NIN Fans Caught in the Web

Nine Inch Nails have recently redefined the concept album, creating a conceptual game for fans prior to the album's release that incorporates the Internet to promote the album in ways that have never been seen before. Their latest Year Zero has yet to be released, but has already built a cult following of fans who decode mysterious messages at various cryptic websites and decipher clues about the dystopia world of “Year Zero” (which followers have revealed is actually 2022, or the year that the evil “presence”is Born Again).The basis for the game first began with a tour t-shirt, seen at the left.

The bolded letters on the back of the t-shirt spell out the clause “i am trying to believe”. iamtryingtobelieve.com is a website which begins to explain what the world will be like at Year Zero. Click here for a more specific description of the eccentric world of Year Zero from Rolling Stone.

The initial website has sparked dozens of fan websites, blogs and message boards with different ideas about what all the various clues mean. You can visit one of the more popular sites here.

The clues are deciphered over these websites through followers alone, and then discussed and analyzed at great lengths via the Internet. Additional clues have been added into the mix, through USB flash drives that have been found on the floor in bathroom stalls at various NIN concerts. The USB drives have included three leaked album tracks (download the first single for free, My Violent Heart ), various pictures seen only through use of a spectrograph (a machine that converts a sound wave into an image), and Morse codes at the end of the leaked tracks that point to new websites where they can try to discover more clues.

The latest website revealed just a few days ago is called Art is Resistance, which claims that the only way to resist this dystopia from becoming reality is through promotion of the album art so that we can find new clues and halt the process of Year Zero from becoming reality. Fans can download AIM icons, desktop wallpapers and printable stickers in order to fight the Year Zero world.

So what if a fan doesn't have Internet access? Bolded numbers on the back of another t-shirt are 310-295-1040 which is a U.S. phone number that directs callers to a puzzling message with clues and clips from NIN songs.

There are so many reasons why this marketing ploy is so genius. I am not a NIN fan, but I found myself browsing the websites , trying to figure out exactly what this was all about. This reveals to me that by creating a mysterious phenomenon around the album, they are able to spark interest outside of their normal fans (so that the entire online community will be interested). They have used merchandise such as t-shirts as tools for clues to feed their story (so that more people want to purchase merchandise). They use concerts as a venue to release the latest clues to the story (so that more people will want to buy tickets to their tour). They have released tracks one by one online and allowed free sharing of these tracks, allowing even those who weren’t NIN fans to sample their tunes (perhaps making new fans). They offer free downloadable icons, posters and stickers so that anyone can market their album in the non-digital world. And I don’t doubt that when their album is finally released, they will sell a higher percentage of physical albums as opposed to digital albums, as consumers will be interested in obtaining the extras and the clues that may come with the tangible CD. In an era when the purchasing a physical copy of the record itself is dying, NIN are using the Internet as a tool to market their records, their merchandise and their tour. Remarkable how using the Internet has NIN fans caught in the Web, and I can't imagine that the hype surrounding this marketing ploy will help NIN in all aspects of thier latest release.

The Best Music in Life is Free

Dispatch are not sell outs, in the figurative sense. They never signed a major record label, creating their four albums independently. They donated proceeds from their six years of near-constant touring to various charities. And they broke up three years ago in 2004 with a free concert in Boston, drawing 100,000 dedicated fans. But Dispatch are sell outs in the literal sense—they recently sold out the 20,000-seat Madison Square Garden for three separate nights this July for a series of concerts that will benefit poverty-striken Zimbabwe. And surprise surprise, they used the internet as a completely effective promotional tool for the events.

Dispatch originally was only going to have one concert, and they released tickets to the event exclusively to their MySpace friends. The band has just over 57,000 friends, and through this promotion alone, the concert sold out in 30 minutes. They added a second show released through MySpace as well, and this one sold out in 12 hours. They then announced a third show to the general public through ticketmaster.com (which is also online promotion, note) and the show sold out in 23 minutes. At 20,000 concert attendees a show (that's 60,000 ticketholders) and $39.50 a pop, that’s almost $2.4 million for Dispatch to aid their cause.

If the price is right and purchasing is hassle-free (like with the ease of the internet and iTunes), people for the most part are willing to pay for music. But if the rampant expansion of P2P filesharing is any indication, many consumers think that the best music in life is free. Record labels are slow to pick up on this idea, believing that offering music for free will hurt their industry. But they fail to realize that by using the internet as a promotional tool, free music and free concerts may actually lead to profits. Ozzy Osborne is putting this idea to the test this summer, entitling Ozzfest “FreeFest” and completely doing away with ticket prices, relying on internet-based sponsorship, along with concert merchandise and vending to make money from the event.

Those who may not even be huge fans of the bands playing at Ozzfest would be tempted to attend anyway— the word “free” is certainly appealing. Without having to shell out hundreds of dollars for concert tickets, people will be more willing to support sponsors and purchase merchandise at or before the event over the website. And who knows, maybe a skeptic can be turned into a fan after attending the event, and be willing to purchase music to support their newfound bands and buy concert tickets and merchandise in the future.

Not only is the idea of a free concert pretty sensational, but record labels would be surprised by this second "sensational" fact: Ozzfest is using internet promotion to advertise the event. To make sure that you will get free Ozzfest tickets, the website suggests signing up to receive email notifications (from their friendly sponsors?) until the ticket information is released. When the information is released, those who desire tickets will be directed to sponsored website where they can secure their tickets.

If the record labels were smart, they would use this example as a clear indication that radio and records just don’t work as a promotional tool anymore. The internet not only allows consumers to search and discover new music, but it also allows quick and easy music and concert purchase, with just the click of a button. And through the internet and social networking sites, promotion is practically free for the bands— a MySpace page is free to set up. Bands can post pictures, blogs, and concert event reminders. Listeners can stream music for free and receive important information through word of keyboard. Record labels may argue that the best music in life isn't free, but they must be on board with the idea that the best promotion in life is free. Clearly the internet is becoming an increasingly more important and effective tool to promote new music.

Apple and Starbucks Brewing A Hot Idea

When I go to Starbucks, this is what I order: a grande, double shot, skinny, sugar free vanilla latte with extra foam. Back in my small-coffee-with-room ordering days, I swore I would never be that girl with the painstakingly specific order. But as my coffee order has evolved over time, so have my sentiments. If I’m going to pay $4 for a cup of joe, it better be what I want. I can get coffee for free from the coffee machine in my house, but I am willing to pay for Starbucks because it’s handy, it’s quality, and it’s in a convenient (and trendy!) portable container.

Those adjectives that I just used to describe my cup of coffee could be easily applied to another little something I often carry around with me—my iPod. Much of the appeal of the iPod and the iTunes store is that they are quick and easy to use. The music downloaded from iTunes is sure to be of utmost sound quality, and you can bring your music anywhere you want to go. Plus there’s the aesthetic appeal—those white ear buds and pretty colors sure do look cool.
iPods are surely popular with the 18-24 demographic, and in the last five years Starbucks drinkers between the same age have risen from 3% to 13% of their total consumers. So it’s a natural progression for Starbucks to collaborate with record labels to create Starbucks Entertainment and special coffee houses with in-house coffee bars.

The corporation started in 1990 and has progressed to include an XM radio station, numerous café-media-bars across the nation where consumers can burn CDs at the Starbucks store, in-store CD racks offering exclusive or unique compilations and releases, and most recently a Hear Music section at the iTunes store that offers coffee-house chill playlists and carefully selected music for Starbuck’s loyal consumers.

In the midst of a flailing record industry, Starbucks has embraced technology both in their stores and through the internet, and low and behold they are actually selling CDs. Executives at Starbucks Entertainment have reported that CDs in their stores “often account for 20 percent to 30 percent of the record's weekly sales, and sometimes as much as 50 percent.” Another top executive from EMI Group said that Starbucks was among the top four retailers for every single one of his label’s records sold at the store.

And not only are they selling CDs, but they are able to make quite a profit off of them. An example—Starbucks sold Beck’s “Guero” in their stores for $15.95, which is nearly 2 dollars more than the suggested retail price, but still managed to sell over “38,000 over a six-week period this spring.”

One could argue that consumers may be more willing to purchase something when they are already in the store buying something else—a pricey cup of coffee. But I think there’s something more to it.

While people may be willing to purchase CDs when what they want is a physical copy of the CD, when it’s just an extras-free burned CD, consumers just aren’t interested. They can get that on their home computers. So the in-store CD burning bars weren’t as big of a hit as Starbucks executives had hoped, and many have been demolished. But what's going to come in thier place?

Starbucks wasn’t afraid to abandon the CD and focus more on digital music, and their recent collaboration with Apple on the Hear Music section of the iTunes store reveals this. Check this statement from Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz, claiming that, “Within 12 months, probably, you're going to be able to walk into a Starbucks and digitally be able to fill up your MP3 player with music.” I think that soon enough there will be an in-store kiosk where consumers can connect thier own iPods to the iTunes store and purchase songs to immediately upload and listen. But with digital rights management, iPods are only able to connect to a limited number of computers and they aren't compatible with multiple playlists. This kiosk (under current laws) simply wouldn't work, but does the fact that this idea is clearly heating up insinuate that DRM may not last for much longer?

So let’s relay the facts—Starbucks and Apple have partnered and created a Starbucks-specific section of the iTunes store. Starbucks executives make claims of being able to use MP3 players in Starbucks stores within the year. And Apple executive Steve Jobs writes a letter urging lawmakers to do away with digital rights management laws that would inhibit connecting and buying digital music at a kiosk in Starbucks. All this is amidst a period of growth for a Starbucks Entertainment as a digital music provider, and after they have already established themselves as a prominent non-digital distributor.

It’s pretty clear that Starbucks and Apple are brewing something hot for the digital music industry, and so long as DRM is revoked it seems as if this iPod friendly downloading technology might be available in a Starbucks near you within this next year.

Will the Record Industry Make Nice With The Internet?

Apparently, mean girls finish first. The Dixie Chicks were the big winners of the evening last night, taking home five 2007 Grammy awards, including Album of the Year for Taking the Long Way and Song of the Year for “Not Ready to Make Nice”. The Chicks have been attacked by nationwide radio-station boycotts and a considerable drop in concert attendance in the United States in recent years, as fans and radio djs responded to a comment made by lead singer Natalie Maines in 2003 in regards to President Bush and his stance in Iraq. Check out the trailer for the documentary Shut Up And Sing, which followed the Chicks in the heat of their scandal and gives a overview of the story.

Not willing to censor her opinions, Maines and the Chicks stuck by their opinion and suffered financially as many of their more traditional fans were offended by her comments. However, the Chicks didn’t care, and told their fans as such through their unapologetic single, released on March 16 of 2006 in advance of their album. The chorus:

I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and
I don’t have time to go 'round and 'round and 'round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should

Many radio stations still refused to play the single and promote the new album. However, “due to digital sales the single hit the Billboard Hot 100 at number 28, the week's highest new entry for the week ending May 6, 2006.” (wikipedia.com) Without the single being readily available on radio stations, consumers were clearly turning to alternative methods of discovering and enjoying new music—the internet and online music downloading stores.

Even despite the positive single debut on the charts, many stations still refused to play the song, but their latest album Taking the Long Way debuted at number one on the U.S. pop and country albums chart and went gold within the first week after the May 23 release.

And now the Chicks have won five Grammy’s, earning a hat trick with the Academy, taking home the award for the song, record, and album of the year. By looking at radio airplay, apparently the academies behind the making of radio playlists aren’t on par with the academy who determines who should win awards.

I’ve learned in my Public Relations classes that any publicity is good publicity, so I will agree that the gossip surrounding the Dixie Chicks did promote their new album, albeit in a scandalous light. But the fact that the single was clearly lacking in radio promotion (which is supposed to be the number one music promotional tool) begs the question as to the importance of radio today as the number one tool to promote a new song. Listeners didn’t have easy access to the song via traditional methods, so they turned to the internet and digital downloading in order to listen to the tune.

It seems as if the Academy has decided that what the Chicks said about the war four years ago is actually starting to make some sense, and if low Presidential approval ratings are any evidence, the country is starting to agree with the Chicks too. Although it took us some time, its still reassuring that after a while people are willing to evolve and change their opinions in response to a changing world.

Now if only the record industry officials were willing to embrace a changing music industry and evolving technology like Americans and the Academy have embraced dissenting opinions and changing national sentiments. The radio industry needs to change its traditional ways and viewpoints and give the consumers what they want in order to survive. I assure you ultimately it will benefit them in the end if they are willing to be open minded to change as an industry. When will they will be ready to make nice with growing technology and less traditional viewpoints?

Big Business Should Give More Than An Inch

Viacom has recently stated that they will remove their content from YouTube (Viacom is a huge conglomerate that owns Comedy Central, MTV, and BET among other popular networks) citing copyright infringement. This move has reaffirmed what has already been proven so many times in the past— big businesses are seemingly unwilling to embrace new technology for fear that they will lose money, while in fact the opposite is actually true.

Look at the movie industry— in the 50s when television came out, the movie-makers were terrified. The VHS and home video was even more frightening. And then came DVDs and merchandising. The original movie studios failed to realize that their product wasn’t a particular format (the theater movie), but that their product was actually an entire form of entertainment and all that goes along with it (which is turn means big bucks and booming industry). The music industry has a similar past. The industry had an evolution from radio to records to 8-track to cassette to mini-disc to CD and now to MP3, and at every step the big businesses are fighting to stay with traditional methods. They don’t understand that by working with (not against) their consumers they will be able to maximize their profits. The new technology will eventually take over, whether or not they like it or not, so why the censorship?

Say Viacom takes their content off YouTube and creates an alternative version of video streaming on their website—will it be up to the par that consumers want? Part of what is so great about these sites is the accessibility to such a wide library of content—lyrics from an old musical, karaoke versions of your favorite songs, clips from anything behind and in front of the scenes—nearly anything is available. When YouTube and MySpace has censorship it looses all its charm.

Looking back to the music industry, this entire situation reminds me of Napster in the 90s. The censorship of Napster created a new, boring Napster that no one wanted. The new Napster (legal, but nowhere near the access to obscure clips and only allows streaming, not downloads) was available at USC for only $15 a semester to stream music, and less than 500 students signed up. (usc.edu) I assume students were still downloading music at the same rate as before-- do you think they were turning to other illegal methods? Gasp!

Atleast steps in the right direction are being made. Now online video streaming by networks (controlled and legal) is becoming a growing method of ways consumers watch video. Nbc.com streams full episodes of television shows online, and since October of last year it has already delivered 42 million full episodes. (insidemusicmedia.com) But by looking at NBC.com, you definitely can’t get the same access that YouTube offers, as only the newest episodes are available for streaming and only from limited shows. Sound anything like the Napster censorship to you? When illegal options are available and legal options aren’t as good as the illegal ones, consumers will simply turn to the prohibited alternative. Case in point: the millions of illegal music downloads that still occur each day.

For this system to really work, Viacom and other big networks need to learn from their past and embrace the future. They should strike a deal with YouTube instead of cutting their ties. Traditional approaches to the music and video industry will be replaced by digital and online methods, and if they give a little now, ultimately the profits will be greater in the future.

More Power To You

TIME magazine decided to do something different when they declared their person of the year of 2006. The chosen person can be an author and an astronaut, a drug addict and a doctor, a president and a prepubescent child; this person of the year for 2006 is an ambiguous “you”, and they all have one thing in common. They all use the internet, which is something that is becoming increasingly ubiquitous and influential to American popular culture and media.

In fact, I think that this same “you” they speak of is also the musical artist of the year. Social networking sites like MySpace and the do-it-yourself video sharing site YouTube are increasingly becoming a more popular method of finding new music. All of the sudden anybody could become a music star; anyone with a camera or simple recording devices can suddenly broadcast their music on the internet for literally anyone to access. For example, this unknown artist topped YouTube charts today singing Beyonce.

And while their fame may not even make it fifteen seconds (let alone fifteen minutes), some artists have exploited these new online media sources, using them as a main promotional tool and actually creating hits through these online venues.

Take the band OK Go for example. Their “Here It Goes Again” video topped the charts on YouTube, and consequently sky-rocketed their record sales. The video features a dance routine on treadmills (see below), and is creative and unique but is also grainy and extremely low budget. And it was promoted simply through online word-of-fingertips.

Other artists have used MySpace to promote their album. Listeners can stream and sometimes download MP3 versions of the artists’ top songs, which is obviously a plus with our recent cultural try-before-you-buy mentality. Examples include Lily Allen, who released her album in the UK and then moved on to promote herself over MySpace until she gained enough publicity for a domestic release (and radio airplay) this last week.

But additionally by building online “friendships,” creating blogs, and posting bullitens, Myspace artists can connect with their fans in a more intimate manner—while a band would never have the opportunity to send all of their fans snail mail, with just a quick MySpace bulletin and suddenly all their “friends” are contacted. Through the internet, anyone can create a sense of belonging to their generation and American culture as a whole.

Radio and television used to be enough of a universal connection, with families getting together around the radio or TV to listen to or watch programs together. This enabled people nationwide to unite culturally through music and television shows— a ClearChannel-doting tween in the Midwest could be humming along to the same early 90s jam as a soccer mom in the south. With limited accessibility to only particular shows or stations, every one across the nation was able to share this mentality in a way that would have been unprecedented before mass media growth. But with the expansion of the Internet in the 90s and today’s increased connectability and diversity of media outlets, we are bored by the same stations and the same shows that are broadcast on traditional media. The internet really has given more power to the American “you”.