Derek Webb is offering his entire year-old record Mockingbird for “free” over at freederekwebb.com. Why sandwich the word free in quotes?
SHE AIN’T BUYING IT
Well, while it’s technically free, monetarily speaking, some think it comes at a price – a price they’re not willing to pay. Kat over at thesecretlifeofkat.com says she was disappointed that “in order to download the album I have to sign up for his mailing list AND submit FIVE of my friends email addresses.”
“What?!” she continued, probably with veins popping from her neck, “I rarely release my own email address and I would never give away the email addresses of FIVE of my friends. Maybe it’s just me. Maybe no one else will care.”
[Added 9.19.2006 - Like a journalist, I do not agree with every source I quote on this blog. Sources are not me, but make points I find beneficial, germane, interesting and/or expert on the subject at hand. Their views influence how I think obviously but are not 100% or at all representative of how I think on this or any other issue. I agreed with Kat in part, not in whole, at the time I quoted her: I am hesitant to release my own or my friends’ e-mail addresses and wonder if I am the only one.]
WHY DO I CARE?
Well, I care. It’s not free. It’s not wrong either, but it’s not free – not in the mind of some consumers. The cost is high, I admit, in my mind as well. I’m not coughing up my friends’ e-mail addresses to Derek Webb, as nice of a guy as I know he is, for anything, no matter how generous the offer. But is this a generational reservation some of us have?
Kat and I are of the same age – immigrants to the digital world. We value e-mail addresses and on-line privacy. She uses a screen name on-line (a wise thing I think) and I would if I could. We’re protective, cautious, in this cyberworld we weren’t born into. Could this be the reason for our red flags? Could this be why we define “free” differently than Mr.Webb and so many of his fans who’ve downloaded Mockingbird without reservation?
FREE SELLS
Whether or not Kat and I are willing to trade our friends’ addresses for a “free” download or not, it’s obvious a lot of folks are. The Tennessean reports that Derek reports a doubling of sales on the road after the “free” download was made available. And he’s certainly garnered a little press from the campaign. How much of that is the novelty, the newness of a different approach to music business? How much of that reaction is reaction against the music industry? How much of his support is coming from people who tell me every night that if I really loved Jesus I would give my music away? Who knows? What we do know is, free or not, this promotion of Derek’s is working in a big way.
Only time will tell if this kind of “free” will continue to be acceptable to music fans. Regardless of the results, I both have reservations about the new definition of “free” Derek and others have created and have tremendous admiration for his innovative devotion to his fans and the business of making music as an indie. “I’m looking at my career and trying to figure out ways to make it work,” Derek says. “I’m trying to embrace the technological tools that are available to me and broaden my mind to every possibility.” Aren’t we all? We’re watching and learning Mr.Webb.
Torn on this one. How about you?
wow. i walk away for a few days and this turns into a music geek message board. isn’t there some anonymous person out there that can get angry about something and bring this cooment thread back to where it once was?
just for the record – my favorite mass is Journey’s ‘Faithfully’—isn’t that a mass? maybe not. oh, well.
Seth – I find it interesting that Phil gave you that coat when I asked specifically to have it put in the will for me. That sucks. Just know when he dies – i am coming after it.
Brian
Shaun:
It’s great to see you so involved with your fans…and I count myself among them. In fact, I decided to listen to all 38 of your songs while reading. =)
Let me say clearly that I’m a huge Caedmon’s Call fan and I love Derek’s solo stuff as well. I’ve received a lot of traffic lately because I linked to Derek’s site, and as a result have read some of what’s been written online. In my opinion, this situation wasn’t handled very well.
First, Derek himself draws a parallel to Keith Green’s giveaways. This is problematic in that Keith really did say “take it” and asked for a donation from those so inclined. Isaac Air Freight (a comedy group) did the same, as did a few others. This isn’t what Derek did, which is why the parallel isn’t a good one. Derek is asking for an opportunity put his name and music in front of your friends. That’s not at all the same, and many find the distinction a lot like deceit.
Second, “free” no longer means “free” when it comes to the internet. Every time we read about identity theft we’re reminded that our personal information is a valuable commodity. Asking for the personal information of 5 friends APPEARS to be asking for trouble. In this case, Derek isn’t using that information for anything more than saying “come get your free album by giving me 5 more people’s info”. The problem is, in my opinion, the fact that NoiseTrade didn’t make the situation abundantly clear up front.
Christians like Derek and you and me should also be concerned about public perception. While Derek’s motivation is (in his own words) “survival”, that’s not why Keith Green did it…another reason that the parallel is unfortunate. Green gave away music because his message was more important to him than his wallet. Derek’s giving away music so that he can make enough money to keep spreading his music. I see nothing wrong with either approach…only with suggesting that they’re the same thing.
What would I do differently? I’m not sure, as I’m not Derek’s accountant. Here’s one idea: I’d suggest that signing up for his free album should give you access to a private web page. You could email the link and password to 5 friends, and the web page would only allow 6 total downloads. That’s not very complicated from a web development point of view, and would clear up the frustration over being asked to give away others’ personal information.
What do you think?
Shaun,
I’m disappointed that you would quote Kat on all of this, and further the mistaken impression some people have that you have to “give away” 5 of your friends’ email addresses to get Derek’s record.
A one-time email gets sent to your friends– and it comes from your email address. Derek retains your email address, but not those of your friends. It’s summarized on the front page, and spelled out in detail on the Privacy Policy page.
If you do a Google BlogSearch (google.com/blogsearch), you’ll find that out of around 265 people who have blogged about this, Kat is the only one who really can’t accept that Derek (or his “web development team”) can be trusted to do as he says.
Please consider posting a correction/clarification. It bums me out to think that more people will misunderstand and be suspicious of Derek because of your post. (Notice Mark’s commment above, for example.)
stephen said:
FWIW, it obviously has not stopped most people. Over 35,000 have downloaded it so far in just two weeks.
Yep. One of my comments on Kat’s blog:
I think there’s a whole generation out there (the MySpace generation) that won’t think twice about something like this. This is a little bit concerning to me.
I haven’t had to face the dilemma because I bought the album right after it came out. Still, I was dismayed to hear that the “free” download came at the cost of friends’ email. It seems to me like nothing less than a pyramid marketing scheme, and while no money is involved, we all get enough unsolicited email.
Kudos to Derek for giving some music away, but thumbs-down for the cost.
DeGarmo and Key released a record (I forget which one) that came with a free copy that the person who bought it could give away to a friend who didn’t know Jesus. I thought that was a really cool idea. It promotes your band without losing all of your revenue, and the best part is, it’s evangelistic (and I truly do think that was their biggest motivation).
And, unfortunately, in these days the word “free” never means free with no strings attached. If I saw Derek’s ad, I probably wouldn’t have believed it anyway. And I’d maybe just call my friends before I give out their address.
Most people these days have multiple email addresses with at least one for garbage mail. I personally have four that I regularly use and 2 or three others attached to my name. Each has a specific purpose and one, the one attached to blogger is the only one that gets spam because it is the oldest and it is the only one i give out for general use.
For issues like this, you should have your friend’s trash email addies, and they should have yours. The aggreement being that they are available for use with this type of promotion.
That said, I agree with Kat that the perception created is the problem. Free is supposed to mean no strings attached.
Has anyone tried the download without adding addies?
As I said on the webboard Shaun, thanks for coming over to help clear things up. Youve still got fans over there, things just tend to get a little ornery at times. I have no idea if i spelled ornery right. Youre welcome anytime.
Shaun,
I own all your albums (even White Flag) and have seen you in concert. I admire your work and enjoy your blog.
Yet (and you knew this was coming) I have a problem with your statement at the webboard as well as your thoughts about Derek, his music, and his free giveaway of Mockingbird.
You say that you won’t give him e-mail addresses? Why? The purpose is to tell them about Derek’s free giveaway of Mockingbird. Don’t you want them to have teh free music that is great and powerful? I want others to know. I bought five copies of the CD before I found out about the free giveaway so I could give them away myself. Now, I have told everyone I know to tell that they can get Mockingbird for free and that they too should tell others (which they can by putting in five e-mail addys). I am still confused as to why you wouldn’t do this.
Second, you have taken shots at Derek in the past. In another blog post you said his music didn’t appeal enough to a wider audience. You said his music should appeal more to 30 year old women. You said it wasn’t fit for Christian radio. On these points you are correct. yet you said all of this in a critical way. I am glad that Derek has the balls to make “Christian” music that smacks the regular pious Christian music in the face. No his music isn’t fluffy crap that appeals to middle-aged, suburban Christians (men or women) and they may never hear his music because they are too busy listening to songs about themselves instead of Jesus and His Truth. Yet, what he is doing is more important. And I find your criticism offensive.
I can only say that you should be glad that my wife enjoys your music because I for one have no plans of supporting you in the future.
– Chris
i say, use fake emails. thats the way to do it. i dont have 5 friends to think of. i dont even think i put 5 friends IN! i think i put like 3 and i still got it.