Does “free” really mean free?
There’s been a quick but lengthy conversation on Shaun Groves’ blog in the past few days about Derek Webb’s recent viral offering of his album Mockingbird.
First, I appreciate Shaun’s involvement with his fans…it’s nice to see an artist blogging, and responding to posts in a timely manner. In my opinion, Shaun deserves a huge kudo. I’m also a huge Caedmon’s Call fan, and I love Derek’s solo stuff too. It made for interesting reading.
Derek draws a parallel between his giveaway and Keith Green’s giveaways. Green offered his albums with no strings attached, asking for donations from those so inclined. Derek is offering his album in exchange for 5 email addresses. I see no reason to complain about either approach. So, you might be asking, what’s the problem? It seems to revolve around the word “free”.
Some people hear “free” and think “no strings attached” while others think “no money changes hands”. Both groups are right, of course. When the second group gets to the download page, they’re happy because they got what they expected: a Derek Webb album with no dollar value attached. When the first group arrives, they’re dismayed to find that they have to give away their friends’ personal information to get the download…making it not really free in their minds.
Unfortunately for Derek, free no longer means “free” when it comes to the internet. Every time we hear news about identity theft we’re reminded that personal information is a valuable commodity. Asking for this stuff APPEARS to be asking for trouble. Now, don’t be confused: 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, bad marketing.
NoiseTrade (who handled the viral marketing) didn’t make the situation abundantly clear up front. They used the word “free” and said that you’d have the opportunity to share the download with friends…but, as the detractors have aptly pointed out, you can’t download the album until you provide 5 addresses. Had they said “free album when you help Derek spread the word” I’m sure very few could find fault with them. Of course, I’m sure fewer people would jump at that opportunity the way they have for “free album”.
Christians should be concerned about public perception. In my opinion, Derek and NoiseTrade simply didn’t think this one through. They’re not doing anything wrong (obviously), but the accusation is that they’ve misled people in the name of good marketing. While many people may expect that from companies like Pepsi and Home Depot, they’d rather not see it done in the name of Christianity.
The only thing I think they’re guilty of is not having considered the situation from all angles. While I blame NoiseTrade for not serving their client as well as they could have, I have to put the results squarely in Derek’s lap. He is, after all, responsible for what’s done in his name. I gladly downloaded the album and had no problem giving up addresses…I have plenty of friends who are looking for good music!
What would I do differently? I’m not sure, as I’m not Derek’s accountant. Here’s one idea: signing up for his free album could 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?
March 4th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
the information required for downloading the album, 5 email addresses, was not stored in any database. a personal message from the person who offered their addresses was sent by email to them with the recommendation that they might enjoy getting this free album. If that personal information was not stored, it could be said it wasn’t given. So, i’m not sure you have all the loose ends in full view.
March 5th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Aaron:
Thanks for your comment!
I understand that the email addresses given weren’t stored, and that’s good to know. Had they been stored, I still wouldn’t have had any trouble giving them to Derek.
However: I’m not sure you’ve thought through the idea that email addresses used but not stored aren’t actually “given”. As I mentioned above, the issue was how one was able to actually GET Derek’s album: it was marketed as “free” with the option of helping spread the word…but the option was actually mandatory.
Let’s change the scenario a bit. Let’s make it a more manual process…
“Get Aaron’s new album “Jesus Totally Rocks” for FREE! All you have to do is send an email to everyone in your address book, and send a copy to CCM Links. When it’s clear that you’ve done our marketing for us, we’ll give you the album”.
How’s that? No email addresses would be stored at CCM Links, so (in your words) it could be said that they weren’t given. Isn’t that the same thing? In the end, Derek and NoiseTrade gave away an album in exchange for some viral marketing. I don’t mind…in fact, I participated more than once by blogging about it more than once. I promoted it as a good idea, suggested that others get involved, and (hopefully) drove a good amount of traffic their way. I like the idea, and it obviously worked.
The problem is that perception is often reality…and some people perceived this marketing effort at not-quite-truly-honest, and that’s a shame. With a small amount of foresight, it could have been a winner for everyone.
Your thoughts?