Slashdot Mirror
38% of Downloaders Paid For Radiohead Album
brajesh sends us to Comscore for a followup on the earlier discussion of Radiohead making $6-$10 million on their name-your-own-cost album "In Rainbows" — with the average price paid being between $5 and $8. Comscore analyzes the numbers: "During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the 'In Rainbows' site, with a significant percentage of visitors ultimately downloading the album. The study showed that 38 percent of global downloaders of the album willingly paid to do so, with the remaining 62 percent choosing to pay nothing... Of those who were willing to pay, the largest percentage (17 percent) paid less than $4. However, a significant percentage (12 percent) were willing to pay between $8-$12, or approximately the cost to download a typical album via iTunes, and these consumers accounted for more than half (52 percent) of all sales in dollars."
did they make more or less profit than what they would have made with the standard sales method?
I really don't think it's fair that Radiohead is just giving it away over the internet... Record companies put in a lot of hard work and effort to make a band successful, and I think it's really dishonest to just cut them out like that.
Perhaps its time the government did something about it, before the record industry starts losing even more revenue and therefore jobs.
Got radio head?
Listen, Fred:
RF containment
Could leave you dead
Drop the insulation
And broadcast, instead.
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
One thing this didn't account for was advertising. A band that big probably had a huge advertising budget in their past that they no longer had to worry about because being the first ones out of the block, they caught a bit more press on the Internet. There were probably a number of new radiohead fans that were made because of this that will come back and buy future CDs. They might have taken a hit financially, but I think the payoff is going to be bigger in the long run.
After all is said and done, how does that compare to the standard take of the band's share? Typically $1-2 per album sold right? Sounds like they made out pretty well.
at 6-10 mil this experiment work. Radiohead made more in album sales via download than they have on other albums. Plus this does not included what they will make in storefront sales.
How many of those were people who downloaded it, gave it a listen and then went back and paid for it after they decided it was worth some cash.
What is google? What is the slashdot search box, even? If you expect each story summary to give you a background on every term or group it includes, slashdot would be a pile of shit.
I don't mind Radiohead's music, but I didn't pay for it either. Neither did I download it yet. It is not correct to say that only 12% of people will pay for music, only that 12% of people that wanted to hear RADIOHEAD's music paid for it. It was an experiment. There were more people going to the site to see what it was about or what the music is like than their are fans that wanted to buy the music IMO. That will significantly skew the statistics.
As more bands do this, we will see what the average price is that people will pay.
I say, it was a success. They made money AND more people now know about them than did before.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
But at the moment its a novelty having a well known band do this, many paid simply to show their support for the idea.
I wonder how much those percentages will change if this becomes the norm.
I myself didn't pay simply because the album was not to my taste.
Well, of course, it culd be that not all the users are keeping the program, they may be testing, etc... but I am counting the hits that the server register from the same address within a month... So the program has being used a month more or less....
So judging by that, music consumers have a more happy pocket than software users.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
For example, if I divide it in to two groups: those who paid less than $4 and those that paid more than $4, you could say that the largest percentage (83 percent) paid MORE than $4.
Lies, damn lies.... and terrible journalism.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
The varying statistics of user behavior (from the degrees of payment to none at all) make a strong point Against RIAA's studies, which are used to determine the size of the damages they wish to seek from defendants of illegal downloads.
...And with all the free publicity, EMI (their old label) has decided to cash in-- selling their back catalog on a USB drive that retails for TWICE what the CD box set costs.
That pretty much explains the music "industry" in a nutshell.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
drudgereport.com is a right-leaning website frequented by media execs
you see the very first story linked as:
"Most Fans Paid $0 for Radiohead Album..."
(breitbart is a right-leaning media outlet as well)
ps: right now being 4:15 pm, 11/06/2007
what's funny is how a pro-file sharing website, like slashdot, can spin a positive out of the numbers, and an anti-file sharing website can spin a negative
spin, spin, spin
just my two cents: radiohead probably made more money off their album with this internet tip jar concept than if they signed with a label, considering how the companies nickel and dime artists to death. actually, radiohead has some clout, so maybe that's not 100% true. but rather, an unknown band would DEFINITELY make more money with free albums and an internet tip jar than signing with a label
hopefully more and more bands will realize this, and a critical mass of hot young bands will coalesce such that one will consider doing business with the defunct music labels ever again
then the RIAA attack dogs will sue up and coming artists to sign with the music labels? (half-joking, i wouldn't put it past them)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We'll only really know the full impact of this if/when other acts start doing it. I don't really like Radiohead, but I threw them $5 just for shaking things up in a good way. Still, it's obvious most people who bought this album were Radiohead fans. The real question is, how much further will this distribution model go if/when other major fanbases are given the same chance?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Either that or many people wanted to use this opportunity to make a point against the recording labels, and the results would be different if this became a standard practice.
For some reason, I'm inclined towards the latter.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Hmmmm.
Three cheers for Radiohead, at any rate.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Of those who did not pay anything, how many would have purchased the album if it had not been available for free download? Between that, and the minimal compensation from a standard record contract I'd call this endeavor a success. I also think that if this model took off there might be more of a social push to encourge cheapskates to support the bands they listen to.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
I fail to see how this is news for nerds.. who cares really.. ugh radiohead
62% were dead beats and only 12% paid a price competitive with download services. Pretty abysmal numbers. You can't look at the total you have to look at the percentages and they weren't good. I have to believe they would also drop over time as more epople decided why should they pay when most aren't? I remember when the speed limit went from 55 to 65 or better. For months few people exceeded 65 and most actaully drove 55 or 60. Now they drive 75 in 65 zones. Take away restrictions and the standards of behavior change. A few groups will make money in the early days but eventually most won't bother to pay anything.
How many people downloaded and paid for it on one machine and then decided to download it to another (at work, on a laptop in a hotel, whatever)? There are several things online I end up downloading countless times because it's easier to get it off the net than it is to keep everything on me.
If only 12% of the people who brought it made up 60% if the actual income then how is that good?
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Either that, or many people wanted to use this opportunity to make a point against the recording labels, and the results would be different if this became a standard practice.
For some reason, I'm inclined towards the latter.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
yeah, you and this guy should get together and toss up a nice big FUD salad.
"It doesn't bode well for the future of the music industry," says Michael Laskow, CEO of TAXI, the world's leading independent A&R (Artist and Repertoire) company. "Radiohead has been bankrolled by their former label for the last 15 years. They've built a fan base in the millions with their label, and now they're able to cash in on that fan base with none of the income or profit going to the label this time around. That's great for the band and for fans who paid less than they would under the old school model. But at some point in the not too distant future, the music industry will run out of artists who have had major label support in helping them build a huge fan base. The question is: how will new artists be able to use this model in the future if they haven't built a fan base in the millions in the years leading up to the release of their album under the pay what you'd like model?"
This is of course horse-crap. Yes, the industry is capable of picking out just about anything with a partially intact larynx and turning it into an overnight "success", but the music world hardly needs this and will conceivably will fair much better overall without it.
ôó
Oops, I meant to reply to this post instead...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
ANTI records which has some pretty big names pays 50%, does promotion and distribution but doesn't cover recording costs.
I've been an avid Radiohead fan for years now, and when I saw this I was delighted someone had stepped up and realised the change in the state of the music industry. I paid 5 quid for it, and I did so to say "good idea, I'm willing to pay" and I don't regret one penny of it.
Kudos to Radiohead, and I hope those fat cats at the RIAA and related Music Labels take heed.
ilovegeorgebush
Or is he still obsessing about chili?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This doesn't surprise me too much (although it's higher than I would have expected). The real question is how many of those people who didn't pay went out and bought another of their albums after finding they liked the band?
But that would be really tough to measure.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Does this mean the record industry has successfully convinced everyone the price of an album should be around $10?
Or does it mean that the record industry actually set the right price point?
Does it mean that cheaper priced albums might sell more quantity, but generate less revenue?
You can spin the numbers any way you want...
17% paid less than $4? Well, that means that of the 38% that paid, 21% paid more than $4. What does $4 have to do with anything at all? It is a completely arbitrary number.
The numbers that would be important are:
Of the 62% who paid nothing, how many of them would have bought the disc at retail at launch?
Of the 38% who paid something, how many of them would have bought the disc at retail at launch? How much more / less did they pay than if they bought it at retail?
Not to mention that they will still sell physical CDs, which they stand to make more money off of.
Or was the website strange enough that I was inherently unwilling to give them ANY of my personal info, let alone my CC number?
I like the band, and I am willing to wade through any number of website disasters that reflect a given bands 'taste'. But when it comes to giving my money to someone I'd like something nice, normal and boring.
But that's just me.
I was planning on going back to the site and paying $5 for it but changed my mind. I'm ordering that LP box set. (I'm a vinyl playing dj anyway.)
When I went to a torrent site to download it, it was interesting because there was an argument between regulars, some who said it was just plain wrong to torrent it when they offer it free on the site, and you should throw them at least a buck because at least they're trying to be nice. The other side was saying, who cares, I want this album and it's here now.
never heard their music before, didnt like it, and deleted it...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
A lucky band might get a deal whereby they are paid 15% of revenues *after the record label recoups it investment*. Costs to be recouped can include nearly anything: secretaries, fat cat lunches, photography and printing costs, air conditioning, parking, coffee. You name it. Perhaps most importantly, the label has to shell out a pretty hefty percentage of revenues to the distributors and manufacturers whether they be a disc manufacturer or iTunes.
My band had a record distributed through V2 records and I believe our tiny label was *supposed* to get paid about $2 per record. Despite selling a few thousand records, we never got paid a dime because they claimed they didn't recoup the cost of their sales department selling our record to Target, Best Buy, etc.
I'll admit my band isn't as popular as radiohead, but let's do a little arithmetic. Suppose radiohead sells 1 million copies of their record at $20 a pop. That's $20 million dollars. Let's further suppose they get an extremely generous (nay unheard-of!) deal whereby they're paid 20% of gross after the label recoups their 'investments'. Let's suppose they get an amazing distribution deal that only siphons off 10% of gross revenues. Hell let's go crazy and assume that the record label doesn't expect to recoup anything and pays radiohead their percentage from the first record sold.
20% of $20 million is $4 million
take 10% of that and give it to iTunes and that leaves $3.6 million dollars
I'd bet my right arm that radiohead have made out like bandits on this.
For some interesting reading on the crooked record business, I would suggest Donald Passman's book All You Need to Know About the Music Business
Yeah, what is google?
(types google into wikipedia)
Ahh, I see!
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I tried to buy the album from the US, my bank declined the charges. When I called them to find out why they said a lot of fraudulent charges come from that part of the world and would not allow me to buy the album. How many of the folks who didn't pay for it actually "couldn't" pay for it?
Great news .. 38% of people appreciate their music ... :)
I feel 38% more sociable
RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
I have enjoyed a few Radiohead songs in the past but haven't downloaded this album. Is it good?
/.er with a few bucks to spare and enough morality to reward those who provide good entertainment... can't say the rest of the e-world would do the same.. a shame really since it would directly benefit the artist. But the numbers in the article do suggest there is some hope for this business model.
If I do download it, I will pay them $1 for every song I like (itunes going rate). But I am a typical
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I wouldn't go so far as to call 12% "significant", though 38% paying something was higher than I expected. In a vacuum this would look like a success, but Radiohead was already a well established group thanks (in part) to their deal with their previous record label. I can't help but feel that they were also helped by the novelty of the experiment. Would they have done so well if choosing your own price was the norm?
I have always theorized that the biggest deterrent to CD sales was the trend of stores letting people listen to the CDs before they purchased them. The music industry / bands used to be able to write one or two good songs, and fill the remainder of the CD with crap. One would ask themselves, is it really worth $17 for the two songs I liked? I grew up buying 45s at the corner drug store for a couple of bucks. Nothing much has changed except now that I can buy many of the same tunes via the web.
I would love to see paypal links showing up on musicians' websites so I could email some money directly to an artist whose music I had come across in some non-traditional way and decided to keep. So far, the closest I have come (from "mainstream musicians") is the Radiohead experiment. I guess with the traditional distribution model (that we are still utilizing, only we have removed the bike ride to the store), there are too many fingers in the pie to allow for such a sensible situation.
So, does anyone doubt after reading this that mist consumers want something for nothing aka theft?
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
It would appear the spread was:
$0.00 : 62%
$0.01-4 : 17%
$4.01+ : 21%
Why four bucks is some magic number to someone, who knows. If broken in to equally as arbitrary but halfway sensible thirds, I'm sure it would look something exciting like:
$00.00-00.00 : 62%
$00.01-05.00 : 12.6%
$05.01-10.00 : 12.6%
$10.01-15.00 : 12.6%
But, that would make for a terribly boring PowerPoint presentation.
Even at $2/album, I bet you these guys netted more profit per sale than they would have received from the labels. Many bands are lucky to see more than a quarter to fifty-cents on the sale of an album.
They were the band that laughed at Scott Tinnerman.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
so if you include a hyperlink to radiohead web site or wikipedia entry, the site would be a pile of shit?
This is a huge factor. http://www.nextgreatthing.com/2007/10/22/artists-create-new-music-revenue-models/ This site reports 700,000 total copies of the discbox sold, a number I have read elsewhere. While physical production costs and shipping are part of the $80 price, I would say it is reasonable to say they would net at least $40 a pop from that price, if not more. Whatever the amount of profit they stand to make from the discbox, if those numbers are remotely close to accurate that is a ton of money going straight to the band. The purchasers of the discbox are the most loyal, hardcore fans. The discbox purchase also meant they got a "free" digital download. It is my understanding that they are not included in the 1.2 million purchases of the download. The numbers presented in this article are skewed to show more casual fans, and excludes the most ardent supporters.
Site Usability The website where you buy/download the albums is REALLY hard to navigate and understand. They don't even make clear that you set your own price. Had I not known beforehand that you could set the price, I would've abandoned the site because it looked broken.
Can't Purchase After Download If you download the album for free (like I did), but then decide you like it and want to pay for it, YOU CAN'T! Basically they let you have one download per email address. So unless you have another address handy to use the second time, you can't retroactively pay for your first download. That's just silly. Of course some of us want to decide whether we like it or not before handing over some cash, so this is a significant feature flaw.
So given these two significant things were hampering sales of the album, I'm actually pretty optimistic about the model. The next artist that does this and gets the site experience right and supports a "delayed" purchase, will make even more.
I wonder what is the overlap between the percentages, I mean some people could not pay anything, decide they like the album then come back to the site and pay for the download.
\u262D = \u5350
It's easy to sell things when you're already famous. That's what the record labels do: they make you famous. They put you in record stores and on the radio.
So I don't really care who downloads the albums of famous people. There are plenty of brilliant bands out there who you've never heard of and won't download their albums even when they give them away (and they often do).
Yeah, a bunch of famous people got in the newspaper and made a bunch of money off of it. Big deal.
I would have paid for the digital download it were it not for the following:
-- Could not determine the mp3 bitrate for the digital download until I downloaded it; personally I don't want to pay for inferior bitrates.
-- Lack of credibility for the site's merchant; I personally didn't feel too confident in entering my credit card info.
-- Going to purchase the disc at a later time; why pay twice?
The monkey wrench in the works is that we don't know how many copies were acquired via filesharing. But it's a pretty safe bet that those people wouldn't have bought it anyway if it had been released at a fixed price. If these payment rates hold up long-term, the RIAA's business model is pretty much dead. There is no reason for a band to sign a contract with a label which gives them less than 50% of revenue from Internet sales -- they could make more publishing independently.
Sorry, but to me DrudgeReport's link Breibart is more honest that Slashdot. Why you decide to declare negative spin as "right" boggles me. So if the truth hurts its only because of political leaning? I prefer conservative instead of labeling things as "right" and liberal instead of "left".
Regardless of the the leanings of a sight which is doing more of a disservice to public perception? The truth isn't always roses and as such hiding that fact can actually make matters worse. To correct behavior you don't like you don't hide it. You don't mask it. You acknowledge it and then you take steps to combat it.
Perhaps more people will now download and PAY for the album out of sense of obligation or guilt.
Sorry, your two cents aren't worth the view you propose because you simply reinforce the idea some of us have, which is people who bemoan the seeing thet truth labeled as spin/fud and worse throw in political views as some how a irrefutable fact to support such a view as simply another excuse and another sign of whats wrong with our current society.
The fact is, people want something for nothing but hate to be called out on it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yes, that could inflate the numbers of non-paying customers.
I downloaded it for $0 too, and it didn't appeal to me at all. I wish I could "un-download" it, i.e. delete it from my hard disk and decrement their "$0 downloader" count.
Here is a model to consider for IP compensation : some artist/programmer/writer/etc has an album/application/novel/etc and a way to convince the world it is worth having. For example, an band could use its already acquiered fame, like Radiohead has. Or Spielberg's producers could do that with Indiana Jones IV. Then they put up a web site and say that they will release the thing in the public domain, right there, in all of the lossless, high def, full featured formats that can be imagined, for anybody to download, share, burn , enjoy, copy, modify, etc. But only after some Paypal account has reached a certain level. Spielberg says okay Indy IV is in the public domain, 4K lossless file, mpeg 4 encodes and everything for your convenience, as soon as $1bn has been credited to this account. That would amount to 100 million households around the world figuring out that $10 is less than they would have paid to see the thing in theaters AND buy the DVDs. Sounds feasable.
Unknown artists could put their stuff for free at first until they acquire some fans and set some ransoms.
Here
Results to Date
70 downloads
5 donations
% of downloaders making a donation: 7%
Smallest donation: $2
Largest donation: $12
Average donation: $6.80
As a poster suggested to me in the last thread about Radiohead, I'm not going to quit my day job.
if the buy process was cleaner. It was a difficult flow that required you to create an account. If it was a simple "buy it now" kind of thing I would have paid for it too - instead I downloaded it from somewhere that didn't require me to create an account.
I don't really listen to Radiohead but I do like what they are doing with this album. So thanks for the reminder and I just paid 6 pounds (Approx $11 CAD) for the album. Two min later is already downloaded to my computer. So count me in to the 38% who paid.
Now I wonder how my purchase outside of Canada relates to the new Tariff 22
http://www.socan.ca/jsp/en/news_events/news/Tariff22_07.jsp
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
2. They released it for download, payment optional.
3. They made $6-10 million dollars. (PROFIT!!!)
I'd say it worked.
TyZone
Obviously this is a huge success. How many people are listening to Radiohead today just based on the huge FREE publicity they got? Even if some new listener paid $0.00 for their album... Will buy the album the next time around? Will they go to their concert? That listener would never have herd the album without all that free publicity. Oh and Matt Drudge is a tool.
..when you can have the radio head?!
I was bringing this up as a point in one of the earlier Radiohead articles. There are so many here who are pointing to this as proof that record labels don't need to be involved. That's easy for an established band. Here, you've put in the same efforts and can hardly afford to buy a couple rounds of beer.
The "pay as you like" model will only work for known bands. Other bands won't see anything significant. It's simply not a good model. It needs heavy revision if it can work at all as the primary model for music sales.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
There's a big difference psychologically between:
Putting up a free download link, and having a donate button
OR
Having an order form that explicitly lets you type in $0 for the purchase price.
Your method will not work because the audience at large feels no obligation to to "donate". Radioheads makes you feel like you ought to pay something, even if it's minimal. Those 62% must feel really bad about now, unless they didn't like the music, in which case they probably appreciate Radiohead for not charging them.
How many people paid THIS TIME to prove a point to the RIAA...and will pay little or nothing next time, or the time after, or the time after that?
Do you really think people will continue to pay $10 for something they can get for nothing? Neither do I. In the end, this incident is a gimmick with no sustainability.
I paid nothing because I think I might get the box set. If I don't, guilt will persuade me to go back to their non-linux-working website and pay them something. If that ends up happening, I'll pay them the meager amount they should be getting. I think they're taking advantage of the roads laid by the record companies (as much as I dislike them), and claiming to have done it on their own.
In this scenario, they're responsible for all the marketing, recording, and distribution costs. In the scenario where they're getting $2/album they don't have to foot any of those bills.
Yet, you can still see the reason of why CDs remain overprised in shops as 12% of the top spenders bring in more than 50% of all the money. Sure you could satisfy a lot more consumers buy selling selling CDs at a very low prise but why would you. You only need a few fan and gift sales to pick up most of the money available. The record industry will keep it this way as long as possible.
For example in the Netherlands prepaid cellphone cards is what kids and adolescents buy at the record stores for the last decade. Did the record industry lower prices to compete with change of spending habits of their market, no they added videoclips to justify a high prise and were satisfied with reducing their market to the big spenders. (They also redirected their marketing to the parrents of preteens who don't buy cellphone stuff yet. Instead of Now Dance featuring a topless babe, we now have Kids Dance with Nickelodeon stickers, for a prise only double income family's can afford.)
So like I said, majority is irrelevant and is not a measure of success. A useful statistic would be: did Radiohead make more money this way than they would have with a traditional release?
$8.95/mo web hosting
It's really no different than developing any other product. Look at Coke: take some caramel coloring, caffiene, sugar carbon dioxide and water and you have cola. The only difference between any other cola and Coke is advertising and brand promotion.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
but the idea is, the younger generation will not discover new bands in the traditional way you or i did (radio)
they will discover new bands on something deomcratic, like myspace or youtube. the idealistic hope is hot new bands will be discovered by fans without any promotion at all: the ultimate nirvana would be fans, and musicians WITHOUT ANY MIDDLE MEN AT ALL
that would be a truly glorious future. the internet makes it possible. no middle men
but the cynic in me says most fans are inert, they aren't so adventurous. indeed, i think there will always be a niche for reptilian promoters to capture and squeeze young eager and naive talent and hype them through media channels into the britney spears listening pop music landscape of fans
however, you're still talking about a new model: internet portals, not radio or mtv, as a growing new means for dsicvoering new talent. whether by fans OR promoters. an artist at any time could self-promote: at the beginning, middle, or end of their career. that was never possible before
it really is a whole new world the traditional old labels can lose out on in dozens of ways, no matter how you slice and dice it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think marketing/distribution was quite cheap for this one...
No sig today...
I have a feeling that most of the non-payers was most likely teenagers. This is due to the inability to pay for something conveniently.
... just a thought! :-)
I'm not sure about anybody else, but before I obtained my first credit card, I didn't pay for anything. Now that I've had it for a while I've gone back and purchased many of the things I didn't pay for in the past... This is mostly pertaining to software (now mostly donating to free/open source projects)
I know it's sad and sort of a catch-22:
We're selling it on the internet! To keep costs down, were not selling any CD's!
This leaves teens in the dark as they cannot obtain a Credit Card. Most parents are leery about lending their CC info to their 15 year old. I'm not sure about you, but telling your largest market that they cannot purchase your media may raise some spite and a lot more "illegal" downloads.
Record companies are in the publicity business. They attempt to get people interested in a band and its music. Radiohead has achieved this in part due to the efforts of its prior record labels (Yes, AS WELL AS their music). They are now in the happy position that people (such as myself) will buy something with their name on it sign unseen, but they got there via a major label deal.
To a first approximation, record companies are NOT in the business of making music (that's what the musicians do), manufacturing compact discs and LPs (that's what their manufacturing partners do). Almost none of the stuff being discussed here really matters. No they are mainly paid to promote the output of their artists. The artists with the most money tend to hire the most talented promoters, which helps their sales and so they have even more money. So Justin Timberlake videos cost millions to make, but you better believe he's making money.
This Radiohead stunt is just not a case that generalises to all music, all musicians. Sorry.
If some unheard of band offered to sell downloads for whatever you want to pay or 40 pounds for a box'o'stuff, it would be hard for any of us to asses the prospect. We'd want to know about the band and the music first. How do we learn about bands and music? Advertising, radio, music placement in jingles, tv shows, promotional CDs, compilations, artist features in magazines, known-reviewer reviews etc etc. These are all things that fight their way into your life so that you get the chance to form a judgement on their artists.
The only artists you have a chance of supporting are those that get your attention. There is nothing fair about how that happens, it can be pure and innocent (word of mouth starting with friends of the band) but most of us will also end up CDs or MP3s or whatnot from bands that we learned about at first through publicity, no matter how distateful one might find it being "sold" on a band.
The music industry tries to hire people talented at this fight for attention just Anheuser-Busch hires expert photographers for their mini-epic TV adverts. You have to pay to hire these people, that's just how it goes.
Of course any band can choose to "go-it-alone", that's fine, but they should know that there are millions of bands, including some who are smart, or talented, or photogenic, or hard-working, or canny, or street-smart, or all of the above and more, who just will never make enough to even cover basic expenses. The majority of the money will go to a small minority of such bands or artists, and one key factor is how well their product is marketed, at least until they have a fan base.
If every user expected every /. article to contain hyperlinks to define every little word larger than two syllables, the it would indeed be a pile of shit.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
There's so many interesting numbers that could come out of this, and they'd all say something about file sharing, etc.
They should have asked downloaders some questions as a requirement.
"Have you heard of Radiohead before?/Have you purchased a Radiohead album before?"
"Would you have downloaded/purchased this music if it was not available for free?"
Then you get numbers representing how many SALES are truthfully LOST to file sharing vs. how many FANS are MADE by file sharing.
Also, I recall Trent Razor (Sorry if it's misspelled, no idea who he is) talking about paying for Radiohead's album. He said he paid $5000. Now it would be a little weird for him to just "donate" $5000 to the band, but he has enough money that he can support the band in this way if he believes they deserve it.
People are able to support the artist as much as they see fit/are able to spare. Quite a good system, in my opinion. It's a convenient form of donation.
There are methodologies for attracting a fan base in this new Internet model. And if the OP's statistics generalize (that 7% of people who bother downloading your album decide to donate ~$6.80 on average), then moderately successful bands can indeed make some money with this model. (Not to mention live performances, etc.)
You're missing step 2: Get a really good flash animator to make a music video, then put it on Newgrounds.
Just a request, so that we can more clearly see the Slashdot crowd's impact... could you post an update to your stats in... oh... 12 hours?
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
$34 on 70 downloads ~= $0.49 a download. Congratulations, you're already in major label pay rate territory! Plus, you own your music, instead of the recording company.
This obviously wouldn't have worked as well if they were not Radiohead. In previous
There's no use in wringing your hands and fretting that this "just can't work" as the new model. There will soon be creative new ideas springing up to replace this or take a new twist on it. Bare Naked Ladies had the cool thumb drive thing. Radiohead did "pay what you want" on a large scale. I've seen local bands' CDs stapled to phone poles. Someone is bound to come up with something new that works on a smaller scale.
The most exciting thing about watching the current music distribution scheme kill itself will be the innovative and creative ways that musicians (both popular and emerging) come up with to distribute their music and make some money in the process.
You know what?
Sure thing.
Radiohead might have cut the record companies out of this deal, but it might make sense for the record companies themselves to adopt the same model. Fact is, with the ease of downloading music, buying records already requires a degree of faith. By respecting the consumers who want to support their favourite artists by letting them name the price, it will be easier for the record industry to make paying for music a stronger social norm. As it is, social norms are just about the only thing protecting their profits, and it could easily get worse.
And to think there is this common perception that market forces don't work. Go figure.
If Radiohead did not have record labels such as "XL, ATO, Parlophone and Capitol" marketing them or in essence providing seed funding/capital, would Radiohead have had the ability to make a name for themselves in today's internet era? My band gives away their music for free and do you think KROC in LA would tell the world that my band gives away our music for free? Nope. Radiohead was taking advantage of the marketing that had already been done (and yes they paid for it with the labels taking their cut of Radiohead's work).
So how could you market your music? Mail CDs to the radio stations, doubt it. Battle of the Bands, local gigs, works fine but takes a while to build up a non-regional following, and even that might not lead to radio play. So you're still left with word of mouth.
and this is where Radiohead cheated. Their word of mouth was spread via the mass media. I heard about it on not less than 3 radiostations. Radioheads "Can we get people to download something for free?" is not much different from a local ice cream shop offering a free scoop on their anniversary. Since the ice cream is free, I'll give it a try even if I normally don't eat ice cream in February. Sure I might return one day and purchase some on my own, or maybe i'll never go back there.
While I envy Radiohead's experiment on downloading free music (or name your price), I think it would be far more interesting for a study to be done on the viability of the thousands of bands which do not already have an international following of giving away their music.
There are also plenty of people who couldn't buy the album because either 1) they don't have money, 2) don't have Net access, or 3) quite frankly, are too stupid to figure out how to do this. Are you gonna include these pointless figures as well?
Steal? How can it be stealing, given that the author allowed them to download the album for 0.
Stating this, also is a broad generalisation : this proportion could be split up in many categories (thieves, curious about the music which did not like it afterall, curious about the process itself, etc...)
It would indeed, be interesting to see the account per country.
May I use your sig please?
Would you say the average internet users gives a company the right to record anything they do online including details of online purchases? The average radiohead fan, the average music customer? Come on, those numbers cannot be realistic.
If they had interviewed 2M internet users about whether they know about inrainbows.com and what they paid that would have been a decent survey. If the recorded the sites people visit and then asked those who where on inrainbows.com, dito.
However, their business seems to be based on violation of user's privacy and computing security, which is inacceptable for any sane user, especially for those who shop online. Their numbers say nothing about us sane people.
Do they pay their data contributors? This is more attractive when you have less money (i.e. probably won't pay for sth. you can get for free).
Don't get me wrong. I don't critize comScore generally. I don't know anything about how they work. I just feel that this particular data cannot possibly be collect that way.
I paid 3.95 for the album and loved it. Unfortunately, the songs are only 160 kbps mp3, so I'll buy the CD when it comes out as well. Besides, there are a few of us who actually like album art/lyric booklets and having the physical item.
Saul Williams did almost the exact same thing with his new album (produced by Trent Reznor who recently dumped his record label). They mixed it up slightly with users able to choose between 192Kbps or 320Kbps MP3 or lossless FLAC encoding.
It would be interesting to learn the numbers from his project since he is a much lesser known artist than Radiohead.
It is receiving oral sex while relaxing and listening to the radio.
So on average you make about $0.47 per download ? How much do you normally get from a record company? Your problem seems to be popularity rather than average donation size.
Record companies often SCREW the bands on contract.
Dude, producers, sound engineers, and all those folks don't all work for the record companies.
Front money? How many record company contracts have you seen? And how much does a record company actually advance on royalties for anyone but a superstar?
Marketing: yes, that's true. Of course, it's less true now than it was fifteen years ago. Fifteen years ago, there were record stores, and people actually listened to the radio. Well, they killed record stores, and nobody listens to music on the radio anymore anyway.
Record companies are only now getting into the tour bus business, because that's the only part of the industry making money. That is not traditionally what record companies do. That's what band managers do, and for most recording artists, that's still what managers do.
Top-of-the-line instruments? Dude, you mean like Nikes and stuff?
So, no, I say your understanding of the music industry clashes with mine. But you do point the way forward: out of the hands of old "CD and lawsuit" companies and into the control of groups and individuals (within the current record companies, or outside them) with influence on the market as it currently is. And, with the internet, it currently is more segmented and more regional than it's been in a long time. Radio DJs are all but irrelevant; MTV? When was the last time they showed music? And yet the record companies still insist on making $2M videos? The current arbiters of music fashion and taste are those people who've been supporting recorded music since its advent, but have never been under the control of the music industry: your buddy who makes the mix tape, the club DJ, your little hoodrat friend who's been "saving it for the scene". The "industry leading" recording studios aren't worth it for most musicians: they can get a "good enough" job done in someone's house in the Meadowlands. The "music people" and their cocaine only harmed Rock-n-Roll to begin with.
So no, the Reagan 80s were not a glory period for music. As the saying goes, I survived the 80s one time already...
It's true. I wouldn't say we've put a whole lot of effort into it. The band members have been promoting it individually on all of the forums and sites we belong to, and of course we've done the obligatory myspace promotion. We did lot of promoting on our local music sites as well. Interestingly enough however, only one of the donors was local. We did have a local CD release concert where we had physical CDs, so perhaps that took care of the local fan base.
Don't forget about people who downloaded it for free to check it out then later payed for it. I'm curious how many of the free downloaders did that.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
maybe I listened to it and decided I didn't like it enough to really want to listen to it again.
Seriously, what radio stations play whole albums that one would know what they are buying unless they hear the whole thing.
Also if all sales go to the group with no go between label, did the group do better?
I want to be one of those 38% of downloaders that get paid for downloading the Radiohead album. Actually might make it worth downloading!
They need to follow up with another album priced at the "regular" amount and see if they still make as much or more than they would have before - but it would also be interesting to see how many people buy.
It's just 1 mod point ;-)
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Yes, when you look at the numbers that way, like others have said, that's actually a decent cut per unit moved compared to major label contract. The typical stories you hear nowadays is that the record company is able to work its expenses vs the cash advance to the band in a way where the band ends up not making any money, or worse, in debt to the record company. More fun with the numbers: At the current rate, we'd need about 850,000 downloads before we could quit our day jobs for a year when you look at it as 7% of downloaders paying $6.80.
We've actually talked about that - not Newgrounds per say, but putting something on youtube and the like. The problem is not knowing a sweet flash animator.
The Grateful Dead did not need to promote themselves to become huge, their music spoke for itself. Get rid of the labels, get rid of the crap...
I wanted to buy it, but was a bit disappointed when it insisted on me filling in my full name-, address- and telephone informaiton. Why do they need that if I'm just going to pay (or not) and download it?
"My band gives away their music for free and do you think KROC in LA would tell the world that my band gives away our music for free? Nope."
There are too many people in the world without a good friend. So, I will be your good friend: Maybe you suck.
Laughable. radio stations are usless to you, only pay attention to them when they start playing your music. The old method is dying.
What can you do? Easy.
Play, and play and play. Play everywhere, pay attention to the audience, think about how you sound , always.
All those bands that got signed? they had to do the same thing, but just before they could get enough momentum to do it themselves, a label swoops in. When it was expensive to get music onto a medium with decent quality, they were needed.
Go to other towns, burn your own CD. Create an online podcast with your music. a song a week or some such.
Look for opportunities. Can you get a license to do a gig at a park? do it. Any one that has an open space you can get into, get into it. Get other bands to play as well.
Look for reason that people might want to give you a listen to. Have a locals band charity concert.
Remember the rule: after 10-15 years, you could become an over night success.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've been reading drudge since his site went up a long time ago, he used to use the original napster and comment about it, both in text on the web and commenting about it on his radio show. He's pro file sharing.
Reality isn't left versus right, that's an easy and rather..low brow..and naieve...way to describe the political process. They would like you to fixate on thinking it is like that, but reality is otherwise. For instance, some of the biggest critics of the shrub right now are past members of the R party who have quit and consider him to be a sellout trotskyite. They are still "conservative", but believe in the traditional values of limited government, limited foreign intrique and entanglements, etc. And right now, that is considered middle of the road or even left wing if you believe the media, but in reality it's just the old common sense centrism or even closer, that very thin line dividing "classic" liberalism and what is called now paleoconservatism. That's the real center. But, a lot of people would consider those folks to be right wing, when they want the US out of Iraq, the transnationals reigned in, the money supply to be regulated better and be put back under the control of the treasury, they want less federal snooping, less executive orders, etc. So what is that, left or right wing again? See?
Drudge got hit with the label extreme right wing by the supporters of that crook clinton, the smoothest liar on the planet. I dislike the shrub immensely and also that used car weasel that preceded him, both scumbags. It was a legit big story with monica, he broke it, and the hardcore party supporters started labeling him that, when he really isn't, listen to him talk long enough you'll see he is right smack dab in the middle same as the bulk of the population. And it's better there, too. Don't get trapped into being *either* right or left, just strive to be constitutional and honest, that is more important. I've worked politics a lot in the past and got to now some pretty big folks, you'd be surprised how much of that crap you see on TV is a show, it's theater, television, big time wrestling for the politically active but sort of naieve.
FWIW, just wanted to clear the air about Drudge, he's done more for legitimizing blogging and the little guy getting the word out on the net than anyone else out there.
Good point you have there. Also on a semi-related point, Paypal is a deal breaker for some people.
Maybe someone would like to implement my wonderful idea: 1. set up website where people can voluntarily pay a small fee for particular music, from their extensive edonkeyed collection, that they actually play and enjoy 2. as the site operator you tally the payments for particular artists, and then you buy the artist in question food and other daily essentials (theyll only spend cash on drugs/hookers/cars and overpriced clothing anyway... 3. ??? 4. profit I mean, any sandwiches/burgers/frozen food received would be value not otherwise capitalised, right?
I think the problem is... well, which is easier:
-Hearing about an unknown band with a free album and downloading it
-Just switching on the radio
Free albums are inconvenent, because you dont even know if you like the band.
There needs to be a variety of bands, like the radio, you can listen until you hear something you like, then follow up on it.
Maybe if there was a big torrent of songs from free albums, or an internet radio station that only played songs from free albums...
I bet you guys aren't even on iRate. (Not that I could ever get it working)
If there was a place I could go to to get say a torrent of 50 free songs each month, from a variety of bands, I'd be all over that. Maybe you should talk to some other free album bands and try to put something together?
PS: I fucking love King Missile and there is a spin off band called dogbowl. Dogbowl has some free songs, but they're too weird for anyone but me to love.
Saul Williams has followed suite. He is offering his latest CD free (no DRM) in 192kbps MP3 format, while you can download higher quality for $5.00
Both version have album art in a PDF included. This album was produced by Trent from NIN, and if you haven't heard Saul Williams before, he is like a hip-hop-ish version of NIN. He has a cool cover of Sunday Bloody Sunday as well.
we talked about it (more video links and stuff) at my forums here http://www.bluesfear.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=30697
insight through the mind
Well, good to see nothing's new here. I wonder if those 2/3 who paid nothing would have bought the album anyway, or if they are people with stacks of dubs and no purchased CDs. It is possible they steal music, but give back in other ways, making that "theft" moot. Like if one of them invents the cure for cancer we will feel stupid for yelling at them for not paying for some ridiculous overinflated retro band's digital album.
technical writing / development
Radiohead isn't a very good band to analyze in the first place because they have a rabid fanbase. I like them and all, but I'm not the usual Radiohead head (did I just make that up?), so I'm not going to just buy their albums unheard. As a matter-of-fact, I think they are a pretty typical example of (in my case, at least) buying one or two tracks of each album for .99 cents. If their new album has two or three interesting songs, I'm willing to willingly give them $2-$3 or so, no problem. But, if we are looking at this as a representation of potential for the entire industry, I'd suggest using a more mainstream band that lacks the installed fan base.
Of course radiohead has benefitted from the record industry! This doesn't mean they "cheated" by releasing a record in a non-traditional way. On the contrary! They made a bold move and won big. If it was 'cheating' then they would surely be sued by someone. Describing it as cheating belittles the value in radiohead's music and reputation regardless of whether this value is inherent to the band or manufactured by the record industry. It's a move that took some balls because there's a lot for them to lose and it really pisses off the RIAA because they are a corrupt cartel. That in itself is newsworthy and justifies whatever publicity they get out of it.
As for KROQ, I doubt they would play your band even if you were Thom Yorke and your band was Radiohead and your current record was OK Computer unless they got paid (what i really mean is bribed) by someone to do so which is exactly what happened for Radiohead in the first place. Payola is a fact and as an unknown artist you should be furious about it. Come to think of it, OK Computer didn't get that much airplay because it's moody and 'artsy' with songs that are a bit too long for radio format.
I totally agree that it's more interesting to talk about unknown bands and how they might fare under such a scheme, but I think it's important to recognize the age-old fact that unknown bands suffer before they become well known. The trick to becoming famous is either a) find lots of money to market yourself by selling your soul or tender young orifices to some rich pervert or b) come up with The Next Big Thing or A Really Crazy Idea and shoot for some kind of viral popularity like lonelygirl on youtube or that guy who said "don't tase me bro" before getting justifiably tased. Does anyone remember Soy Bomb? That guy spazzing out behind Bob Dylan on the Grammies? A textbook example of pure marketing genius.
It's also important at some point to recognize that if your band takes its inspiration from Jimmy Buffet or Blues Traveler or Dave Matthews that you totally suck and should give up right now. Today. This very second.
I like Radiohead's music, but not fond of the political messages - I'll probably download and even pay a couple of dollars for the album, but I'd pay more if they were apolitical. Same rule would apply to any group, of any political leaning, for me.
I want to hear music, not experience propaganda. Political discourse is not something I need from a musician, actor, or comedian.
The only reason all those people liked the GD is because they were tripping. Sorry but they are mediocre at best. If that. I get it... I live here and love Jerry but they are way overrated.
I happen to think that record companies are a drain on society and a negative influence on the music industry, but there is something very powerful that they do that no one here has yet given them credit for - stardom.
I seriously suspect that if you compared the incomes of artists that never signed contracts to those who did, that those who never did came out ahead regardless of the decade; if only because of the countless artists who were finacially ruined by the contracts they signed (sure plenty of the unsigned artists played on street corners for quarters, but one quarter is way more money than a huge debt). But just like a lotto ticket, studio contracts offered artists a chance at something they could never get without one - name recognition, and so artists signed them.
The changes the internet has brought to this situation are only slight. Sure, with a brilliant stroke of viral marketing you might be famous for a week online, but you can't dream of being the next Rolling Stones without a studio.
So while we at Slashdot hope and pray that this marks the beginning of the end for the studios, don't count on it. Because even if you can make a decent living off of internet sales, far too many artists aren't in it just for the love of music, they are in it for the dreams of fame and fortune; and studio contracts are the only way to the former (and perceived by those signing the contracts as a great way to the latter).
I just paid over 15 bucks for this download. Haven't heard it yet but I love the band. I've listened to much of their older stuff for free, and I've always thought I would donate to bands if I knew 100% of the money went to the band and not some file-sharer-suing mofo. Anyone that sticks it to the record companies is ok in my book, especially really cool bands.
"the 20% breakage fee on royalties (a holdover from the days of vinyl that bands are stuck with now)"
Actually, vinyl doesn't break that easily; I believe that the breakage fees are a holdover from the ealrier days of shellac records.
The really impressive part, is that many contracts still have that 20% breakage clause even for downloaded music.
I considered putting a Democrat link instead of a Republican one, but ultimately decided against it. The Democrats could never get organized enough to form one pile. Therefore, I stand by my original post.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Rather than stealing I think this is a very interesting glimpse into a post-scarcity economy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
The most interesting thing about this is that while 60% of the people paid nothing, the band still made more than they would have under the old method. Perhaps we could do this with the food we currently pay farmers not to grow, give away staples like rice and flour for "pay what you want".
We are all just people.
Some people obviously bought the 40 pound set. I did.
Maybe you should look into promoting more, push your music on myspace and facebook, socialize, make people listen.
But please, to every other artist that wants to go the Radiohead distribution route, please provide lossless files for a small fee to cover bandwidth. The shitty MP3's could be for an optional payment.
I would never pay for lossy files. I'd pay a full album price ($12-$15) for lossless downloads in a heartbeat.
Why it is different is because Radiohead, an internationally successful band, is basically saying, "Piss off," to the industry and taking matters into their own hands. This is akin to Pearl Jam's failed attempt against Ticketmaster to lower the prices for their tour tickets. This is a band using its position in the music world for good rather than evil. They've basically shown major artists, "Hey, you can make just as much money, if not more, by doing it on your own. What do you need a record label for?"
They're putting music back where it belongs: in the hands of the artists and in the ears of the listeners, not some capitalist industry churning out quantity rather than quality. Have we forgotten the early days of rock and roll where a band can walk into a studio, record a demo, and turn it over to the local radio stations and have it become a success? Who decided the success then? This is how the Beach Boys started. These days, your local radio station is likely controlled from a corporate office in NYC or California or any other major US city by a company which decides who gets airtime and who doesn't.
With the power of the internet, if this type of music distribution continues on, we may see a shift in the industry in which the power of music is placed in the hands of the artists and the fans, where it belongs. An old, tired formula can only last so long when a new wave comes to town.
"U.S. Consumers Willing to Pay More When Nobody's Looking
While freeloaders appear to be as prevalent in the U.S. as in the rest of the world, the U.S. paying customer is willing to pay far more ($8.05 per download) than his international counterpart ($4.64). The difference could be attributed to the fact that U.S. consumers generally have more disposable income, but possibly also to the greater popularity of free file-sharing in other countries."
Yeah, could also be that the donation asked for was denominated in pounds, not dollars.
Stephen
What about the payment from the marketing company who paid for access for the sales information and our user data, and the consequent revenue raised by selling this data back to the music industry. I'll bet it's not insignificant, marketing data is big business and nobody want's it more right now than the music and related industries.
Deography Photoblog
At first, I was going to come back with some smarmy comment about how you suck.... etc etc, so I gave a listen.
What you've got is interesting, but at this point, you're essentially a bar band. If you got a better singer, you would sound significantly better (and pardon me if you're the singer). The recording of the singer certainly didn't help. It's like you put him in a giant bathroom. The writing needs work; that may be fixable, because the demo that you put up there didn't turn me off.
I mean, I'd go to listen to you at a club. But I wouldn't pay money for your music. Not yet.
And I'm not just busting balls here. I'm a musician myself and I can appreciate everything you have done. But if you listen honestly, you'll see I'm telling the truth. I've bookmarked your site. So I'll be back. Good luck.
(I'll post anonymously only to preserve the mods I already gave here)
Have you checked out your own page on Last.fm? You have 379 plays right now, 90 listeners, a band description and someone registered a gig you had. There are also a couple of pics. So you might want to advertise your new EP there, add a link to the donation page on your site, and more people will pay for your music. I'm listening to it BTW and I'm liking it, although PayPal is a big turnoff for me, but I could maybe donate a couple of dollars. Advertising on last.fm is relatively cheap, and if you want to be known by more people, that's a good way to start.
This is a great method for Indie bands and bands who have devout fans. For example I am the type of person who would rather illegally download music; however when there is an unsigned or newly signed band that I happen to love I will buy their CD, if they do not have one I will ask for a way do donate to them online. Radiohead in my opinion is music worth paying for because of the quality. I do not think however that most pop bands would get many people to pay for their music, Like 50 Cent or who ever, because their fans have a less sincere appreciation for music.
In the past, the labels BOUGHT time to the radio stations (and they also control their current access via handshake deals). Their was press, but it general it was to promote the group playing. The kids these days (note that kids account for the bulk of the buys) have walked away from radio. They are into mp3 and using search engines and seeing what other kids are listening to. They still attend concerts, but you really want to play at the big ones. The labels are in their death throes. All that is needed is for a simple software set up for doing the recording. At this time, if Gates, Allen, Ellis, McNeally and jobs were smart they would persue creating software designed for small groups to get noticed. In addition, they would try to control (or not control) access to the music via their hardware.
BTW, I am betting that Google will be doing this with their new open access mobile platform. I would not be surprised if they blow the doors off the others before they even realize what is happening.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I downloaded it...sounds pretty good.
Then again, there are those of us that downloaded it, listened to it and just deleted it because they really didn't like it...
-=- I tried going insane, and it was fun for a while, but I got bored and decided to go sane. -=-
It is not about the technology. Sure, what you say is true, anyone can buy that kind of equipment. The question is: can they use it? The most important thing in making your album a success is working with the right people. That starts with the recording engineer and instrument technicians. (yes, setting up a drum kit is hard) Then you need someone to bring out the best you - the musician - have inside you: that's the producer's job. And when it is all recorded, you hand it over to someone for mixing. Look at the liner notes, albums are usually mixed by someone other than who recorded it - they are very different specialties.
All these people cost a lot more money than a good studio does, and they sure as hell have much more of an influence over the final musical and technical qualities of an album than the choice of recording equipment does.
TFA seems to be comparing Radiohead's model to iTunes and traditional record sales, which is a bit confusing. Given that it doesn't take sales of the disks into account, the only fair comparison would be strictly between Radiohead and iTunes/<your_favourite_provider_of_lossy_compressed_files>. On those terms I would be surprised if this new model isn't hugely more profitable for Radiohead and cheaper for consumers.
If you take a different view of their model and consider the downloads to be predominantly promotional, they have more than paid for their promotional material before the actual product even ships. They have also made more than enough to pay for pressing upfront as well as any further promotion.
While a lot of the recent publicity is generated by novelty, I think online busking is an excellent long term method of promoting quality recordings.
The disc sets sell at 40 pounds each, from which they have to pay for pressing, printing, handling and shipping. I don't know what it's like in the UK, but I know locally 40 pounds (~$A90) would easily cover those costs for runs as small as 1000 and internationally they will probably sell a lot more than that. Radiohead has elimitated the risk of over-producing discs by offering a pre-order model and they don't have to give 98-99% to a record company.
I don't think TFA can make sensible analysis until after the discs ship. It's definitely an interesting model.
I don't therefore I'm not.
I have not downloaded that album. I would like to do that but i dont have money. I know i could download it for free but i like to pay them what they have done. But because right now i dont have money to spend what i would like (7-9 dollars) i just cant in current situation. And i would need to make something to get that money to transferred.
So, i will download that when i get money for it. But i will not buy it from local store or from iTunes, im sure i will buy it from band itself and give money to them.
I hope that more bands will start doing this.
I wanted to donate and couldn't. Paypal will not accept my credit card, says something is wrong with the info I'm giving it, and it's the card I usually pay for all online stuff. What now?
Go hug some trees.
Need? Any business start-up won't expect to make the sort of money equivalent to a 'day job' in the first year. Where's your commitment?
Unfortuately, you do sound like a jerk. How many start-up business ventures are cash-flow positive in the first year? The guy freely admits that they haven't put in a big effort.
When you sign a record contract, it is for a set period. When that period is up, you are free from obligation. You can give as much music away as you want. You don't owe the record execs another dime.
Have you tried using a site like Jamendo? (I'm not associated with the site, just a user of it.)
It seems to provide a decent framework for this sort of thing, and I've been introduced to a number of great artists through it. Plus you can receive post-purchase payments (tips) via the site.
One thing I think works with the site is that the tips are transparent, so you can see what other people are paying for an album. That's a great way of working out at a glance whether an older album is worth downloading, so your payments actually become a form of recommendation. Until now, nobody except you knew that your average payment was $6.80. So how much does anyone think to donate?
Anyway, I hope you are successful with your efforts. Dylan.
10001001111001110110011000011101110
I'm just speculating here, but my guess would be that those artists will suck it up and survive on less than $8-10 million per album while they grow their fanbase.
Even people who download the album for free can become fans. I've never listened to Radiohead, but I picked up In Rainbows. I even paid $4 because I wanted to pay something to support the experiment. But then my download links were broken, so I "bought" it again for $0 trying to actually download it. Did I count as a freeloader? I only ended up actually downloading it once. I am someone who would NEVER have paid $10 or $14 for this album. If I love it, I'll go back and pay $6 more, though, perhaps. If this becomes really common practice, I'll probably download a lot of albums for a dollar or two, and then go back and pay more for the ones I like, under the idea that I'm paying for the download the first time around, and paying for the album if I like it.
I'd say the model is looking pretty good. For THAT matter, doesn't mp3 support metadata? Why not just have a tipjar metadata node? Then you can float the music via bittorrent, let anyone grab it, reduce your costs massively, and after people listen, if they like it, they pay.
And if someone pays $0, but likes it, maybe they pay in the future, or maybe they pay for a concert ticket and buy a t-shirt.
One other poster mentioned Jamendo too. Honestly, I hadn't heard of it before today. It looks like a neat idea. I will be looking into it.
You still have to get the airplay. That isn't so much about having money as about having money behind you, so to speak. I think freeing up of distribution is good news for good musicians, anyway: some who might never have got a chance in industry can still reach the public.
Its incredibly hard to read those small blue words when contrasted against the back and a large same coloured blue line. It actually gave me a headache.
is greater than 100% of zero, which is exactly what most unknown, unpromoted bands make. Music is a tough business -- it is extraordinarily hit driven, the marketing expenses are stupidly high, the per-customer value is fairly low, most of your customers will steal your main product given half the chance, and the one product you have that consistently makes money (touring) doesn't scale to infinity like IP does.
Compare that to software. I run a wee little software outfit on the side which will probably net me about $10,000 by the time 2007 is up.
1) My software is cheap, $25, of which I receive $24 in pre-tax profit ($1 goes to Paypal). That is a 96% gross margin (!), which is better than the 60-75% gross margin on a $1 music download (credit card processing fees cost a lot at that end of the scale, especially if your name isn't iTunes and you don't aggregate them over several transactions). Note you'd have to fill two rooms with Radiohead customers to find as much profit as I get per customer, and $25 is near the *floor* for software, not the ceiling.
2) Piracy of my software happens, and is annoying, but people in my niche understand it to be illegal and deviant behavior. Piracy of music is a way of life these days, similar to the way people view software in China.
3) My conversion rate apparently is superior to Radiohead's. Of 100 people exposed to my trial, roughly 2.5-4 will pay me 100% of the price I am asking for. Apparently Radiohead can't get money out of 60% of folks who went through a checkout procedure, which I will bet you any amount of money bounces far more people than the download itself.
4) You can get free advertising (the best possible kind) when people Google for questions about your software's niche. For example, my software makes bingo cards. If you Google [bingo cards] or [bingo cards for class] or [4th grade reading bingo cards], you'll probably find it. If you're an unknown band, on the other hand, what are people supposed to find you under other than your bandname? [Sounds like an early Weird Al with hip-hop influences]?
5) My free trial, by design, isn't intrusive and doesn't substitute for my paid product. Music can be one, or the other, but it can't be both -- to maximize compatibility, you'll want to release DRM-free MP3s, and sampling one of them is exactly the same as owning it. To maximize revenue you'll want to DRM-cripple the free trial (5 plays, works for a week, can't be burned, pick your poison), and that will hurt your prospects/customers by preventing them from doing what they want to do with it (put in on their iPod/Zune, listen to it in the car, whatever).
6) Music tends to get stale very quickly. It is very much a "today" thing in most niches, and selling yesterday's sound generates a mere fraction of the sales of something new. This puts you, the band, on a content-production treadmill for the rest of your career. In most software markets, something which worked fine yesterday continues to work fine today (games being the main exception).
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Also note that ComScore does not track the entire potential user-base. Only those which have the tracking panel install.
More information on how this works,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comscore
They took whatever values you put in there. And I paid $0.
It was a waste of my time, as I thought, it sucked.
I wonder if the the author of TFA has an agenda or is just a math illiterate? If you change the bin size in a histogram you can change what "the largest percentage" (the bin with the most data points) paid.
Support SETI@home
These payments are anonymous. Tipping is not. I bet a lot of people wouldn't tip if they could do it without showing their face...and then, of course, restaurants would finally move away from our stupid tipping system itself.
In anonymous situations, many people are jerks. How often does someone cut you off when driving? How often does someone barge in front of you in a line at a store or restaurant. What is the difference? Anonimity.
see the numbers on how many albums are sold vs downloaded illegally for a specific album and the average of that across many albums from various artists in maybe certain fame class levels.
Balderdash!
...but the payment system was WAY too complicated. If I could have Paypal'ed them they would have gotten my $8. But you had to register your life away, use a credit card, and the interface/entire experience was EXTREMELY annoying. It was like they didn't really want my money. So I gave up 70% into (I'm guessing) the payment process.
After reading all the articles on the statistics of this experiement I'm glad that radiohead seem up on what they could of possibly earn from this business model. Though I noticed when I purchased the album from their site that it wasn't the most smooth purchase (which could affect the statistics). Here are a few points I suggest for next time (if there is a next time) 1. Allow samples before payment People tend to want to try something before they buy it, you see it in music stores with headphones hooked up to allow people to try the new CD they are considering. Radiohead didn't provide this, and so people downloaded the album without payment to sample it. 2. Don't expect people to come back If you allow someone to download your 50mb+ album and then pay later, chances are they have already navigated away from your site while they are waiting for their download to be finished, reducing the chance that they'll come back to pay. 3. Download and pay later If you do this option, you have to remember the user's that have already downloaded the album. Radiohead only allowed 1 download per email, not giving the person the option to come back and pay later. A simple option once they have submitted their email would be to say, welcome back, did you enjoy the album? and an option to pay (with/without download). If I where to set up a band site to allow this model, I'd first allow the user to sample the album, be it 30 second track samples or whole tracks (considering it could be given away free I'd go whole tracks). This page would also specify what features are on the downloadable version (ie audio quality, cover arts, etc). The next screen, payment details, then a download link. Remember this is a business model, so it comes down to trying to get the most payments per download.
Thom Yorke of radiohead produced much of his recent solo album on his laptop while riding around in a bus.
This space available.
I "purchased" twice (first for free, then I paid $8) but only downloaded once, figuring that they're probably paying for bandwidth.
"Scud Storm!" -- Jeremy of PurePwnage.com
My feeling is that you should just give it time. All businesses get a "having been around for awhile" bonus. The more albums you put out, if they're good and people like them, the more you can sell.
And over time, new fans will buy your old ones, too.
Patience. Nothing worthwhile comes easy.
expandfairuse.org
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
We should be careful not to talk about the money Radiohead made as if they have stopped making money from commercial distribution of these recordings. For all we know these recordings will go on to become more famous, and since (ostensibly) Radiohead retains copyright control of these recordings they stand to make more money in commercial licensing.
Copyright control is something artists typically sign over to recording labels when they sign with a label. So even if the artist is unhappy that the famous recording of that song is being used in a context they object to, the artist doesn't have much say in the matter beyond trying to raise enough embarrassment to dissuade anyone from using that recording. Only the biggest artists have more say and those artists are so few in number that it isn't terribly illuminating to talk about whatever control they exert. Radiohead could even decide to license these tracks to everyone to share non-commercially and refer you to their lawyer to negotiate commercial performance and distribution licensing terms. Record labels haven't generally shown any willingness to do this.
There's also the things it's hard to put a price on: the freedom that comes with making friends by treating people well. As we're seeing with other music distribution channels, DRM-free recordings are in demand; people appreciate the freedom they get to control how and when they listen to their music.
Digital Citizen
I'm not sure that would be a good idea. There is a critical difference between staple items like rice and flour, and goods like digital media. A person has no reason to take more than one copy of the digital media, but plenty of reasons to stockpile an exorbitant amount of the staple items (save for later, take more than they would ever use and sell it, etc). It's the same idea behind newspaper and soda vending machines--you can feasibly take as many newspapers out of the machine as you want once its open, but theres no reason to take more than one (unlike the soda, where if the machine just opened up instead of dispensing one it would be empty *real* soon).
I decided to stop stealing cynical quotes to use as a signature line.
That's ok, I don't think you're sounding like a jerk.
To us, the release is first and foremost about promoting the band. That's why we've released it under the creative commons license. Under that license we've basically told the listeners to share it. We want people to listen and pass it on with the goal of driving up interest in the music. If someone chooses to give us money because they think it has value we will obviously be happy. As the poster below stated, it's not about making money right out of the gate. It's more about building a brand. Amazon didn't post a profit forever remember.
Thanks for the reminder about that page. We're on it.
plenty of reasons to stockpile an exorbitant amount of the staple items (save for later, take more than they would ever use and sell it, etc).
Those reasons largely go away when it's widely available and free. Yes there would be an initial bit of stockpiling until people got used to the idea. Why would you take more than one 20-lbs bag of rice if you know that you can go get another free one anytime you like? I never see people filling up 5 gallon buckets from water fountains because at least for the moment water is non-scarce.
We are all just people.
I highly doubt radiohead are doing this try to squeeze margins and capture market value. They could do it, they did do it, it was a lot of fun, and it's a great album. They leaked their own album.
Early next year they are releasing it via independent record labels world wide (just like Thom did with his solo outing) so people who are not rich enough to have computers, ipods, and internet accounts can enjoy radiohead's new music too.
It isn't the 'end of labels' and if you want some recommendations for some great labels I can give them to you.
True they have the advantage, and you won't be able to do the same.
But then what is your expectation? If you want to make a living out of music, then you need to work at it. Your first stuff will be heard by a couple of people. It's how you grow those couple of people that matter. You now have the ability to reach a world wide audiance, how do you get recognition? Not through big commercial radio channels, you seem to realise that. How about smaller channels? Internet Channels?
Take a look at the Australian music industry, most of the big names started as nobodies on independant labels. Some have been picked up by the big labels others stick it out and do quite well.
Some search terms to help you do some research:
John Butler Trio
The Waifs
Jarrah Records
Triple J
FBI Radio Sydney
Of these probably Triple J has the biggest impact. If an indy band makes a good impression on Triple J then, they will probably get some commercial air time, as the commercials can't ignore the bands that are making it to the music festivals that are springing up every summer these days, and it's Triple J that seem to provide that conduit, along with their Unearthed initiative to find and promote new talent (eg Silverchair, Missy Higgins etc look them up)
FBI is even edgier, with bands making news here end up getting some Triple J play time, which if they can capitalise on, they can get support gigs with bigger local acts thus increasing their chances.
See the key is local grass roots support for bands, along with bands being willing to work up to a point where they are makeing a resonable living for their work, and accepting that they will be very lucky to make it big time, like Radiohead, but still have it possible to earn a decent living off their music.
Has the American music business truely died to a point where only stadium acts can make money?
Thank you very much. Please feel free to share it with your friends.
Paypal isn't the best is it? I appreciate your desire to donate. If paypal doesn't work for you, maybe you could support us by passing the recording on to people and/or review the album in a blog.
# of people who left feedback?
Thanks for the input. I agree, there are probably distribution channels that are easier for a lot of potential fans. We've tried local radio, but frankly the Minneapolis scene is so hopping right now that we are competing with 50 other great bands for the limited amount of local music time on the two stations that play local music.
I like the idea you have of doing some sort of indie band internet sampler. Maybe sites like last FM or Jamendo kind of fit the bill, but neither of them are completely visible in the mainstream like say myspace. Maybe an indie verson of pandora.com would due the trick.
I've had one email through the feedback email. It was someone asking for the album in the ogg vorbis format (which wasn't up at the time).
Then tried to kill themselves.
I still wonder how these guys still get air time even though they sang a song that constantly said "kill the president". As much as Bush/Clinton suck, this would have been more appropriate if it was one of those "satanic messages" when you play the record backwards.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Is this number just from Radiohead's site? Or does this also include torrents used by other people? I'd ask if it includes any other filesharing, but the only person I know that's dumb enough to be using something like Ares is one of my roommates. But then again, other people must be to, since she's still using it. Or maybe she's just the only person using that program these days....
I would have downloaded and paid 20$ if only they moved completely to releasing music for download... Instead they decided to let users download crappy quality music instead of .flac and then release full CD with good quality and even more tracks.
I have no respect for them, nor I will listen to their music.
(guess what pissed me off? um, because they didn't mention all that before you paid for your download)
Maybe the problem is that not a lot of people visit your website.
You've got 70 downloads. It's bad if your website attracts 1000000 visits a day,
but very good if it's something like 10 visits a day.
Do you have a visits per download (or the other way around) ratio available ?
That would be interesting.
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
...to cut down on the bandwidth costs. That would mean only using the same or less bandwidth than with direct downloads.
They could even convert the upload given by their fans into credits (money saved on bandwidth), that could be used buying merchandise in their shop (upload a terabyte and get a free t-shirt!).
Of course you have to ask yourself "How many people downloaded the album for free, just because it's possible, legal and in the press"? I know I did, don't even really like the kind of music, never even listened to all the tracks...
You're forgetting a key point in your reasoning: Digital media can be created once and be copied indefinitely, the "cost" amounting to the cd/bandwidth consumed for this process; food is nothing of the kind. Every new grain of wheat takes real manpower and machines to produce and deliver it, and requires much more physical place to store it. Perhaps if one day we invent a tranzmogovisifier that can duplicate infinitely, at a distance, a molecular structure... but even that wouldn't work (in your reasoning) because building a molecular structure requires base molecules. Even Soylent Green needed base molecules.
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
I like what's happening here, but I agree with an earlier poster that this is more of a "fuck you" to the recording industry than a genuine indication of the viability of the model. It probably won't last. Artists need a way to ensure they get paid, while still embracing this whole consumer-friendly mentality. Here's how I think they can:
The artist signs up with what I will call "The Company". They complete their musical work. They release a song or two, or snippets of all of them. These could be played through The Company's website, seeded via bittorrent and other p2p protocols, or made available on a client in a way similar to the existing itunes store feature which allows track previewing.
The Company would use an algorithm - based on traffic to these various distribution channels, visits to the artist's myspace page, maybe even frequency of google searches if they'd be willing to make that data available -- to estimate consumer interest in the music. This would be used to determine a dollar amount that the public would likely pay for the music (a total, not an individual price).
With this figure in hand, The Company would set up a webpage where donations could be pledged. Credit card information is given, but no payment is taken until the total money pledged reaches the previously determined figure for predicted revenue (which should probably be made public, but I don't really know). When the figure is reached, all amounts pledged are withdrawn from the pledgers' credit cards. At this point, the music is made available to everyone, through bittorrent, and perhaps the itunes-style client I already mentioned. Pledgers are notified, and perhaps receive priority downloads, but the music is available to everyone. It spreads on its own, and nobody gets sued. The Company takes an eensie weensie cut to cover bandwidth costs (I imagine this as a non-profit entity). A "tip jar" type of business model could then take over to collect the donations of any conscientious consumers, but I would hardly expect this to generate much revenue.
It's not a very sophisticated plan, I suppose, but I've been mulling over it for a while and I just have to know what slashdot thinks. If some entity with enough resources, like google for example, really worked the idea over, I think there's potential.
P.S. if the RIAA patents this tomorrow I'm going to go totally fucking banana fudge sundae.
I don't want to intrude, but how many EPs do you normally sell? And when you do, how much of that do you actually keep? I'd just be interested in further statistics, because I am one of the people who think this would actually work for smaller bands.
In the scenario where they're getting $2/album they don't have to foot any of those bills.
Reality is much more complicated than that, and in fact unless you're already a mega superstar you're not going to get a very nice deal.
First off, $2 royalty per album is quite generous for an emerging artist signed on with a traditional record corporation. Second, the record execs hardly foot any of the bills at all--at least not directly. Promising artists are awarded "advances". Basically an advance is a loan of sorts--it provides money to spend putting together and promoting your first albums, when you aren't generating any revenue. When your album is released you commonly get severely reduced royalties...or none at all...until the record company has recovered its investment in you (the advance).
Some other points to consider in terms of "new media" on the internet:
* marketing requires a much lower monetary investment these days--time and creativity are more important
* in order to get a deal with a record company you have to have a demo tape--generally you've already spent a lot of your own money on recording songs.
* distribution over the internet is very low cost
So, the costs to distribute an album online are much lower than the $10, $15 or more that is the difference between what the artist gets and what consumers pay for one copy of the album. It seems to me that Radiohead has done quite well here, getting revenue into the millions from one album sold on a name-your-price basis. This is just another sign that the business model of selling little plastic discs with songs made by artists held captive in a studio-system environment is obsolete and trying to make the same model work on the internet is futile. The commercial music industry is like the motion picture industry, except even more backwards, modeled after the way studios did business in the days of Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz. Because of that, it'll be quite a sea change that will make for very noisy lobbying.
On the plus side, your band sounds quite tight and professional, and it seems to come across nicely in the recording (at least through the crappy headphones I've got available to me at the moment). However, the parent was spot-on about the way the singer was recorded, and his voice sounds a little thin as well.
There's potential, but you're not there yet.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
between the minimum 6M and 5.99M.
Or, it means they made a smaller protit than going via iTunes if it was the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM estimated. 'course if it were the maximum (just as likely), then either the bandwidth costs were $4M which is unlikely, or they made out like bandits.
Mind you, less profit than iTunes still equals profit. If you can only have at least the average profit, you don't have an average.
Wow. I love you for using the most recent LAME Version and correctly applying presets. Unlike Radiohead you seem to have managed to read up on how to encode to MP3 properly (well, considering you're posting on Slashdot I should've expected that... ;) ). Thank you for that!
Music is just not my cup of tea, unfortunately.
You know, up until about 20 years ago, there were people alive who would keep their money in their mattresses because of their experience during the Great Depression. If those people were still alive today, they would _still_ be doing the same thing. Once you have experienced real scarcity (not artificial) of something you need to live, it's really hard to go back.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Actually, I just crunched the numbers you had listed:
.49 cents/download
.49 cents/'sale'; that is still radically better then you would make with a label. It's defiantly not enough to 'quit your day job' off, but assuming that you get a decent fanbase and to say; 20,000 people (Which I would assume is not an unreasonable number of fans if you tour your home province/state/whatever) downloading your newest album, and your numbers stay about the same: .49 = 9,800 not counting any revenues generated from touring (and by touring I mean playing in bars on there talent nights; 9,800 still isn't going to be enough to get you quiting your day jobs, but it'll be enough to start expanding your tours (paying for transit on a 'loss leader' type of gig, getting better equipment, and perhaps paying a promoter)- and if you keep making albums regularly some of those 20,000 fans are going to tell there fans, and hopefully you can see a 10x increase in the next few years at which point you'll be making 98,000 per album; with 200,000 downloads; as an added bonus for every true 'fan' you earn there not just going to download your most recent album, but all of your albums; so if you have 5 albums, every fan would (going by your existing numbers) generate almost 2 dollars for you.
6.80 average x 5 downloaders = 34 dollars
34/70 =
So for a seventy album sale you 'made' 34 dollars, or
20,000 x
Assuming that your a 4 person band; in the event that you generate 200,000 fans (total, ever), and release 4 albums (total, ever) then each of you will have made 98,000 dollars from your musical carrier. This is at your existing numbers; which are more likely to go up as you get more recognition then down; and does not count any money you would have made from things like t-shirts, mugs, and physical CD signing/sales; That's modest, your not going to retire off of that; but it would be enough to finance a medium musical carrier when you might have never gotten any recognition from a label ever; or if you ever did land a label you'd never see any money from CD sales at 200,000 per album.
Yes, but where Radiohead have a significant existing fan base, you don't. Once your mum, dad, grandparents and stalker have downloaded and paid a few bucks, you reach your five pretty quickly :-)
The site was so swamped I could not buy it.. it simply failed to respond. So bittorrent was the only option. I personally am still waiting for a CD release, as until bands release lossless audio (like FLAC and the Niggy Stardust album), I am not interested in paying for downloads. I'd rather have full audio quality on a CD.
The only thing Radiohead need to know is did they make enough money from the sale?
If yes, it doesn't matter if it was one person paying $5M for one song and sharing it for free to everyone or 6billion freeloaders and 500M paying 1c each. They made enough.
How much would you pay for water? In most of the US, nothing. In Africa, $10. In New Orleans just after the flood? More than you would now in the same place.
How much would you pay for water when drowning? Nothing. If you were in the middle of the sahara, which would you take, a gallon of water or 100 pouds of gold?
How much you pay depends on what you want and that is different for each and every person. For Radiohead, all they care is did it make enough to allow them to be musicians full time. $1M would probably have been enough.
I'm not a fan so I wouldn't have paid for it.. but if I had have downloaded it and loved it what would I do then? I guess download another copy and pay for it. Maybe a few of the 'no pays' did that?
If I was them I'd be offering the low bitrate for price your own and other downloadable formats at an increasing price.
Even though we have minimum wage laws in the U.S., there are interesting loopholes for waitstaff. The employers are allowed to force them to "claim" their tips toward that minimum wage, and pay them WELL under the minimum hourly wage (sometimes around $2 per hour).
Because of this, I tip at least 20% unless someone is truly horrible.
Radiohead motives for this don't matter. To every transaction two actors are needed.
Radiohead is not the only one who are doing something here. The people downloading the album are a big part too. A bigger part I say.
Let the market speak. If they get 10 times as much as they get with traditional CDs, next time it will be very different, and the other artists will get the idea too.
I will not buy the physical CD.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
I didnt pay anything because i heared the tracks from a friend and the quality was awful (160kbps). So i told myself that when the CD comes out.....i will download the pirated copy or rip it off from a friends CD ...either ways i will go to their site and pay 10 bux or watever.
Will you PLEASE shut the fuck up. http://images.google.com/images?q=grateful+dead+concert+posters What's that? That's promotion, you fucking dullard.
Well most nerds are creeps, weirdos, who want a perfect body, want a perfect soul.
:)
I see they are the perfect market for this
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Well, for one who said $10? $10 for a CD seems a bit much, and downloads should be cheaper... how about $5? Why would someone pay $5 for something they can get for free? Convenience. I didn't get the Radiohead album cause I don't really like them. But if bands I did like offered albums for download, and I could get it and know it's "legit", what is $5? People blow that on a cup of coffee. And let's use our imaginations a little bit here... how about if you pay for the album, you can subscribe to their music newsletter, where you can get emails letting you know when new live tracks are available... or videos... or discounts on merchandise... or notice of affiliate band's downloads... or whatever else you can think of. Make it a service, a sales channel run by the bands themselves.
And let's look AHEAD about 20 years, and how much different the music scene would look if this sales model was adopted widespread. Look at the music from the past - the RIAA holds it under lock and key. Those artists only get a royalty if someone happens into a store and buys one of their CDs for $20... (or much less if they are in the bargain bin) There is no way the record labels will push or market them. They are effectively dead because they don't own the rights to their own music.
The RIAA is putting an end to their own cartel by not embracing technology. They should have done this when Napster came out, but they didn't. Here it is 10 years later, and they still don't get it. It is a PROVEN business model - people want digital music... look what Napster did, before MP3 players were common. Look what the iPod did to the music scene. People want music. Now, consider this concept - the RIAA opens up their vault of music, and offers any song older than 5 years for $0.10 per song... 2-5 years old it is $0.25 per song, and new to 2 years old $0.50 per song. Set up an easy payment model. Make them easy to get, sell compilations on CD/DVD/USB fobs available through the mail... MP3 players pre-loaded! Build lists of music - top 100 songs of the 90s, Elvis Discography, etc etc. Songs that nobody is buying now anyway. Make a new business service, packaging music in creative ways. Only sell those compilations as bundles, but allow people to build their own. Allow people to submit their "favorites" lists. Put burning stations in music stores, so people can buy them there. Charge a nominal fee for media and burning service (like $2). Make the music from their immense archive a) available and b) affordable. If they do this, people would buy it. Why pay for it when you can get it for free? Because people will pay for convenience if it is a reasonable price.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I just downloaded it. I paid nothing. I want to listen to the album first, and then see how much it is worth to me (hey, I listen to albums for free in the record store before I buy, I listen to all music before I buy). But even if I really like the album, I still will not pay much for it. Why? Quality. Where is the high quality FLAC? What about even a high quality mp3? The disc box is really nice with CD and quality vinyl(see the details http://www.inrainbows.com/Store/MoreInfo2.htm), but I am not going to pay ~$84 for it. Won't do it.
Contrast this to Saul Williams new album, which I am starting to really like. Great simple UI for the download http://niggytardust.com/saulwilliams/download
160kbps? Seriously? That sucks. It especially sucks if you are mixing mp3s. Phish sells FLAC albums. Primus sells FLAC albums. It doesn't take a much more effort to provide a few more options for consumers that understand and want to purchase quality formats of albums.
I love that artists are starting to see the reality of the interweb music market. But I like the approach of Saul Williams better than Radiohead.
|plastic....or gasoline?|
I think we will be taking a similar self-released route for our album. I'm sure we won't get radiohead-sized numbers, but I'd like to get it to as many people as possible. I think bittorrent might be the ideal solution, but making money that way seems impossible. Touring would be a great way to make money, but we have dayjobs and nobody knows who we are. It's basically a Catch-22 for bands unwilling to sign to a label. I hope somebody comes up with a brilliant way to shine some light on all the great unknown bands out there. I happen to know there are a shitload of incredible bands in Minnesota that nobody knows about. Not only does it suck for the unknown bands it also sucks for all their potential fans out there who are missing out on all that great music.
Electric Monkey Pants
First off - Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion, and a very heartfelt thank you goes out to those of you who ended up donating. Also, I appreciate those of you who took the time to listen even if you decided we were not your cup of tea, or did not feel like donating.
/.ers
/. numbers, but ultimately this experiment was about how the "pay what you want" model would work for an indie band. Many of you have questioned how many CDs we would sell at a typical show. It's difficult to answer that because we've only just had the CD release show and a copy of the CD was included in the admission price so we didn't technically count those as CD sales. However, having a lot of friends in small local bands, I know that it's safe to say a band is going to sell less than 10 CDs per show. That probably seems like a small number to most of you reading this, but the local music scene here is saturated (too many great bars with live music every night of the week, too many great bands, and not enough listeners to fill all of those bars). Since we only printed a few hundred copies of the CD, our manufacturing cost is roughly $2 per CD. With the price will be selling them at, we will probably be making right around what the average internet donation is at the moment.
~Updated Stats~
10/19 - 11/7
Total downloads: 180
10 donations
% of downloaders making donation: 5.5%
Smallest donation: $2
Largest donation: $12
Average donation: $6.30
11/6 - 11/7 (Slashdot effect only*)
Total downloads: 110
5 donations
% of downloaders making donation: 4.5%
Smallest donation: $3
Largest donation: $10
Average donation: $5.80
*assumes all donations since yesterday were from
Interesting side note: we had roughly 400 more page hits yesterday than we normally get.
I think it's fun to look at the
Updated
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=352351&cid=21271203
You are assuming I only have one stalker.
Most people eat out with others most of the time. You don't want to look cheap in front of your friends, family, clients, or coworkers either.
Additionally, tipping differs from downloading in that when I download someone's song, they incur almost no marginal cost. On the other hand, when I consume a waiter or waitress's service, they incur a large cost. Almost anyone with any sort of empathy will feel a stronger desire to reward the server than the abstract song-writer or singer.
.... I fail to see why all this is necessary....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What kind of fucktard moderators would mod this down as well? Modding the original post flamebait for lack of funny is one thing but it's another thing to mod down his non flamebait response.
Fuck you all.