Derek Webb - Not Free…

Posted on 09.01.06 in Music and there are 21 comments.

So, I’m really disappointed. I was highly excited about the whole “Free Derek Webb” promotion in which his album Mockingbird is now released “free” as of today. Today, however I discovered 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?! 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. Now, the site says that they don’t retain those addresses, but rather that their system generates emails announcing the news that Mockingbird is “free.” But still, while I’m inclined to trust Derek Webb, I don’t know his web development company, what system they’re using or how long the email addresses are retained while being processed and consequently how secure it is. To me it’s just not cool to ever submit someone else’s email address.

If I were dishonest, I could enter five of my own email addresses or make up five addresses, but my conscience won’t let me do that.

Bottom line: I’m sitting here looking at a web page that says “Download Mockingbird Now!” but I can’t.

That Warren Barfield promotion isn’t looking so bad these days…

The Comments:

Skip to comment form

I was also disappointed!  5 email addresses plus your own!  Ugh!  Definitely not free.  No truth in advertising there.

If I were dishonest, I could enter five of my own email addresses or make up five addresses, but my conscience won’t let me do that.

Well, call me dishonest, but this is exactly what I did, and my conscience is clear.  If Derek happens to read this and wants me to delete the “free” music, I will oblige.  You have my email address now if you want to contact me.

The about page says:

In addition, freederekwebb.com will give you an opportunity to invite your friends to download ‘mockingbird’ in order to get them in on the conversation as well.

Instead of “give you an opportunity” it should say “require you to”.

Sorry, Derek, but please don’t label something free and then force/manufacture viral marketing.  If someone wants to tell a friend about a free offer, he/she will do so on its merit alone!  Because of the email scooping, I won’t be sending anybody to your free site!

As an aside, 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.

Call me cynical, but I come from the old school of thought that says “Nothing is Free”.

Everything has a price tag, even if you don’t realize up front what it is. Maybe someone else is doing the work so you can get something “free” (you know, like welfare).

There was a lot of buzz about this Derek Webb free music thing a little while back when it was announced, but I wonder how long it will take for the e-mail address thing to turn it into anti-buzz. If it gets a really bad response, you might even see them change their mind and decide to forego the five friends’ addresses, and just ask you for your own e-mail address.

Or… maybe not. Like Curtis says, there may be a whole lot of people who don’t even think twice about such a thing. Which is why everyone should have multiple e-mail addresses, and only use your junk addresses for junk e-mail.

I don’t mind giving over a junk email address, but I do mind giving out my friends email addresses so that I can get something.  I’m sorry to hear this is how it must be done, but I had no intention of downloading it anyway.

can you say:

, , , , ? 

I rarely download free things.  There is hardly any vaule to it.  I even have problems downloading songs on Myspace when they are free.  When they are free I just think “hmmm.  Must not be doin’ to good.” or “hmmm.  naaah.”

I will only do the free download thing if I can’t buy there music anywhere else. 

my biggest prob with this whole deal is with this statement: 

“we hope this bold campaign will provide a jumping off point for conversations about all of these issues, and communicate my commitment to playing my part in starting them.”

Come on.  The real hope is that lots of people will download the CD.  Buzz will be created and lots more people will download the CD.  After thousands of people have it, and thousands of people are playing it their friends will say, “hey, who is that” “oh thats derek webb” “cool, is it free” “nope, not anymore, it was for a month” “oh, I guess I’ll buy it.”

I am quite fond of old D’s music but I am kinda perplexed.  Oh well. A mans got to make a buck.  I doubt Keith Greene would be asking for 5 addi’s when handing out his free CDs though.

Well, what’s the big deal?  He’s giving me something for free and asking for help with distribution.  I did it.  And I entered 5 email addresses of friends I would have told about the free download anyway.  Derek is just doing that for me.  But now, if my friends continue to get junk mail from Derek, then it will be a big deal and I’ll have to speak to him.  But, otherwise I have a new, free cd, and I’ve told some friends about it. 

Lilia,
I’m so proud of you for posting a contrary comment! I love it when people are bold enough to speak differently.

Well, what’s the big deal?

The big deal is two fold.

1. To me (this is just my personal stance), it’s rather unethical to give away someone else’s personal information without their permission and frankly I think it’s a bit uncouth for a business (or artist) to ask for it. Most people don’t know their friend’s junk email addresses, so the ones that people are entering are usually their personal and important addresses. I average at least 50 emails a day and I really don’t want to receive anything I didn’t ask for.

2. Secondly, I’m not a big fan of grey marketing methods advertising. All the banners said “Free.” Requesting the personal information of others BEFORE downloading is not “free."I like what Curtis said:

Sorry, Derek, but please don’t label something free and then force/manufacture viral marketing.  If someone wants to tell a friend about a free offer, he/she will do so on its merit alone!

If it had been an option but not a requirement, that would be a completely different story. I think that the whole idea was great, but the forced viral marketing really disappointed me. What was fresh and new is really the same old marketing. If they had at least used honest advertising before hand I wouldn’t have had a problem with it, but nothing I read in the months leading up to today said that 6 email addresses would be required. In fact all the announcements said, we would have an “opportunity” to share the news. It would have been better to say, “just send the news to 5 friends and you can download the album.”

I guess the bottom line is that I was really looking forward to promotion and it didn’t end up being what I’d expected.

I would tend to agree with hammer that “Nothing is Free”.  It is only as free as the value which you place on what they ask in exchange.  If you happen to know five people, in addition to yourself, that won’t mind getting attached to a e-mail marketing list then it is indeed absolutely free.  The cost goes up if you or your friends get more than you bargained for.

I also agree that it is misleading, at the least, to advertise something for free and then attach reqirements at the last minute.  And it is shadey to ask you to volunteer others to pay the same price you pay.

Wow. Some points here:

1) Derek is NOT keeping your friends’ email addresses. It says that clearly. In fact, the email they get is sent from YOUR email address. It is essentially a way to TELL your friends about the site, not give away their addresses. I understand the initial unease, but after reading the privacy policy, that should not be a problem.

2) It is completely unethical to put in fake email addresses. If you are not willing to tell 5 friends about the site, then either don’t get the record or go to iTunes and pay $10 for it. You are not entitled to cheat just because you can. This is Ethics 101. Pretty sad that so many Christians seem to think this is ok.

3) Lilia, you are exactly right-- what is the big deal? And yes, if Derek violates his terms, it is a big deal. But he won’t, because he has ethical standards and it would absolutely ruin any goodwill he receives from fans for doing this. Thanks for your comment in this thread.

if Derek violates his terms, it is a big deal. But he won’t, because he has ethical standards and it would absolutely ruin any goodwill he receives from fans for doing this

To me, Derek already violated his terms.  At least the term “free”.  It is completely unethical to claim something is free as Derek did and then not make it free at all.  I think what we’re seeing here is some rebellion against the viral marketing ploy he used.  The more I think about it, I just don’t want to be a Derek Webb fan anymore.

Matthew,
Thanks for commenting! As I mentioned to Lilia, I always like it when people are willing to post their opinions whether others agree with them or not.

So, I have a question for you. When you went to the site to download the cd, were you expecting to have to submit 5 of your friends email addresses? Did you hesitate at all? Was there any level of disappointment that you had to jump through the extra hoop? I’m not expecting you to answer one way or another. I’m just curious. Lilia, if you read this, I’d be interested to know your answer as well.

I think that, for me, my knowledge and experience with the web has tainted the situation for me a bit. Simply because I’ve seen so many perfectly nice people (artists/companies) use perfectly nice web developers who unknowingly use hole ridden, insecure junk scripts that compromise information. There are so many things I don’t know about the system they’re using that I can’t in good conscience give away such important information as my friends personal email addresses.

So combine that with the fact that I don’t feel comfortable giving boggus addresses and what was a free offer turns into just another advertisement for a cd that I need to pay $10 for. I just would have appreciated it if they had accurately laid out the expectations and requirements of the promotion.

I’m not sure we can necessarily assume that Derek was closely involved with every aspect of this promotion or that he’s even aware that some people don’t feel comfortable giving out their friends email addresses even on a temporary basis.

I understand your disappointment and frustration but I think that Derek’s message is worth more than this temporary promotional misjudgement. (Frankly, I’m beginning towonder if it’s just techies who have issues with the 5 email addresses.) Don’t give up on him yet.

Easy Matthew, I am not going to put in 5 fake add’s.  If I hadn’t already bought Web’s CD then I wouldn’t feel entitled to a little smart-mouth banter. My point was that it threw me off a bit to find out that to get the CD’s you had to stick in 5 emails.  That isn’t free.  People pay for that information.  When I used to telemarket back in the day, each lead cost MCI 1 dollar.  They were valuable.  Saying “here, have this for free” and then when the person sticks out their had to get it say “but first, let me have something of yours that I don’t have” is all in all a bit… funny.  It is the oldest trick in the book.  We were just a bit surprised that it came from DW thats all.  I am not questioning Dereks privacy policies or what he will do with the emails.  Just don’t tell me its free then ask for something before I can get it. 

Of course, I may be missing something.  Seriously.  Help me out here.

That’s what mailinator is for…

I’m in the majority here on this one.  It’s not free and it is false advertising to say that it is.  It’s also a violation of personal ethics to give away other people’s addresses, regardless of whether or not they’ll be kept.  So I’m offended to even be asked for them. 

But I still say what I said back when this was announced: I don’t like the album being given away for ‘free’ at all this close to its release.  What a gyp for the people who paid in full for the album just last year!  Big turn off.

Referring to the post just above:

Check out Matthew 20:1-6

If someone chooses to give something out for free to someone else after asking you to pay for it, it is his perogative.

“Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”

I totally realize that the Biblical allusion here might be a stretch, but I think there’s a point to it.

If Derek owns this record, he is able to distribute it as he wishes---for pay or free or for 5 emailed recommendations or whatever. No one somehow deserves this record.

Brannon,
Thanks so much for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

Frankly, I don’t think your Biblical allusion is that much of a stretch. In fact, I think you have a good point. I agree that Derek do whatever he likes with his work.

I think that for both the point that Cachinnator is making as well as my original point, it’s all about expectation. Yes, Derek can do whatever he pleases with his work. However, the expectation that he sets and whether it coincides with the ultimate delivery of the product will greatly affect peoples’ perception of him and his methods. As long as he accepts the fact that some people may feel rather sucker punched and consequently have a tarnished perception of him, he can do whatever he pleases with his music. (I don’t mean for that to sound harsh - just straightforward.)

In regard to releasing the album for free. I, quite honestly, thought it was a brilliant move.

I do think, though, that the whole promotion was somewhat hampered by misleading advertising.

The album cannot be called free if something uncustomary is required in exchange. It’s currently customary to require a personal email address in exchange for something “free” (although I still don’t agree with it). It doesn’t surprise people. However, requiring the personal information of 5 other people before releasing an album solely advertised as being FREE is rather deceptive and to me.

The process isn’t wrong, it was the advertising that I have issues with.

Ultimately, I just have a huge desire to see Christian artists not use “accepted” marketing methods, but to use those that are above reproach. (Check out my recent post on idealism vs. realism.)

Thoughts?

so this is why, on september 1st, we’re launching freederekwebb.com, a place where anyone can go online and not just hear but actually download, keep, and share ‘mockingbird’ completely for free. In addition, freederekwebb.com will give you an opportunity to invite your friends to download ‘mockingbird’ in order to get them in on the conversation as well.

This excerpt is from the FreeDerekWebb.com web site, and I believe it was the “press release” that many people read in advance of this whole Free Derek Webb thing. It is signed “Derek Webb” at the bottom, and is apparently his own words about what he was hoping to achieve with this.

I just know that somebody is going to say (well, a couple of people already have said here in the comments) “You’re being too picky about this—he said it’s free and those five e-mail addresses are just helping to spread the word, but it’s still free”.

But saying that “freederekwebb.com will give you an opportunity to invite your friends” makes it sound like it’s optional to “invite your friends”, not mandatory. “Opportunity” means presenting me with a chance to engage in something, not a requirement.

And honestly, I literally don’t have five e-mail addresses of friends that I could enter there. Most e-mail addresses I have for my friends are work addresses, which would make it inappropriate to use them, or are “personal”, meaning they only want them given to people they know, and are not expecting to receive information about music downloads there.

I realize that I’m probably not the “target demographic” here anyway. We’re probably mostly talking about young people who are in school or college, and enjoy writing lots of e-mails back and forth to large groups of friends, and think nothing of sending all their friends information about free downloads through e-mail.

And I also realize that Derek Webb personally may not have been responsible for how the download web page was laid out—he may very well have asked technicians or assistants if such a thing could be arranged, and then left it up to them to set it up.

As minor as it sounds, this whole disappointment and misunderstanding could have been avoided if “Step 2” had been listed as “Optional”, and maybe a brief paragraph above it saying “Please help us spread the word! Automatically tell all your friends about this free download by entering their e-mail addresses and your message to them below!”. Then those of us who don’t have five e-mail addresses to contribute could still advance to Step 3, and could still get Free Derek Webb.

I guess those of us who don’t like the way this was handled get to be the “grouchy grumblers who are ungrateful for something free”, while everyone else doesn’t even understand what our problem is. Oh well.

Oh, and I agree with Brannon’s point, and must disagree with my friend Cach on this one (at least, about this one point).

People who paid for the album agreed to the exchange at that time—they considered the price they were paying for the merchandise they were getting a fair deal, and in so doing they got to possess the merchandise and to support the artist who makes his living from it (and all the other people who are part of the food chain in addition to the artist).

The later release as a “free” download does not negate or in any way involve the initial transaction of music for money that occurred. I consider the scripture reference Brannon gave to be applicable here—although Jesus’ real point was about spiritual things and was not really about laborers or payment, but the principle being applied is still valid.

No, no, I agree with Brandon and Hammer.  (Although I don’t think the passage from Matthew has anything to do with this discussion.) Derek is totally free to do whatever he wants to with his music.  I never implied that he shouldn’t be allowed to do it.  I just think it’s a bad decision.  It could create bad feelings.  It could leave people feeling ripped off.  It’s totally legal and legit.  I just think it was bad timing.  If it were immediately in front of his next album as a promo - I get it.  If it were another six months from now and he’s promoting a tour - I get it.  But now the negatives seem to outweigh the positives.

Sorry!  Brannon!  Not Brandon.  Sorry!

I did it and I liked it.

I agree that it should been worded better, using the word “in return, please submit the e-mail addresses of five people you think would like to hear this album.” I think I did put fake addys for 2 or 3 of them, but that’s because I downloaded it twice. Not saying it was right, but it’s what I did because I didn’t want to bombard the same people a second time around.

I’ve got a copy, Kat, and if you don’t have one, I’d be willing to burn a CD or share it over the ‘Net. Technically, it WAS “free.”

Share Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

URL (optional):

Smileys

Remember me.

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

Twitter Updates