My experience with "Indie Music Album Reviews". WTF

I just found out yesterday about this racket and wanted to let the music community (well, the music community that's hip enough to read forums) know about it. The guy's final email is golden.

I got an email from someone calling himself "Danny Williams" on March 27th, telling me he really liked my music and that I ought to submit my most recent single to their website. I submitted my single and didn't get my hopes up.

Something first seemed wrong about their site a couple of days later, when I got the exact same email from "Danny". I figured it was someone who was spamming "recent releases" artists on Bandcamp- but I didn't know how crazy it was until yesterday morning, when I got this email from "Indie Music Album Reviews":

  Quote

Hi,
You submitted an album entitled “Dark Days” to our website. The staff took a vote this morning and we decided to move forward with a review. If you are unfamiliar with our website, we only review submissions that we like. Your review will either have a favorable, good or great rating meaning a 3.0 or above. (We think it’s a little more fun to keep the detailed rating a secret till your published date). In order to maximize the exposure to our audience we give the artist a couple of different options.

Option 1 (Free)
With this option your album will be included in our “weekly roundup” section. This section is published once a week (on Friday) and is a list of the albums we enjoyed. Here is an example of what it would look like:
.
http://www.indiemusicalbumreviews.com/1/post/2013/02/weekly-roundup.html

Option 2 (25 dollars)
With this option your album is featured as one of our daily reviews
One of our trusted writers will elaborate on the rating we have given. We talk about the genre of music, the tracks we felt were highlights, where the band is from, etc. This includes its own distinct URL, cover art,two links of your choice (bandcamp, website, reverbnation, facebook, record label, etc) and a professionally written review. (2 -3 paragraphs sometimes more)
Here is an example of what it would look like
http://www.indiemusicalbumreviews.com/1/post/2013/03/david-bowie-the-next-day.html

Option 3 (35 dollars)
This option includes everything from option 2 and also includes a song or songs of your choice to be embedded from soundcloud or bandcamp.

If you want people to actually hear your music from our site while reading your review-we can do that to. The song or songs have to be uploaded to soundcloud or bandcamp. We will embed it right on our page.
Here is an example of what it would look like
http://www.indiemusicalbumreviews.com/1/post/2013/02/eels-wonderful-glorious.html

Option 4 (40 dollars)
This option includes everything from option 2 and 3. It also includes a video upload. The video must be on youtube and be a music video or live performance.
Here is an example of what it would look like
http://www.indiemusicalbumreviews.com/1/post/2013/03/youth-lagoon-wondrous-bughouse.html

Process
No matter what option you chose we will need to hear back from you to confirm your review. (You will need to reply to this e-mail telling us what option you selected in the body of the e-mail.)
If you chose option 1 all you need to do is reply to this e-mail and put option 1 in the body. Within a couple of days we will send you a follow-up e-mail confirming what day your review will be published. If you chose option 2, 3, or 4 we will send you a invoice through paypal for the option you selected to your e-mail (let us know if you want us to send the invoice to a different e-mail). Once the invoice is paid we will send you one last e-mail confirming the date that it will be published.

For option 2, 3,or 4 we will also need you to include the proper links for soundcloud,bandcamp, youtube video, your mp3 etc.

This review will be up on our website forever with its own specific URL. Feel free to put it on your website, use it in your press kit or send to fans.

Cheers,
The team at indiemusicalbumreviews.com

I was a bit taken aback (correction: I was stunned by their ballsyness) and wrote them back:

  Quote

Hi,

I got your email and found it to be incredibly audacious. I was under the impression that when a blogger finds music they like, they’re normally overjoyed to write about it, embed a few tracks, and link to a download.

Do you know who I work with on a routine basis?

The reply came swiftly. By that point I had already made a blog post about it, but I wanted to see what the deal was and if they would really stick their foot in it:

  Quote

Hi,

Thanks for responding to the e-mail. Im not sure why you would assume that all websites work the same or use the same model. They aren’t any rules that say how a business is to be run. A lot of websites chose to run ads and not pay their writers. However, we don not make enough off ads atm and want to pay our writers for their time. It is clearly mentions on our website how our model works and make sure to even mention on the submission form that people review how we operate before we submit, If people have a problem with our model then they shouldn’t submit. Its that simple

Thanks, Al

OK, I thought. Maybe they just aren't totally clear on why what they're doing is wrong. I replied:

  Quote

Let’s put it this way: How can you expect to have credibility as a review site if bands pay you for reviews?

There’s a bunch of bands out there now waving your reviews around as if they were genuine, non-paid reviews. Your “About” page mentions the paid aspect only in passing.

What you are doing may not be illegal, but it’s certainly unethical.

-Duncan

But their answer made it clear that they just didn't get it:

  Quote

You’re wrong Duncan- our staff approves the artists we want to review- why do you think 90% of the music review is of similar genres. If we don’t like it or don’t think it is a good fit we don’t send out an email. Furthermore we often have free options that rate higher then the paid reviews . Again we state on the website how we operate. Our website gives bands honest feedback on their material. Read through the reviews yourself they all aren’t glowing and if we think a bands needs inprovement we point that out. It’s offensive to me that you think this is unethical when we disclose exactly how we operate and what we provide.

Thank you, Al

My answer:

  Quote

Hi Al,

You can’t possibly expect anyone to believe that your reviews will be impartial when bands are paying you to review them. When readers visit your site, they have an expectation that reviews be posted with no ulterior motives, and they don’t necessarily click over to the “About” page to see the disclaimer buried at the bottom. Furthermore, you know full well that when bands list your reviews on their website or in their press kit, they are not going to divulge that they paid you to do it. This is unethical.

Regarding business models: I am a musician who has worked many hundreds of hours on two EPs and an album, and I let people download them without expecting anything in return. I am also a music blogger: I post reviews for free, because I love the music and I want other people to find out about it.

If you want to make money off your music blog, you could do a few things:

1) If your reviews are good enough, you can set up a paywall.
2) You can have ads on your site. If you want to get more pageviews and make more money, you can write better reviews.
3) You can have a “Donate” button on the sidebar labeled something like “Buy us a coffee”.

All of these three options are up-front and transparent to the reader.

What you absolutely do not do is send emails to bands soliciting submissions, and then ask for money in exchange for a blog post. At least when companies take out article-style full-page ads in magazines, they have to have the word “ADVERTISEMENT” front-and-center.

-Duncan

And this is where they really stuck their foot in it and made it clear: They don't know or care whether taking money from bands for reviews is unethical: Their only credo is “What’s great about capitalism is that we can chose [sic] how to run your business”.

  Quote

Duncan,

This is the last e-mail I am going to respond to and I respectably disagree with most of what you say.

Your argument is based on assumptions.

“You can’t possibly expect anyone to believe that your reviews will be impartial when bands are paying you to review them.”

Why not? The writers rate and review the album which are pre-approved by the staff. In no way do they tamper with the rating or review

“and they don’t necessarily click over to the “About” page to see the disclaimer buried at the bottom. “

The disclaimer is far from buried. There are two short paragraphs on the about section that over 90% visit!
We also tell people to please fully review the “about” page before submitting.

“Furthermore, you know full well that when bands list your reviews on their website or in their press kit, they are not going to divulge that they paid you to do it. This is unethical. “

This makes no sense. How can you call us unethical for the actions of another person. So if that person
does announce that they did in fact pay for the review does that make more ethical. This is a basic 101ethics course

“Regarding business models: I am a musician who has worked many hundreds of hours on two EPs and an album, and I let people download them without expecting anything in return. I am also a music blogger: I post reviews for free, because I love the music and I want other people to find out about it.”

Great! Im glad you do what you love

“If you want to make money off your music blog, you could do a few things:

1) If your reviews are good enough, you can set up a paywall.
2) You can have ads on your site. If you want to get more pageviews and make more money, you can write better reviews.
3) You can have a “Donate” button on the sidebar labeled something like “Buy us a coffee”.

All of these three options are up-front and transparent to the reader. “

Yes these are all option but that whats great about capitalism is that we can chose how to run your business

All of these three options are up-front and transparent to the reader.

“What you absolutely do not do is send emails to bands soliciting submissions, and then ask for money in exchange for a blog post. At least when companies take out article-style full-page ads in magazines, they have to have the word “ADVERTISEMENT” front-and-center.”

Our method is upfront as well- Is it not- We explain our full model and anyone who is submitting their music should and will take the time to who they are submitting to.

Why not- They made the submission? They know how it works/ What the worst thing that happens? They chose the free option. Wow! Ill tell you this Duncan, maybe you are young but their are a lot worse thing in the world. We are not a huge blog but at the end of the day we have a lot artists who have been very happy that we recognized them.
I don’t think their is anything wrong with and being able to cover our production costs at the same time.

This guy wasn't aware yet that I'd gone public. I sent him one final email:

  Quote

Congratulations, you have been selected by our blog staff to be featured on our blog- for free.

http://duncanbailey.net/news-2/you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me

In the end, this experience has been rather depressing. I know about the incestuous relationship between promoters and music blogs- some friends of mine dealt with a promo agency that took hundreds of dollars to email a few bloggers who would publish everything they sent- but I've never seen anything so nakedly unethical. And all those bands awkwardly going "Hey look, our first review!"? Christ.

The real kicker? These guys have made $475 over the past 5 days, charging bands for album reviews.

It's ridiculous, but what's even more stupid is that bands are falling for it. Good job on trying to get the word out.

Payola is nothing new, but I've never seen anything quite like this.

The fact that they are going to rip off a lot of naive producers and bands by doing this is very upsetting. I think this site will go nowhere as too many artists know better than to participate but they will make money and scam some people in the process and that's incredibly frustrating.

Thanks for posting this, I'm curious if anyone else has encountered this website previously. Maybe others will have suggestions of blogs and online media outlets that would be interested featuring your experience.

haha wow. If they actually had any kind of fan following, I'd imagine this would completely destroy any readership they have.

Going by the responses on the WATMM reddit page, you'd think payola was a good thing.

http://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/comments/1bqox6/i_just_got_an_email_from_a_music_blog_wanting/

I think the reddit watmm has no connection to this forum. They just happen to be another group of big willy wonka fans.

lol at all the redditors thinking the invisible hand metaphor works in terms of the market self regulating morality within culture.

It's frustrating not only to innocent artists who think they've achieved a big break when they're just getting scammed, it must be frustrating to actual reviewers that actually take time out to analyse and criticise music thoroughly to only just be told just write good things to those who have the most money to throw at you. Not to mention the main issue is that they're selling advertisements, not reviews. If they just went out and said it was an advertisement on behalf of whoever paid them, that'd be a completely different story.

I'd also be interested in seeing a response from other outlets and blogs. It'd be a bit naive to say that this doesn't happen within mainstream publications, but nonetheless I'm sure a lot of people within the industry would be concerned about this type of model becoming the norm.

indie musical bum reviews

i think i might take up this approach to posting on watmm. i'll provide different rates for my posts, like, if you post a joke a "lol" might be like $.25 whereas a "flol" could be $.50. i'll PM you guys with rates

How much would a response gif run me?

if i don't have to make the gif it'll be $1

not surprising, but depressing. i think pitchfork does this on a larger scale with their festival lineups.

what does he think this is, video game journalism?

pay us 40 and we will embed a youtube video on our wank site ye fuck off m8

I got the same thing from some australian record label. First they were very impressed by what I did in music, but the third email I got from them had just $ all over it. Fuck them

As you are aware, money is how businesses are run!

I don't know what's more sad- the innocent, inexperienced artists that think they've made a big break, or bullheaded blustery nitwits like these guys.

Ya it's like there is a complete lack of ethical comprehension going on from everyone's side in this thing. Like an alternate universe where stealing is just "business" and corruption is just "politics".

Huh. This got me thinking - I might actually pay for a review that was guaranteed to be honest, by someone who was knowledgeable within my genre. Maybe?

I'm in the indie videogames world and this also happens there. I'd say don't get mad at it, just concentrate on making good music that people wants to listen to and the rest will happen. I personally haven't tried any paid reviews service as it's difficult to be sure if it's worth it and as you point out the review's credibility is at least questionable.

By the way, I have been listening to some stuff on your soundcloud and I like it :D, reminds me of Ulrich Schnauss but more rythmical.

  On 4/9/2013 at 12:01 AM, A/D said:

Huh. This got me thinking - I might actually pay for a review that was guaranteed to be honest, by someone who was knowledgeable within my genre. Maybe?

a brutally honest, in depth critique from someone who actually knew their shtick could actually be hellz beneficial to someone looking to progress on a conventional level, considering most feedback ya get online is either an insincere "this is awesome!!!" (so you'll nice them back) or a sincere "this sucks/is awesome!!!" (because most aren't technically learned or well spoken enough to properly articulate their opinions in, like, a useful manner)

well, isn't this what happens in every big--and not so big also--advertisement company and, more generally, the industry around cultural 'products'/creations?

i'm going to asume that this particular 'indie' blog isn't very popular (small 'crowd' or target, low resources--people, etc.--). they talk about paying writers, but how can you be sure that the blog is actually run by a proper staff? my guess is that they're trying to get enough money to establish a profitable advertisement company.

someone mentioned pitchfork. that's, i think, a good example of a bussines of that kind: highely popular, with a defined audience that involves different music genres, enough capital to have their own festival, etc. yet pitchfork isn't rolling stone magazine.

i don't think that your critique is ultimately wrong (OPs). i also approve a kind of blog that's focused on a more personal appreciation of music (for free, obviously). but does that sort of thing exist nowadays? take for example, Anthony Fantano (i noticed his existence through the Exai thread, actually). he is the kind of people, influential at some level, that the music bussiness is trying to emulate--if not use--for the promotion of commercial products (in the eyes of the industry). it happens too in other spheres (fashion, for example). at least the person who replied to your messages was honest enough to talk about the wonders of capitalism and not disguise his actions.

the boundaries are very diffuse. sometimes raising money isn't such an evil thing to do, considering that the intentions are very difficult to discern.

well done. Send your research in the form of an article to a big indie mag as a freelance writer. Who knows they may publish (or pinch the story off you, due to their 'business model'). But given that you have prior art here and on your blog you would have a leg to stand on.

  On 4/12/2013 at 6:43 AM, muncadunc said:

 

The story continues.

Hellofaninvestigation muncadunc.

I don't think a record label can really "succeed" by using the tactics you describe. You might be able to eke out a living, probably mostly from the reviews - but it's kind of a swindle to pay for your fans. Real fans pay you. So you're already in the hole, and no real prospect of a paying customer. Maybe if your stuff is really good, the initial push from a fake fanbase would work. But if your stuff was really good . . you might not need a fake fanbase.

It's actually a con on the artist if you read his last post about it. Firstly to get cash in return for reviews on a website that has no real traffic. And secondly to get them to buy studio time. (although the facebook comment about it not even being the guys studio make that one a little shaky). Fake label con business model. heh.

I don't think that guy's plan was to succeed as a record label. Just to eke out a living pretending to be one, charging bands for services.