I agree. Unfortunately, Paul McGuinness is strongly opposed to the idea of releasing anything for free - and I would assume his conviction extends to singles as well, not just LPs.

The situation with Radiohead and NIN is different, as they elected to release entire albums for free. We're only talking about singles here. The promotion for Coldplay's new album, which included the free download for "Violet Hill," appears to have worked...the album has hit number one and gone gold/platinum in a number of countries.

 

[Rob33]

The promotion for Coldplay's new album, which included the free download for "Violet Hill," appears to have worked...the album has hit number one and gone gold/platinum in a number of countries.

so you think that's the reason for it going gold/platinum in a number of countries...?

 

[popacrobat]

it was going to go Gold/Platinum in many countries anyway but releasing a single for free likely facilitated that. it's not the reason Coldplay is currently successful. the coldplay axe you grind is getting pretty tiresome, I don't mean that in a really bad way or to seem like a jerk but it's just getting dragged into nearly every thread.

anyway to keep it on topic, i think a free single wouldn't be an awful idea but I'm just not a big fan of the free album. that's just me though.

 

[U2girl]

Ah, but that's not what Moser is talking about, is it? Moser reckons that releasing a free single (ala Coldplay or Sigur Ros) would be a fantastic PR builder...and I agree. Unfortunately, Paul McGuinness is strongly opposed to the idea of releasing anything for free - and I would assume his conviction extends to singles as well, not just LPs.

The situation with Radiohead and NIN is different, as they elected to release entire albums for free. We're only talking about singles here. The promotion for Coldplay's new album, which included the free download for "Violet Hill," appears to have worked...the album has hit number one and gone gold/platinum in a number of countries.

Free single ? Would be nice, maybe it will happen. I think most U2 fans still do buy CDs though - and in the case of bands like Coldplay and U2 album will still sell, downloads or not.

I like this last idea that Reznor did: offer half the album (say, the singles you intend to release), then bypass the label and let the interested folk buy the CD on your own site. But note the first time less than one in 5 people actually payed - and all he asked for was 5 $. For Radiohead, we didn't see any actual numbers excep bits like "average visitor payed 2 $" or "million downloads" - I would seriously love to see them go public with the results.

 

[SecretFly]

How will singles or the album for that matter go on the charts if they are released for free. U2 should release the album and singles in a conventional manner like they always have. I want to see U2 number 1 on the charts.

 

[ahittle]

Regarding the percentage of people who paid at NIN's site - If he gets 5 bucks per download, that is still a huge jump in his profits; if he was still on a traditional label, he might get a fifth of that.

And nobody has mentioned the other merch he moved. He had limited edition packages that sold out quickly, netting him 750K in mere days. He knows that the future is going to be tiered packages. Some slobs download for free, some get higher quality for more $, some geek out and get the over-priced deluxe edition...

I would love to know the breakdown on a blockbuster record and how many people actually bought it vs. file sharing. How many people legally purchase a record vs. getting it for free elsewhere? At the end of the day, maybe Radiohead and NIN's numbers don't look so bad... (And I find it hilarious that Paul has labeled Radiohead's business plan a "backfire.")

 

[U2girl]

He might but then again you can't not pay for a CD in a store the way you can on the net. (5 $ was for high quality files but you could also get it for free with lesser quality mp3s) Still, one out of five people paying up is weak. I just don't think you can compete with free files once it's out there.

Limited editions can be done with CDs too. Maybe some day bands will just put free albums out on their site (torrents?) and just pick up the cash from touring.

Let's get a huge album and break it down.

 

[powerhour24]

browser fuck up

 

[powerhour24]

The situation with Radiohead and NIN is different, as they elected to release entire albums for free. We're only talking about singles here. The promotion for Coldplay's new album, which included the free download for "Violet Hill," appears to have worked...the album has hit number one and gone gold/platinum in a number of countries.

X&Y did the same, and people paid to download "Speed of Sound", there was a lot more to the promotion of this album than that, particularly since this didn't have the buzz X&Y had until about a month before its release, the iTunes ad and managing their first #1 hit (as the title track also helped no doubt, had a lot more to do with it, as well as the media blitz.

 

[shart1780]

so what makes people deserve free work? would you work for free even if you had worked at your company for 25 years? no. it's work. they're working. they can get paid whatever they want. this notion that people are entitled to free shit is just that- shit.

When did I say we deserve anything free?

What was awesome about what Trent did was that he did it purely for the love of making music. It's easy to see that he'd keep doing it simply because he loves it. He could be laying on the beach sipping martinis but instead he decides to stay in the studio and make an album and release it to us for free saying it's a thank you to the great fans. How is that not awesome.

I'm not saying anyone who doesn't do this is money obsessed. I'm just starting to feel like U2's music is more of a job to them than a passion. In all honesty I don't think U2 would be making music if they didn't get the wads of cash and recognition that went with it.

I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. I just respect art for the sake of art as opposed to art for money.

 

[silvrlvr]

X&Y did the same, and people paid to download "Speed of Sound", there was a lot more to the promotion of this album than that, particularly since this didn't have the buzz X&Y had until about a month before its release, the iTunes ad and managing their first #1 hit (as the title track also helped no doubt, had a lot more to do with it, as well as the media blitz.

This album is better than X&Y. Coldplay is actually a better case study for the new world of music downloads than Radiohead, which gave their album away when they probably could have just gotten by with a freebie to a limited number of people. Coldplay handled the situation perfectly: they delighted their loyal fans with a free song and got the doubters (of which I was one) to at least listen to Violet Hill. Then they put Viva la Vida up for a 99 cent download concurrent to the single breaking on the iTunes ad. The availability of two singles fed the pre-orders on iTunes, and by the time the album actually hit, the fans' desire to hear more was stoked. Then, they discounted the entire album (the last I saw, it was $7.99 on iTunes) which has generated even more interest.

I'll admit I got the whole album for free, but I was ready to pay for it by the time it was available. At minimum, I think U2 ought to make one download available for free, perhaps for a limited time like Violet Hill. I doubt they will, but for Bono and McGuinness to spar publicly over the issue of free downloads shows there's at least some discussion going on.

 

[Rob33]

When did I say we deserve anything free?

What was awesome about what Trent did was that he did it purely for the love of making music. It's easy to see that he'd keep doing it simply because he loves it. He could be laying on the beach sipping martinis but instead he decides to stay in the studio and make an album and release it to us for free saying it's a thank you to the great fans. How is that not awesome.

I'm not saying anyone who doesn't do this is money obsessed. I'm just starting to feel like U2's music is more of a job to them than a passion. In all honesty I don't think U2 would be making music if they didn't get the wads of cash and recognition that went with it.

I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. I just respect art for the sake of art as opposed to art for money.

shart...I am sorry but your statements that U2's music "is more of a job to them than a passion" are false- Bono has directly addressed this question in multiple interviews, in which he says that they don't need the money anymore, they are making music for the sake of creating extraordinary art...they genuinely feel they're just about to make their best stuff. and whether or not you agree with that line of thought is irrelevant...what's important is that they still feel passionate about their music, and realize that they do not need to make one more song or another penny off their fans to live comfortably for the rest of their lives.

 

[falkon]

When did I say we deserve anything free?

What was awesome about what Trent did was that he did it purely for the love of making music. It's easy to see that he'd keep doing it simply because he loves it. He could be laying on the beach sipping martinis but instead he decides to stay in the studio and make an album and release it to us for free saying it's a thank you to the great fans. How is that not awesome.

I'm not saying anyone who doesn't do this is money obsessed. I'm just starting to feel like U2's music is more of a job to them than a passion. In all honesty I don't think U2 would be making music if they didn't get the wads of cash and recognition that went with it.

I'm not saying that's necessarily wrong. I just respect art for the sake of art as opposed to art for money.

Trent made $750,000 selling "limited edition" box sets of his new album. They were $300 a pop. All he did was add fancy packaging, and like magic, it was worth $300. An easy $750,000.

art for art's sake.