Sick Of Sarah Manager Talks About BitTorrent Deal
This post is by Don "Wicked D" Harrison of the blog Network or Die.
You’ve probably heard of Sick of Sarah by now. The Minnesota based, all girl, indie outfit recently made the news by releasing the band’s current album, 2205, through BitTorrent’s Artists Pilot Program. Furthermore, this was done with the full support of their label, Adamant Records. Read the blog post Sick of Sarah – First Label Backed Band Release To Be Marketed To Fans via BitTorrent.
The album was released directly to the BitTorrent community, and promoted on the BitTorrent.com and uTorrent.com homepages. It was offered to new users during the installation of the BitTorrent Mainline and µTorrent software, as well as offered for free download in the company’s new App Studio.
I had a chance to speak with the band’s general manager, Evan Peters, who honestly stated, “The true impact to the band’s touring base, and LP Sales have not been completely felt yet. I assume we’ll be assessing this in the months to come as the band continues to tour in the US and UK.”
When I first contacted Evan, I touched upon the fact that some within the industry have looked at this in a negative manner. Some even claiming that since the album was packaged with the software, no one even listened to the music.
He replied, “Hey Don, my attitude is that whenever you make any news, or a band picks up a little steam, there will be naysayers that come along. Many people have expressed support of this campaign, and have claimed that they discovered the band through BitTorrent, and support the method in which this album was released, both in the US and abroad. Much of the support has been expressed in languages other than English.“
He goes on to say, “We have been able to track people who discovered the band via BitTorrent through Facebook and Twitter.“
Further pointing out that, “We knew that not everyone downloading BT would be hearing the album, but the number is so massive that even a small percentage makes a dent with us.”
I totally agree with that statement. A second press release, Sick of Sarah Album Surpasses One Million Downloads via BitTorrent, reported that as of March 15, 2011, the album had registered 1,365,453 completed downloads. Hell, if only 1/2% of those downloads were heard, the group has reached more potential fans than have many indie bands utilizing a massive, PAID, marketing campaign!
When asked about the financials, Evan assured me that, “Specifically, in regards to this promotion with BitTorrent, there were no expenditures involved. Sick of Sarah/Adamant Records does work with the marketing company FILTER, who brought this partnership together, but this BitTorrent partnership was not a campaign that was ‘purchased’.”
Evan has agreed to get back with me in a few months for a follow up.
I sincerely hope to hear that the band’s fan base has skyrocketed, and that ticket and merch sales were through the roof! Either way, I applaud him and the members of Sick of Sarah for their pioneering marketing efforts.
To the naysayers:
Please remember there is no single business model that works for every artist.
Don’t criticize a band for innovation, just because they may have stepped outside of what you typically consider your own comfort zone!
The complaint was not that the band did this. It was that BitTorrent was claiming that more than a million people downloaded the album, as if they willingly downloaded it. It can’t be compared to a situation where one million bought an album or even where one million actively looked for it and downloaded it for free.
Agreed, BitTorrent’s release (and most media reports following) insinuated that over 1M people specifically downloaded “2205. Either way, the band/label couldn’t have “purchased” this kind of exposure.
Thanks for posting this article, Kyle. Greatly appreciated! I look forward to meeting with Evan in a few months to see if we can print some ROI info. Or would that be ROFE (Return On Free Exposure)?
I’ll add another complaint. I heartily disagree with the apparently widely accepted idea that anything anyone can do to get attention is somehow a-ok. There is in fact a good reason that “this kind of exposure” is difficult to come by— because it should be. I don’t see how tricking people into downloading something is any sort of step in a positive direction.
And then of course it gets called “innovation” so that anyone who questions it can be written off merely as old-fashioned or change-averse.
Tricking people into downloading? It’s not like it was hidden or easily missed! Only Yahoo Toolbar does that. 🙂
Here is a link to an image (in actual size) that pops up as part of the BitTorrent installation wizard. http://www.wicked-d.com/wp-content/uploads/BToffer.png
No different than advertising in a magazine or on a blog, if you ask me. So yeah, “innovative” ad placement!
The problem is that this “works” because they are the first one doing it and therefore gets a lot of attention. Many people are stating that this is a new kind of smart marketing, but it aint… Its only smart for the first.
Ok, so how is this NOT innovation? If during the installation people are ASKED if they WANT TO download the free cd, I see now trickery at all. Great article and great way to get the music out there. Like it says in the article, if even a tiny percentage of those people follow up with a live show or merch the band has benefited more than any paid campaign could have. Anyone who slams this is either a label suit or has never asked a signed band how much they made on their cd’s.
Like I said before, I don’t think people are slamming the band. They are saying that BitTorrent didn’t distinguish between a delivery system where people actually wanted an album and a delivery system where people were given an album they probably had no interest in.
The closest example I can think of is giving away free tickets to a show. Someone can hand out millions of tickets on street corners, but that number is pretty much meaningless other than to prove that someone put in the effort to hand them out. It’s no indication of a band’s popularity or that the system of handing out free tickets to anyone is particularly effective.
You are correct, Suzanne. I contacted BitTorrent on this matter. According to Allison Wagda, Sr Director of Marketing, the 1,365,453 downloads reported in the press release, were of users who chose to accept the album. In perspective, BitTorrent/uTorrent is downloaded about 400,000 times daily.
Furthermore, Allison claims, their own tracker is still recording an average of 9,000 new album downloads/day. This is after the album was no longer offered w/BitTorrent downloads, but potential fans seeking out and downloading on their own.
I’m not exactly sure how Alison has presented it to you, but this is what has generated the questions:
Indie Band Tops a Million Downloads, Breaks BitTorrent Record | TorrentFreak: “Everyone who downloaded the uTorrent or BitTorrent Mainline application during the last month, was automatically downloading the Sick of Sarah album unless they opted out.”
So unless someone refused the album, they got it.
You’re quoting a third party press release. But true, it was packaged w/the software, as a promo ad, not a semi-hidden option. BitTorrent’s release http://www.bittorrent.com/pressreleases/2011/03/16/sick-of-sarah-album-surpasses-one-million-downloads-via-bittorrent specifically states, “As of 5 p.m. March 15 (last night), the ClearBits.net trackers had registered 1,365,453 completed downloads OF THE ALBUM.” By comparison there were about 12 million software downloads!
It was presented in this way, http://www.wicked-d.com/wp-content/uploads/BToffer.png no different than an online ad. Impossible to miss! If you downloaded the album, you either wanted it or seriously suffered from some kind of attention disorder.
Even if over a million download happy, non attentive people were the reason for the number of album downloads, there are still 9000 people each day actively searching it out to download, as it is no longer “bundled” with the software.
I appreciate the fact that you legitimately believe that offering the album this way was giving people a choice. In your mind, anyone who kept the box checked was someone who “chose to accept” the album.
I can also now appreciate how the album was not something that was sneakily attached to the software in a way that was easy to overlook.
That said, having something automatically given to you unless you actively choose NOT to accept is not the same thing as actively deciding you want something. As a one-time effort, sure, why not: call it innovative. If this were to become an accepted avenue for music distribution, well, that to me would be a sad turn of events.
Look at it this way: clearly everyone involved in this project knew that the opt-out option would generate many more downloads than a more standard opt-in approach. That was the whole point, right? To me, this pretty much proves its underhandedness.
I don’t blame anyone for trying to promote their band but I’d also like to think the future of music does not hinge upon this kind of “progress.”
Okay. So running the numbers you supplied, 89% of the people who downloaded the software opted out of receiving the album.