40% Paid For Radiohead Album

Its been said before, but this isn't accurate because some people downloaded for free, then went ahead and then went ahead and redownloaded it and paid for it. Making 10 million in one month sounds pretty good. I wonder how it compares to what they made on previous albums with a label?

Thats what I did , downloaded and listened , then went back and paid. I also did so with Reznors record.

It's the best way I know how to do it. I like to hear the music first.

This is how it should be. The recording industry and artists need to adapt. This is an excellent way to embrace and use the technology to their advantage.

Same thing I did.

The numbers also do not take into account those that downloaded, did not like the music, and thus did not want to pay. They may have removed the music from their system.

Then you have the people who downloaded it, liked the music, and didn't want to pay.

Either way, the main thing here is...

How much did Radiohead make from selling their album this way compared to going through a label? That is what they should be focusing on.

And the downloaded it at home, wen't to work downloaded it again....

Came home, lost the first download so downloaded it again.

Probably more than if they went through traditional channels because everyone wants a piece of the action even before the album hits the store shelves.

Nothing official has been released just yet, but speculation puts the sales figure at least around $6 million. If they are keeping all of the proceeds then Radiohead really came out ahead since album royalties hover around $1-$2 (depending on copyright ownership of the songs, length of song, number of tracks, etc) with the record label keeping the rest.

On top of that record labels tend to tag on production and promotional costs on their contracts, which means the label gets a lion's share of the profits while at the same time taking the artist's share of the album royalties. Essentially they are getting paid back their costs to produce (sometimes even promote) the record by the artist.

If Radiohead did all of their own production and distribution on this little project (which can't be more than a million... and that's a gross over-estimation) then they definitely netted more on this than with the label. On top of all that Radiohead will still get their share of the album sales from the label when the physical disk is released.

The cheapskates got their free album with no fear of copyright infringement, the band got millions of dollars from the people who like supporting the artist, fans got to buy the album at a price they felt was fair, the record label got zilch. It's a win/win

It will be interesting to see how unsigned artists do with this. For as much as the RIAA sucks balls, they do advertise and get artists airtime. Radiohead is popular because of their past popularity.

Getting your name out there as being a big time musician is not an easy task. Thats not saying this delivery system won't work for everyone though. It will vary. However, how much would some beginning unsigned artist make off this system? Not much probably.

At the same time the overhead will be much less. One of the original purposes for MySpace was a way for unsigned artists to get their music out. Social networking sites such as that one are probably the best way to go. If I finally got off my butt and actually put together an album full of broadcast-worthy songs these are the steps I would take:

- Be prepared to sell a fully produced hard-copy CD. Last I checked it would cost $1-$2 per CD to make high quality pressings with color inserts in small amounts (1000 CDs). Less for a higher stockpile. Get set up with Amazon.com and you're golden.

- Create an eCommerce website to sell the songs for those who want to download. This will also be the official artist's site with message boards, news and all that other stuff potential fans want. I was thinking of offering free downloads at a lower bitrate than the purchased files, but maybe using Radiohead's business model would be a better approach.

- Get crazy with the social networking. Make a MySpace site with streams showcasing my songs along with links to Amazon and my site for purchase. Go to other social networking sites and do what you can on them to promote the album. Probably bug BBR with some shameless promotional plugs in the forums (don't ban me yet BBR)

- Do some local networking with college radio stations and other independent broadcasts that would consider airing my music. This would also include talking to web radio stations. Maybe go to some retail stores that would like playing my music for their customers. Offer all of these outlets royalty-free access to my music to help sweeten the pot.

Will I end up making $6 million? Not likely. But good music has a way of getting around so if my music is any good I will definitely get a return on my investment. If it's really good then we're talking some serious supplemental income. Jeez... why am I not doing this now?!?!?
.
.
.
.
.
.

\\If a label did offer a contract I would definitely hire a music lawyer and make sure I have my bases covered (details on that would take a whole new post... if not thread).

This is absolutely true. They are good enough at marketing and promotion that even Britney Spears and those like her are able to sell albums. So in this regard, I can see where the RIAA deserves every penny of the 95% they take from the CD sales.

Not all of those downloads were kept after listening, and it's a whole lot nicer to find out you hate the album and delete it than kiss your cash goodbye because you can't return it.

Like I just deleted the Saul William's album.

My thought's exactly. People are forced to buy music and if they do not like it can not return it because we could of made a copy. Talk about captive buyers.

I believe that's a unfair practice, but my complaints have fallen on deaf ears every time I've complained to those who can change the laws.

This isn't a new release movie you know...
I can't buy that argument for the simple fact that people CAN and MOST OFTEN do know if they like the song. They've either listened to it on the radio, streaming through the web, digital music, etc. I would have to guess that damn near 99% of people that go to buy a song have already heard it in some sort.

So you think buying music with out a trial is unfair? So you'd want the laws changed? Sweet!

While you're at it.. I have a few other laws I want changed in the free market society too..

I want to live in my house before I decide to buy it.

I want to try the airline first to make sure I like the flight before I pay for it.

I want to have that flat screen in my home before I buy it.

I also want to take that cruise first before I buy it.. you never know, I may not like the view or the room.

And don't forget dinner.. restaurants vary so much. I may not like the food.. I CERTAINLY want to eat first before I decide IF I will pay for it.

Where is this notion coming from that if we don't like the way the free market works, we can just, by use of the courts or law makers, force those who sell a product to sell it in a specific way...

Talk about socialism at it's best!

Your post makes it sound like you have a right to music.. I won't address other topics because this only addresses music. But seriously.. I would be even MORE pissed is Barbara Boxer felt she could force the music industry to let people have a copy of their work first, by law, before they buy. Technically you already have it.. the radio is still free.

Whoa. Step away from Rush radio and turn off the Hand Jobbity and Loofah O'Reilly show...you are hallucinating "socialism," under your bed just like you hallucinate terrarists under your bed. We're talking about an intangible item>>>HELLO! Music is not something you touch. Oh and comparing wanting to hear music before a consumer buys it with wanting to live in your house before you buy it and all of your other insipid examples of "socialism"? Society has already addressed that problem. It's called renting.

YES, technically we STILL HAVE IT. THE RADIO IS FREE. I choose to listen to it on a different medium however, but it's still FREE.

Remember the old days, when you would record your favorite songs off the radio, and make you own tape mix? You'd trade with your friends to build up your collection...

Nothing MORALLY has changed. We STILL get access to our TV shows, our MUSIC, and other 'intangibles' for FREE. The fact, which goads you apparently, is that now we are using technology to DO THE SAME THING WE'VE ALWAYS DONE!

We haven't changed, but the medium hasn't evolved with the times. Fact of the matter is, just because you USED to make a lot of money, doesn't mean you are ENTITLED to make a lot of money. If 'technology' makes your business model obsolete, well that's just too bad. Find a different business model.

It's NOT SOCIALISM, it's PROGRESS. Progress stops for no man.

Problem is that now, mp3 are high quality and close to full CD quality. When you record of the radio, you sometimes get the DJ at the begging or end of the song, some static and its recorded to a tape, which isn't the best quality.

quote:

---

I can't buy that argument for the simple fact that people CAN and MOST OFTEN do know if they like the song.

---

Song yes, album no.

Your analogies all fail because they all involve tangibles. If I record songs I hear on the radio and listen to them it has no negative impact on the artist. I can't occupy a home, fly on a plane, use a flatscreen, or eat food without a material cost.

The law even protects my right to do that, through fair use laws.

As much as the recording industry fears Mp3, it's really not much different from recording broadcasts from a radio. It doesn't directly cost the artist anything.

With lots of high quality radio options available now (commercial free digital music in your car from XM and Sirius, or from your television service), I rarely find the need to "own" music. They will play a song plenty until I'm tired of it. There are some songs I do want, and $.99 is a good value for them, but it's generally not worth $20 for a whole album.

The point is - people want value. Overpriced CDs and DRM are examples of how the recording industry has forgotten that they are selling products to paying customers and should be catering to them if they want their money.

You say "you have a right to music" - the converse of your argument is that recording industry seems to think they have a right to people's pocketbooks. People don't NEED to buy music to function. They want cuts of internet ISP profits and CD media - whether I buy their product or not. With very new and recent exceptions, they still don't unilaterally offer the product I want, which is around a buck or two for an industry-standard MP3 file that works in my car, my iPod, and my Windows smartphone.

"Song yes, album no."

Give me the name of an album, and there is most likely a number of places on line where you can at least hear a 30 to 60 second sampling of the song. If in 30 to 60 seconds you can't tell you if like a song.. well..

As for your radio argument - any of them not talk over the lead in and lead out? Kinda destroys the value of free and clear ownership, huh?

You don't think the people delivering the music to you don't have a cost involved? This is the biggest problem people don't get. There is A LOT of money behind making music on a wide scale.

Fair use laws come in after the fact once you've licensed or purchased your copy. You do not have the right to do with as you please with the music before and after purchase.. especially before. Even music recorded from the radio still is protected by copyright.

And yes - MP3s being recorded DO directly cost the artists as there is now less people purchasing their work. Consumption revenue models are often forgotten over production and material models.

I agree with you that 99 cents per song is value especially when you can pick and chose. However, today, there are still people who out right don't want to pay for the very music that you and I will. THAT ALONE should anger you that there are people who believe they don't need to pay. When more and more people don't pay, those of us that do will likely pay more. For that, I am all for them protecting their content more and more.

I wish people would stop stealing so much so that all the DRM protection, limited access options, and other restrictions would slow down. It's thieves that are making it harder for everyone else.

Ever downloaded and paid for a lot of music, lose your keys in a crash and be with out your music because of it? Gotta love licensing!

The music industry does not have a right to your pocket book. That's absurd! BUT, they have a right to have their product purchased when you consume, and they have a right to be paid the price they ask. If you aren't willing to pay the price they put on it, then don't buy it. It's not up to the consumer to decide what they will pay for something - other than to pass it up and not buy it if they don't find it a value. To simply take is stealing.

Ok, champ. Put your money where your big yap is. I see your "most likely" theory and raise you the effort of finding all those "number" of places online where a 30 to 60 second sampling exists so that I can hear it before I buy it. And oh BTW, I'm not talking about a BT file.

Die Ashanti by Zen Lemonade.

I could name numerous others, but I'm taking it easy on you and asking you to demonstrate your theory of "most likely".

sign up for a no-pay rhapsody account, and you can play 25 songs in full glory for each month. Like the tune and you can buy the song (with DRM) for $0.89.

including Die Ashanti by Zen Lemonade.

I feel dirty doing it, but Amazon.com usually has samples..

Die Ashanti by Zen Lemonade.

»www.electronic-mp3.com/m ··· lb13028/

»www.all-mp3-online.com/m ··· lb13028/

Sounds like everyone has helped my big yap there bucko...

Apple iTunes, Rhapsody, their own MySpace, ... need some more?

You don't even need a free Rhapsody account to hear the songs.. they will always let you hear the 30 seconds.. as it was stated, the 25 free plays per month still works. And yes, I said "most likely" meaning there are going to be SOME that may not be available...

So, honestly... congratulate yourself on this one. I gave you a wide open example of being able to sample music.. I even stated that MOST, meaning "not all", would be available, and yet you try to pick something that you'd think MAY NOT be available, and not only myself but others threw it in your face...

.. how's that egg on your face working? Is your skin any younger? :P

Fallacy. Just because he wants "try before you buy" for music, doesn't mean he also wants to "try" that house before he buys it. Although I suppose you could try and convince the seller to let you rent it for a while.

What about the other option? Charge everyone but only an amount equal to what the group normally receives if they distributed a CD through the normal channels. Isn't this amount less than $1.00?

Clearly they made $10 million but probably a lot liked it and still didn't pay. It would be interesting to see if they made more (or less) if they removed the free option but charged $2.00 for the entire album. And where is the revenue sweet spot where most pay and piracy is a not an issue? Is it $4.00? $3.00? $1.00? 50 cents?

Is there a price at which people don't consider it theft because they think, "my illegal copy is only costing them 50 cents...big deal..."

Is the inverse true where an internal moral compass forces payment because the thought of stealing 50 cents feels so wrong? (Like stealing all the spare pennies at the checkout lane...)

I buy a lot of used CD's at garage sales. My "sweet spot" is $1.00 a CD and at that price I usually buy all the CD's the seller has if they are not all scratched up. Sure I get a few dupes, but when I make an offer I can usually cut a deal. It's rare (real rare) for me to pay retail ($11.99-$19.99) for a CD. Last one of those was a CD the local church made up.....

I just can't justify the iTunes charge of $.99 a track and the restrictions they put on how I listen to the tracks. I only have one set of ears (least I think so) so can only listen to the tracks one at a time. Purchasing the CD gives me the flexibility to set up the play back on what ever I want. When the record companies wake up to this then I'll consider on-line purchases. I'd also like a release so I can sell off or transfer the tracks to a 2nd party. The way things are set up now that is not possible. Giving them to my sister is considered piracy!!

DRM'ed tracks does not stop piracy. What happens is one person buys the album. Rips the tracks at a bit rate they like and then passes it on to their friends as the friends can't download the DRM free tracks to use on their music players.

So my solution is to NOT buy any on-line tracks until the marketing people wake up to a world that is not rooted in vinyl thinking. I want flexibility, not restrictions!!

The new Eagles CD is only available at Wal-Mart.... I don't buy much of anything from that company and my local record store does not have it.... What are my other choices? Restrictive marketing is not the answer.

Didn't pay for it. Deleted it.

Great optional way to check out the music!!

And what about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Radiohead stands to make from the soldout concert tours as a result of this "experiment." Road shows are where bands make the bulk of their profits.

Personally, I like Radiohead, but I didn't rush out and download the free album b/c I've been expecting the servers to be crashed due to overwhelming demand. I totally expected piss poor planning and so have been waiting for the novelty of the free download to wear off. If I download the tunes and like the music, then I'll pay for it. But this "experiment" should be the writing on the wall for the record companies who continue to believe that the world revolves around them.

Radio head made 2.28 per download
They would of made 2.38 with the record industry

So they lost 10 cents big deal they still made 2 million plus dollars with out them.

One last question which can't be answered that easily remains..
How many albums would they have sold in the shops? I reckon more people are ready to pay an average 2$ for the album than the retail price (~$15) of which radiohead only gets $2 as well...

Why not charged a fixed price like a user suggested above at the "sweet spot" but also provide a free ablum that only has half of each song. This is more or less how most shareware works in software land and I think people are more in-tuned to accepting software shareware/licensing than the music industry buy it vs. try it.

I've seen a few theories about the download information and I don't understand how people are coming up with this information. How do you know that these flaws might exist in the data?

When you purchase the album you get a url right away on the next page to download the album, also you get an email with the same url in it to download. You should be able to redownload from that url.

I do agree that there was no way to sample the music that I knew of before I purchased it. I do like Radiohead so I purchased it blindly just for the cause.

didn't like it either...it needs more cowbell.

Ha! Nice SNL flashback!

Is it just me or that website is just awful? I just don't get it.

then erased it, i love pretty much everything else radiohead has put out. sounded like they didn't try very hard. maybe gettin old or something.

better luck next time.

I look at it this way:
I am not a fan of either Radiohead or Reznor, so I did not download either.

I am also not a fan of foreign cars. However, if I am in need of a new vehicle, am I going to just walk into a dealership and hand over a huge sum of money for something I have only seen? Hell, no! I will not even think about buying a vehicle if I cn't try it out first! I don't feel like I should be stuck with something I don't like. Sure, I may like the body style, or the color....but does that mean I will like the way it drives?

Same thing with music - I may hear ONE or TWO songs I like on the radio by an artist, but why should I pay $20 or so for a CD, especially if the rest of the songs suck so bad that the artist should pay me for pain and suffering for having to listen to them?

I wonder how many people would have never been exposed to their music if they hadn't been handed an opportunity to download the album for free? This band may have picked up a few thousand "fans" that didn't exist before. The free publicity alone will be worth a fortune in concert ticket sales I'd imagine.

I downloaded for free, and some of the songs grew on me. I went to pay 3-4 bucks, but they don't take PayPal. CC is the only option for me. I guess I could get a temp CC #, but too much hassle.

But, if any band I like does this in the future (and accepts PayPal) I would definately pay, more so the higher the bitrate of the tack.