Slashdot Mirror


Radiohead May Have Made $6-$10 Million on Name-Your Cost Album

mytrip passed us a link to a Wired article indcating that if music industry estimates are correct Radiohead has made as much as $10 million on the 'In Rainbows' album so far. This despite the estimates of widespread piracy of the album as well. "[The estimate assumes] that approximately 1.2 million people downloaded the album from the site, and that the average price paid per album was $8 (we heard that number too, but also heard that a later, more accurate average was $5, which would result in $6 million in revenue instead).

15 of 539 comments (clear)

  1. Finally! by HartDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now there is proof that artist do not need the record labels to make money, I hope someone in RIAA sees this and trembles as they show it to their higher ups!

    --
    To see a few of my Android apps goto: www.hartwired.com
    1. Re:Finally! by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's proof that well known band can make money without a record label. Which wasn't exactly news.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Finally! by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they don't need labels.

      With a label, if a musician has some decent pull, they might get $2 on a $20 album.

      Without a label, a musician gets $2 on a $2 album.

      The consumer/fan saves $18. The musician still makes just as much money. And potentially a lot more, since more people would be likely to pay $2 for an album than $20.

    3. Re:Finally! by McFadden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At the risk of being the devil's advocate, is it entirely likely that they are using the publicity someone else (the labels) paid for to generate sales for this album?
      What a strange suggestion. Presumably the fact that their record label has been paid handsomely with a cut from every one of the last 6 multi-million selling albums isn't enough then? Radiohead have more than paid for their previous distributor's services.
  2. One thing's for sure: by Enlarged+to+Show+Tex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They probably made more money off their album doing it this way than they ever would have made off the same album going through a record company. By the time you account for all the middlemen, marketing, and so forth, they might even have lost money on the album based on the level of sales, downloads, and so on.

    1. Re:One thing's for sure: by slittle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it was culturally encouraged they might. Service people and street performers get tips even when it's not legally required, after all. If society develops around the free exchange of the arts, it may simply be the done thing to pay for what you like.

      In the short term though, it's probably going to be more like "w00t, free shit lolz!!!" than the above.

      --
      Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  3. I'm impressed. by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not bad earnings, considering that this means (a) the album went platinum with no marketing help from a major label, and (b) even letting consumers name their own price (and pirate the album freely), Radiohead is making better royalties than they would through a label.

    Destroys both of the arguments the labels make in their own defense. Other artists would be fools not to learn from Radiohead.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:I'm impressed. by metrometro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A new band wouldn't turn this profit, but that doesn't mean the model can't scale down. I played in several bands for years, got put on a couple of ska complilations and our total record industry provided cut was under $500 bucks. Never got signed to a full album contract. If we'd skipped all that, put our music on a website and pushed a fan base to chip in, I suspect we'd have done more. Could we get 100 people to chip in $5 for a free download? I think so - we played show to that many people twice a month for years.

      In the process, we would have gotten our music in front of more people and generated goodwill in the fan base. So there's a better growth potential, as buyers become, in a way, backers.

  4. Re:wtf by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Piracy is unauthorized replication and distribution. A copyright holder can require that those who get something for free get it from a specific source. In this case, downloading it for free from Radiohead is not piracy, while downloading it via eDonkey is piracy.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  5. Re:Cue Mozart's Requiem for the RIAA by Bluesman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's one thing that the record companies provide that you can't typically get on your own, and that's publicity.

    Radiohead is only able to cause this much of a stir and make this much money because everyone and his brother heard "Creep" on the radio umpteen times in the late 90's. Otherwise nobody would know who the hell Radiohead is and their name-your-price album would sell no better than the thousands of other bands charging $5 for a CD that hardly anybody has ever heard of.

    And I don't think that's a bad thing. I think I'd like nothing more than the complete breakdown of the music industry so that you'd actually have to go out to bars to hear people play. I think with national exposure given to a select few by the media companies, great local and regional bands have a much tougher time finding an audience.

    If it no longer paid to spend the millions promoting those few bands, they'd have to compete with the people who didn't win the record contract lottery, and we'd all be better off.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  6. Definition of Work by randalware · · Score: 4, Insightful


            I like the concept and I am glad Raidiohead tried this.

    After looking at the royalty rates for software authors, musical artists, and other creative arts (movie,video,etc)...
    The big companies / middle men are raking it in.
    And the consumer is paying the bill.

    The internet is leveling the playing field.
    Lower cost of product, fewer hurdles to distribution, censorship by the consumer's choices (purchase y/n), variable/negoiatable pricing.

    More money in being an artist.
    Lower cost to consumer.
    More artists can make a living being creative. (but possibly fewer mega-rich ones)
    Fewer creative limits for the artist.
    And the parasitic middle men can change careers.
    Middle men that actually add value to the process will still exist. (but make a much more modest income)

    The artist win ! The consumers win !

    --
    This is my opinion based on what little I know and understand of the rumors and lies Thanks, Randal
  7. Great! Yes, make even more money!! by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really hope all the other musicians still under the shackles of a RIAA-affiliated label will feel positively JEALOUS of the kind of dough Radiohead is making!

    While I despise greed, it might just be a very powerful force in the downfall of the labels and therefore the RIAA. Just imagine all those musicians just NOT renewing their contracts (or even trying to end their current ones) and go onto forming their own label and sell their music directly to their fans!

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  8. Re:Who the fuck is radiohead? by DCTooTall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Possibly true, But also think about all the people who have heard of Radiohead BECAUSE of the media hoopla surrounding the fact they have decided to sell the album direct to the public via the website and cut out the RIAA/Record Companies.

    There is also the added purchase support from those who may not be big Radiohead fans who would normally buy a record from them, but who are purchasing the album in order to support their decision to embrace the web... and not something to outlaw like certain parties would appearently like to see happen.....

  9. Re:and that is the threat to the big labels; by Belacgod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Extensively processed music will become a thing of the past. People will play and record on devices that are much cheaper than they do currently. The lower capital costs will enable them to better weather rampant piracy, surviving on fans' CD purchases, some legitimate online sales, and concert revenues.

  10. Re:and that is the threat to the big labels; by LooseIsNotLose · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Seriously, what expensive startup costs? If you want to record yourself there's the initial outlay in a powerful computer set up and perhaps Pro Tools, and some good microphones for drums and vocals. So--maybe $10,000? $20,000? And once you've got that equipment, you can use it as much as you want, with no hourly studio time.

    And if you don't have the knowhow or money to do the recording yourself, there are all kinds of small studios with perfectly decent engineers that charge less than $1,000 for a day. It's perfectly feasible to record an album for $5,000-$10,000 this way, or much less if you have connections or friends in the small-time recording industry.

    After that, electronic distribution is essentially free, via MySpace, or by setting yourself up on iTunes, eMusic, etc. If you also need CDs, a company like Kunaki can produce them for you on the fly for less than $2 each, *and* handle the ordering back end.

    Compared to a lot of other things you could do for a living, music is *not* an expensive industry to be a part of, if you don't buy into the rock 'n' roll life style, often lived by artists who are *fearsomely* in hock to their major label for some ungodly advance money that it will take royalties years to pay off, if ever.