I don’t know that I fully understand the point you’re making in the second-to-last paragraph. Maybe the example is just bad. It’s not like Sloan signed to Yep Rock a year ago and they’re sitting on it. The deal happened last month. You just can’t spit something out that quick.

But overall I agree with you.

BTW… the new LCD Soundsystem leaked yesterday, FOUR MONTHS before its release.

— bill p    2006-12-05 13:22    #

Oh… one other point about that Sloan album. There was no promo leak of it… didn’t hit the internet till the day of its Canadian release. Which sort of shocked me… in a good way.

— bill p    2006-12-05 13:26    #

Sloan is probably a bad example since it was released in Canada in October, as far as it getting out here (same goes with bands like Snow Patrol, whose differing release date in Europe resulted in massive file sharing in the US.) You’re right about this.

My overall point is that the labels, with their essential accomplices in the glossy print media (Rolling Stone, SPIN, Blender, etc.), foster a homerun mentality that is unwarranted and overall, a destructive marketing tactic in the music business. Sending out promos months in advance (and yeah, I heard about LCD leaking as well) puts a false premium on the release date, which in reality does not corroborate with long term sales. It’s a poke in the eye to fans who actually PAY for their music.

— John Davidson    2006-12-05 14:01    #

John-
I hear what you are saying to some degree. Here is my problem with your argument though; I like to be able to read a review of an album before I buy it. And if I really like a band, I like to purchase their album right when it comes out if possible. However, EVEN if the album is by a band that I have really enjoyed in the past I want to hear what people think about it before I drop the cash. This isn’t because my tastes are dominated by peer-acceptance or tastemaker approval. It’s simply because sometimes once-great bands put out crap albums. Chances are that the review isn’t going to sway my decision too much. But it is nice to have some insight about what I am spending my money on. If critics get the album at the same time as fans it is impossible for me to read a review of the album the day/week that it drops.

I think it would be great if record companies could find a way to make sure that promos weren’t leaked (and it sounds like Matador at least is trying to find a way to make this possible). However, until this is a reality, I think that leaks are just going to be something that people/bands/labels have to deal with. I really don’t know what else the solution would be. But I certainly don’t think that record labels will/should stop sending out promos (and, for the record, I’m not a critic, promoter, or anything else that gets me pre-releases. so my opinion is not out of self-interest).

— chris d.    2006-12-05 21:53    #

Let’s be clear: ending promo distribution isn’t going to kill the elephant in the room (illegal file sharing.) It’s just going to right a wrong.

Another thing to point out is that many journalism outlets have a strict policy against accepting freebies. For example, most respectable news outlets won’t participate in press junkets unless they pay their own way. Most respectable news outlets don’t, for example, accept free meals when reviewing a restaurant. Granted, there are many publications that DO accept free stuff, and all bets are off when it comes to freelancers. And greasing the wheels, in one or the other, is absolutely accepted in modern business practice.

But I digress. I think I’m okay with the labels sending out promos—hey, I’ve accepted them since 1989—but my problem here is with the timing of it all. Sure, you want to know what an album is like before you buy it so you consult reviews to help you out or maybe you stream some tracks or maybe you download them. I just remain unconvinced that labels need to adopt the same mentality as the movie studios: the first week of sales determines the amount of marketing support. The major labels have largely adopted this concept, and in the age of file sharing, I don’t understand why they distribute advances so far out from the release date. The lead time for print magazines is a red herring.

— john Davidson    2006-12-05 22:41    #

I know we’ve been down this road before, but here it comes anyway. I agree with your column and you acknowledge that obviously it won’t end “illegal” file sharing (it’ll just mean people won’t be able to hear things 3 months or so before they’re slated to come out officially). I strongly believe that at this point the majors (and indies) should acknowledge that file sharing can and will continue to go on whether they want it to or not. They just have to figure out a way to monetize it, which is what they should have been doing all along ever since the advent of the original Napster instead of trying to criminalize it. The only solution, as far as I can see, is to cut deals with ISPs whereby they got a percentage of the users’ monthly service fees. What customers want (and can get now anyway for free or the cost of a high-speed internet service more appropriately) is unlimited access and ownership, or maybe something like the original emusic (except that more popular releases would be affected) where it was an “all you can download” buffet. It’s not that different from charging a flat rate for unlimited nightly cell phone minutes, for example, or at least it shouldn’t be. I noticed that some of the majors are FINALLY starting to sell individual songs as mp3s with no DRM protection. I think this is a step in the right direction, but they remind me of the Bush administration, wanting to “stay the course” in spite of overwhelming evidence until they’re forced to change!

For now, though, I’m quite happy being able to hear things months before the scheduled “release date” (which like you said means nothing anymore thanks to the internet).

— Matt Berlyant    2006-12-07 18:00    #

The labels will never get the ISPs to pony up a tax like that. They don’t have enough clout alone. The RIAA’s best route would be to gather digital purveyors (movies, television, music, and especially the porn industry) and try to force the hand of the ISPs. In fact, it would be a good idea to go to software developers, whose piracy losses on the Internet far exceed those of entertainment. But I think a better solution is what the Google people are hoping for: that sites like Google can monetize search and pay off content providers in the process. I’m not really sure why a content provider would give up that much control but the way things are right now, it’s a likely short term solution.

— john Davidson    2006-12-07 19:13    #

Hmm. Your proposition, Matt, sounds astonishingly like the subscription model that has more or less failed. I don’t know if it’s possible to stop piracy at this point. Bit torrent, Usenet, etc. . . the technology will continue to evolve its way around the ‘fixes.’ This is a beast that just can’t be put back in the cage, and I don’t think that the consumer, the ISP, or anyone else with no control over these various factors should be punished for it. I agree though, that if the labels would step up and start taking the digital format seriously, and began offering lossless downloads, tracks free from DRM, etc. things might turn slightly in their favor.

Still, in the past, piracy meant someone was making a profit. Remember all those bootlegs you actually had to shell out for? With file sharing, no one is making any money. It is more akin to hearing songs on the radio once was in my opinion, except that labels get no licensing fees. Not everyone who liked a song would go and buy the album, and that’s a fact, and what was to stop them from just taping it off of the radio (something my sister used to do frequently)? Though that may be overly simplified, it makes me wonder how much profit actually came from selling product back then, and how really different any of this is under the surface. I have a very hard time taking their plight seriously.

— Jamie    2006-12-08 19:59    #

I think we have reached a happy medium with file sharing. Its always going to be a problem, but I don’t see it getting worse, like in the heyday of Napster and Audiogalaxy.

These labels have to know that a band a popular as The Shins is going to get uploaded within hours of the press getting the promo CD. And can you really blame the Shins fans for downloading the album? Why wait 3 months for something that you can get now?

I remember The White Stripes released the Elephant promo on vinyl only in hopes of thwarting an online release. Well the promo was quickly converted to mp3 but the audio quality wasn’t as good as a CD (though I liked hearing the release in this way). This may be something the industry may want to revisit. At least then the sound suality is somewhat degraded, encouraging people to buy the original when it comes out.

There are also ways to set up secure websites where someone can log in, listen to the album, and not be able to download it. Sure they could make an analog recording and convert that back to mp3, but at least they are making it more of a pain to leak the release.

— Jeff    2006-12-11 17:07    #

Yes I know that the subscription model has more or less “failed” (though I’m not 100% sure why emusic changed their policy, for example, from all you can download to a set number of tracks or if they make more money now), at least up to this point, but that’s because the consumer can get a reasonable sounding product for free, so why should they pay? I agree with Jamie in that since no one is making money and people are sharing music (and thereby encouraging sales) that it shouldn’t be considered piracy and yes, morally it’s equivalent to taping a song (or an album) off the radio or from a friend like in the old days.

With that said, giving out vinyl promos is a bad idea if you actually wanna get the product reviewed since most people (and I include a lot of journalists here) don’t even have turntables anymore and haven’t for years. And like you said above, people will upload it anyway (I’ve downloaded many vinyl rips and they sound fine depending upon the technology used to convert them to mp3, BTW).

— Matthew Berlyant    2006-12-11 22:25    #

I don’t think that the subscription model is a failure yet…Rhapsody is doing fine with it and I’d never totally doubt Micro$oft now that they are going to throw millions at the concept.

Matthew’s right about reviewing vinyl; I think it was Radiohead who sent out initial advances in cassette form of “Kid A” with the cassette super-glued into a walkman-type player. Even back then I think it took all of a day for that one to hit the P2P networks. And I’d concur that if I can just download tracks instead of ripping my own vinyl, I do it (and the same goes for stuff I have on cassette.)

— john Davidson    2006-12-11 23:04    #

MP3s are pretty lame anyway, but the kids don’t know that. For the sake of cramming 10,000 songs on an iPod with crappy earbuds, people have grown to accept a lossy compression that cancels all the audio advances that the CD gave us. I’ve seen a few artists offer FLAC downloads, which is the only type I’d be interested in – whether or not it was three months in advance.

— Bill    2006-12-14 09:18    #

John, I agree with the premise of your article, but wouldn’t ending advance promos kill off the review section of a certain semiannual music publication called Big Takover?

— Matt    2006-12-14 15:03    #

I don’t think it would. While Jack does tend to work with a long lead time, by the time the BT goes to press most of the records have been released many months previously.

It’s funny, in the newspaper world (and corporate world at large) there are many rules against accepting freebies. But not when it comes to CDs.

— john Davidson    2006-12-14 15:31    #

Excellent. Count our record label as an addition to the denial of advance promos, starting our next record. damn…

— Peter Hustedt    2007-01-23 05:08    #