Well, so much for trust

[Jeff da Weasel]

Most fans Paid $0 for Radiohead Album

 

LOS ANGELES - Radiohead let its fans decide how much to pay for a digital copy of the band's latest release, "In Rainbows," and more than half of those who downloaded the album chose to pay nothing, according to a study by a consumer research firm.

 

Some 62 percent of the people who downloaded "In Rainbows" in a four-week period last month opted not to pay the British alt-rockers a cent. But the remaining 38 percent voluntarily paid an average of $6, according to the study by comScore Inc.

 

Oh well. I should have known.

[Ara Ajizian]

Well I didn't pay for the initial download but I did end up buying the box set. And I don't think it's necessarily a matter of trust...they did give you the option of paying nothing.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

Well I didn't pay for the initial download but I did end up buying the box set. And I don't think it's necessarily a matter of trust...they did give you the option of paying nothing.

 

 

I do understand that. My "trust" in reference was in the quality that I presumed was inherent in mankind to pay for something of value even when given the option not to.

 

And yes, I know other people that bought the box set, and felt (quite correctly) that paying for the album in additon to the $82 set was silly. But I'd be surprised if more than a tiny fraction of those who got the album for free ever intend on paying a dime to Radiohead for anything.

 

It's just an extension of the "music should be free" issue. Nothing more.

[Jotown]

What this shows you is that the majority of people will choose free over paying for something. And that most of those who paid still paid less than the commercial value of the CD.

 

This is just the reality of life. Most people will choose free over pay most of the time. Same as it ever was.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Another parallel: no one "has to" tip me when I play live. It's nice when they do, of course.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

This is just the reality of life. Most people will choose free over pay most of the time. Same as it ever was.

 

 

Sure. I was just hoping that by volunteering to pay for the music, it would have set a nice precedent. I knew that it was a longshot... shrug.

[Jotown]

 

I do understand that. My "trust" in reference was in the quality that I presumed was inherent in mankind to pay for something of value even when given the option not to. And yes, I know other people that bought the box set, and felt (quite correctly) that paying for the album in additon to the $82 set was silly. But I'd be surprised if more than a tiny fraction of those who got the album for free ever intend on paying a dime to Radiohead for anything. It's just an extension of the "music should be free" issue. Nothing more.

 

+1

 

Zzzzzactly.

[Ed A.]

I paid 2 pounds (about $4 plus an additional transaction fee of 0.45 and $1.50 currency conversion cost). I figured $0.40 a song was a reasonable donation especially since it's 160kbs MP3 quality, no artwork or liner notes, and no CD with jewel box. It's much more than they would get from a record company per song.

 

Some pretty good music, BTW.

[Lee Flier]

I would say that this metric in itself isn't too much of an indication of anything because we don't know what percentage of the people who downloaded the record for free would have bought it anyway, had they never had the option to get it for free. There are plenty of people who listen to a record all the time on the radio or at a friend's house, borrow friends' CD's etc. without ever actually buying it, and that has always been the case. It's just that now we get to see it in black and white.

 

We also don't know what percentage of folks will buy the box set later, or have turned someone else on to the record who ends up buying it. And the trouble is, it's very hard to figure these things. At the end of the day we'll have to see how much they've sold over the next year or so and whether they consider that it was profitable for them. That will be interesting to find out.

 

As for the $6 price tag, I would say that was about right for downloads, especially in compressed format with no packaging. I haven't downloaded the record yet but I intend to and I was going to pay $7. I think most artists would be very happy with that - it's way more than they got to keep when they sold something through a label, and they don't have any distribution costs to speak of. If I like the record, I'll buy the box set.

 

Anyway, the story ain't over yet. Anybody could've guessed that a lot of people would download the record for free, but that doesn't mean it won't translate to more sales in the long run, and that will take some time to find out.

[doug osborne]

Radiohead would have been thrilled if 20% of people who downloaded this from them would have paid anything. And nearly all of each pence paid goes directly to them.

 

With any mass-market item, a closing rate of 38% is great, and I think this is positive news for Radiohead.

[Lee Flier]

+1 Doug. Their overall sales targets and whether they meet them are what's important here. If the record is ultimately profitable for them, that's what counts, and we may not know the answer to that for awhile yet.

[blue2blue]

 

I would say that this metric in itself isn't too much of an indication of anything because we don't know what percentage of the people who downloaded the record for free would have bought it anyway, had they never had the option to get it for free. There are plenty of people who listen to a record all the time on the radio or at a friend's house, borrow friends' CD's etc. without ever actually buying it, and that has always been the case. It's just that now we get to see it in black and white. We also don't know what percentage of folks will buy the box set later, or have turned someone else on to the record who ends up buying it. And the trouble is, it's very hard to figure these things. At the end of the day we'll have to see how much they've sold over the next year or so and whether they consider that it was profitable for them. That will be interesting to find out. As for the $6 price tag, I would say that was about right for downloads, especially in compressed format with no packaging. I haven't downloaded the record yet but I intend to and I was going to pay $7. I think most artists would be very happy with that - it's way more than they got to keep when they sold something through a label, and they don't have any distribution costs to speak of. If I like the record, I'll buy the box set. Anyway, the story ain't over yet. Anybody could've guessed that a lot of people would download the record for free, but that doesn't mean it won't translate to more sales in the long run, and that will take some time to find out.

 

 

 

 

Right.

 

If they hadn't released it that way, I doubt I would have bought it. (I never bought any other RH albums.)

 

But I rushed to the chance to be one of the people who did pay because I'd said for a long time I would support this kind of thing.

 

And, with the service fee, I ended up paying about the avearge -- a nickel under. Like others, I figured for an Mp3 album sold directly by the band that this worked out very profitabl for them and fine for me. I do enjoy the album -- although it's not something I listen to that often now for the simple reason that it's squashed enough that A) it's somewhat fatiguing to listen to and B) it's about twice as loud as most anything else in my playlist.

 

Of course, I'm disappointed that more people didn't pay -- but, as others have noted, there's no way to know, offhand, how many of those people would have bought or not bought the album otherwise -- or merely copied a friend's or acquired it through piracy.

 

 

I'll admit that curiosity was a big factor, since RH is not generally available on the subscription services I've used (though the Raising Sand album from Plant/Krauss was on the day of its domestic release -- that was a very nice surprise, since that service is only $6/mo for everything -- a great deal from my perspective, since I listen to a wide variety of music -- and much of it outside my 5 or 6 hundred disc CD collection).

 

 

But -- I have to tell you -- I probably won't be buying many more new albums?

 

Why?

 

Because even bands I really like are now squashing the daylights out of their albums.

 

 

I really like Modest Mouse (banjos, I love banjos) but their new album is all but unlistenable -- not because of the music but because it is so thoroughly unpleasant to try to listen to. I had to turn the volume way down and turn the treble down -- and I don't mean relative to everything else, I mean I had to turn it way down below my normal listening level, to the point where it was hard to hear.

 

Why? Because it is so incredibly squashed that normal listening levels make it very grating and unpleasant to listen to... and that's just pathetic because I really like their music...

 

It's time for the Record Mastering Hall of Shame, I'm telling you...

[tmeury]

I don't think Radiohead opted for this method of distribution, to get paid. It's a marketing scheme or a big FU to their label, IMHO.

Radiohead fans will still buy the album when it "officially" comes out in Dec. (?), myself included. I'm one of those that still buys CD's for the artwork, liner notes, and to support my favorite artist even if they only get a small percentage of the sale.

Another thing, it's not like artist make tons of money from selling there songs on iTunes. At least this way, when someone decides to pay to the album, all of the money goes to Radiohead. Maybe not...depends on a bunch of things.

[alphajerk]

i buy albums too for artwork, packaging and of course, uncompressed [bitrate] data. i wouldnt pay them either for 160/mp3. should have been 192/mp3 at LEAST... but that i wouldnt pay for either.

[Dean Roddey]

 

With any mass-market item, a closing rate of 38% is great, and I think this is positive news for Radiohead.

 

 

But they either buy it or they don't benefit from it, which is not the case here. Anyone who thinks that all that 60'ish percent that didn't pay anything aren't listening to it right now on their iPods is fooling themselves.

 

And why is that a problem? For the same reason that all the IP theft is a problem. Because it creates a culture of theft of more IP. If I look around and see people all around me with lots of good music but they still have plenty money left for other fun stuff, while I'm paying for mine, how much incentive do you figure that gives me to stay honest long term?

[blue2blue]

I don't have any problem paying for a decent mp3 -- although RH's 160 kbps files are probably the minimum I'd go.

 

Frankly a FAR bigger sound quality issue to me is the amount of competitive loudness squashing that was done. Granted, it's not as extreme as some of what you hear these days -- but it's still bad enough to keep me from listening to the album as much as I might otherwise like. (And it certainly can't be put in a playlist with the other music I typically listen to... a coupole times it's just about knocked my speakers off the pedestals when it came on after some normal level stuff.)

 

So, if the powers that be want to sell more music to me (and I know that aging, jaded, super-cynical curmudgeons are a prime target demo) they're going to have to pay more attention to giving me the music mixed and mastered so it still sounds like music and has some dynamics and not like a rat-tailed file going through my eardrums.

[blue2blue]

 

But they either buy it or they don't benefit from it, which is not the case here. Anyone who thinks that all that 60'ish percent that didn't pay anything aren't listening to it right now on their iPods is fooling themselves. And why is that a problem? For the same reason that all the IP theft is a problem. Because it creates a culture of theft of more IP. If I look around and see people all around me with lots of good music but they still have plenty money left for other fun stuff, while I'm paying for mine, how much incentive do you figure that gives me to stay honest long term?

 

 

I've heard from a LOT of people who DL'd it, listened part way through, and then deleted it.

 

Radiohead -- despite their loyal core of fans -- is far from being an easy sell to a lot of folks.

 

I know that's hard for the RH faithful to understand -- but there's a reason their highest charting album peaked at # 37...

[Magpel]

Yeah, blue's right, but RH has always had that prestige disproportionate to sales thing going on, and this voluntary sale is a prestige play more than an economic one

 

Love The Bends, and nothing since quite as much...

[EnemyofSilence]

I loved their first 3 albums - bought 'em, played em, enjoyed them. Still do.

 

Bought Kid A and Amnoyingyak.

 

Strikes one and two.

 

Hail to the Thief

Strike 3

 

Radiohead's seen my last dime for the foreseeable future.

And no, I didn't bother to download whatever the latest TY whine-festival is called.-

[kurdy]

 

I know that's hard for the RH faithful to understand -- but there's a reason their highest charting album peaked at # 37...

 

 

 

I could've sworn Kid A peaked at #1, but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me.

[cooterbrown]

 

I've heard from a LOT of people who DL'd it, listened part way through, and then deleted it. Radiohead -- despite their loyal core of fans -- is far from being an easy sell to a lot of folks. I know that's hard for the RH faithful to understand -- but there's a reason their highest charting album peaked at # 37...

 

 

Per Billboard's standard bearer Top 200 Album charts:

 

Pablo Honey - #32

 

The Bends - #88

 

OK Computer - #21

 

Kid A - #1

 

Amnesiac - #2

 

Hail to the Thief - #3

[Ernest Buckley]

I don`t think RHs popularity of lack of it had anything to do with how much people were willing to pay. I think Madonna, U2 or any other huge artist would have faired any better. Granted they would have sold more copies and and had more downloads but the ratio would have been the same.

 

Any artist willing to give them music free is doing a tremendous injustice to themselves and the art form but I`m preaching to the choir so I`ll stop.

[sventvkg]

 

Sure. I was just hoping that by volunteering to pay for the music, it would have set a nice precedent. I knew that it was a longshot... shrug.

 

 

Jeff...Music is basically free now..It's a business card. something to be give as a promo to gain fans for the longhaul. It's a new day..I'm not happy about it but the old way of doing things is in the process of crumbling down and a new model will emerge. Can't say what it's going to be at this point but it's going to be run by new players..Younger players who will be in business with the artist on a much fairer scale. That said, I still figure Radiohead did alright but that tactic will not work for an Indie so what are you and I going to do about releasing our Albums? I haven't figured that out.

[franknputer]

Well, I bought the CD - paid $6, actually - and I wouldn't have bought it otherwise. Radiohead was not even on my radar until recently.

 

I wonder: is the real news that 69% didn't pay, or that 38% did?

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

That said, I still figure Radiohead did alright but that tactic will not work for an Indie so what are you and I going to do about releasing our Albums? I haven't figured that out.

 

 

Neither have I. I mean, I'm not doing this record to make a lot of money. I just figure what I'm doing is pretty cool music that people would dig. But still, it is slightly discouraging to bother duplicating discs at all if there's zero perceived value in the album format anymore.

 

I've been intending the entire time to work along with a service that will allow me to have the stuff on iTunes and the like, but I also planned on having the discs done as well. I'm really wondering if there's any compelling reason to do this anymore.