Album leaks: Terrible crime or a way to create hype?

Franz Ferdinand, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Thom Yorke, 50 Cent have all been victims (and won't be the last). As we move into 2007 can it really be said that album leaks are still terrible crimes against honest hard working artists? Or is there more to it than first meets the eye? There is no doubt that the Internet has changed the music world for the better but as with most great things in life, there follows bad.

Album leaks are not new. They certainly haven't just suddenly appeared in the last couple of years. Last month, and just after the new Bloc Party album “A Weekend In The City” was leaked, Win Butler of Arcade Fire (whose highly-anticipated second studio album will arrive in 2007) described the infamous album leak as “inevitable as the Christmas cold I can feel coming”. Album leaks have become so prevalent that it’s met with surprise when a major artists unreleased work doesn’t end up on file sharing networks!

Why is it so prevalent? Finding that rare "promo" is something every fan of music, irrespective of genre, seeks out. However the prevalence of the Internet (which don't forget was actually created to share files) has meant that rare "promo" one person may have been lucky enough to obtain becomes so widely available. Obviously 10 years ago this wasn’t possible. When an album leaked it may have covered a city or two - now it covers the world.

What does it mean? If the world obtains an artists album a month before the official release date, it won’t fail to have a significantly adverse affect on the first week of sales figures. Ok the hardcore fan will probably buy it anyway, but the mass market won’t be so keen. For a major label’s established artist this is a problem, but the real victim is the newly signed band making their first album or an artist about to unveil their anticipated sophomore.

A small indie band who blogged about finding themselves victim said: "In the end though, it comes down to hard business realities. Despite glib assurances from some of the guilty parties, we really can’t afford to sit back and trust that everyone who downloads it before the official release date is going to rush out and buy a copy in the shops. For a small, underground, independent band like us, individual sales start to matter a lot more. The sad fact of the matter is that the business heads in the music industry still look at sales (particularly first week sales) of an album to gauge its success. The impression they receive of our success determines a large part of our future – whether or not certain people choose to invest more in us, help us out, get us on tour, get us making a third album and so on. As a result the industry has developed in such a way that everyone builds up to a release date in order to make the biggest possible impact with the businessmen. It’s not an ideal situation, but until you’re U2 there’s not much you can do about it."

But even if we are talking about an act the size of U2, if it's to be believed that a major record label in 2006/2007 still manages to fall "victim" to the album leak of one of their large acts, then they are clearly not paying enough attention to their security. Think about it. This master recording equates to millions in revenue to them, there will have been hundreds of thousands spent on studios, marketing and not to mention upto a year of everyone involved’s time and effort. If it’s to be believed that anyone can just walk up in a mastering studio or duplicating plant and run off their own copy, the record company are insulting everyone's intelligence. Is this really a terrible crime or just another marketing gimmick in an industry that has no choice but to be creative in its marketing campaign? The volume of large acts to have their album “leaked” prior to the release date over the past year is so prevalent that if its unintentional, someone isn’t doing their job correctly and is letting down the artists who pour their time, blood, sweat and tears into a project. However, if it is intentional it’s a masterstroke. After all, it’s not a bad way to create a buzz is it? Give the fans what they want, what they are desperately searching for. But keeping it unknown in the “general” public domain. Get the message boards talking, sit back and watch the online buzz take off.

How to avoid it? If the vast majority of album leaks are unintentional the music industry continue to scaremonger and force outrageously stupid answers into a problem they have no realistic idea of how to stop.

The most obvious answer to me is to "leak" the 10 songs that didn't make the album on purpose, throw those people off the scent. But which are still good enough not to let the albums down. For example, Arcade Fire have employed a very interesting “multi-formatted” approach to creating a buzz (which I shall write about later this week) around their forthcoming “Neon Bible” sophomore.

The only way forward is to offer the record buying consumer something that they can't get by downloading. Nowadays it is expected to include an additional DVD disc with the original release containing among other things promo videos and “the making of” documentary’s, that latter of which would motivate any fan. But how do you attract the “salient buyer”? This is a question I shall discuss in the future, although it’s a difficult one it is achievable.

If the album leak is unplanned then it is a crushing blow to an artist on both a personal and a business level. And although desirable, a deal that contains a provisional clause regarding album sales should a leak occur is unlikely. But on a theoretical level I am not so convinced. Would Sony, XL, EMI or Warner leave “their till” wide open all day? I am not so sure. If they did I wouldn’t want to be an artist signed with them!