Indy.com
Today:
Radiohead's new album
Posted: Oct 09, 2007 in Music
Tags:
So, what I want to know is, who's buying the new Radiohead album tomorrow and what are you planning on paying for it?
Check out the link to see what I'm talking about. The album will be available for download from the band's Web site, and you choose how much to pay.
I'm anxiously awaiting my e-mail with the download info this evening/tomorrow.
When I pre-ordered, I ponied up 3 pounds (little more than $7 American).
Cheaper than iTunes, but hey, they get the whole cut instead of sending it into the labels' coffers instead.
I gave 'em 4 pounds. It's still cheaper iTunes+ (DRM-free) at $1.29 per song, and I'm happy to award the ingenuity of their pricing strategy.
Just got an email update for my order:
THANK YOU FOR ORDERING IN RAINBOWS. THIS IS AN UPDATE.
YOUR UNIQUE ACTIVATION CODE(S) WILL BE SENT OUT TOMORROW MORNING (UK TIME). THIS WILL TAKE YOU STRAIGHT TO THE DOWNLOAD AREA.
HERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE DOWNLOAD:
THE ALBUM WILL COME AS A 48.4MB ZIP FILE CONTAINING 10 X 160KBPS DRM FREE MP3s.
drool ... any time now ...
Little disappointing they're only 160kb files, though ...
I paid 3 lbs, plus 46 pence for handling or something. Excited about this.
Have the album in my greedy little iPhone now and loving it so far (really is an album best suited for headphones, at least on the first listen).
In the meantime, we're left with no album art ... which makes iTunes' coverflow sad ... so, until they come out with official art, you can thumb through the ideas of the internet for album art here:
http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/cover-art-for-in-rainbows
Follow up question: Do you think this was a good way to sell the album? Would you buy other records this way? Does it keep you honest?
I think whether or not this is a good way to sell the album depends on what the objective is. If it is to maximize profits, then this is a terrible way to sell it. If it is to get the music to as many people as possible, again, really bad idea. If it is to make some pretentious, vaguely-anti-capitalist statement while getting some pretty good press for a week or two, then it's perfect.
It's better for me because I can get what I want cheaper (guilt keeps me from free ... ).
It's better for the band because they get the whole chunk of revenue from it, or at least the vast majority of it.
Radiohead might be the first big one to go this route, but more are coming:
Nine Inch Nails, for example is now label-less and I'm sure Reznor will be heading this way as well.
I think whether or not this is a good way to sell the album depends ...
I'd argue it is a fantastic way to maximize profit ... profit for the band, not the labels. The $7 or so I sent to buy the album goes directly to Radiohead. So, instead of me paying $10 for the album and Radiohead getting maybe a buck out of the deal, they get $7 ... you can sell a hell of a lot fewer albums and still come out ahead.
Yes, I'm more in the 'pro' camp myself. I think self policing is a great way to keep people honest - it reminds me of small towns in Europe where they've removed all street lights. Instead of folks blasting through the yellows and almost getting into wrecks while they are trying to break rules, people must always be on the lookout when they are driving, resulting in better drivers. (I can't find a link for this article, but I read about it in a past issue of Good magazine)
Plus, the bands get more cash. I'd hope it reminds people that bands depend on people buying music for their livelihoods.
I'd argue it is a fantastic way to maximize profit ... profit for the band, ...
It may well increase profits for the band -- but letting consumers set their own price -- essentially giving the album away -- isn't a recipe for maximizing profits.
Other bands have done this or similar things before (Public Enemy, Prince), and they went back to the old model. The old model is flawed and musicians do seem to get screwed by the labels. But from an economic standpoint, giving away your album for as much as people want to pay for it is flawed, too.
I'm listening to it on woxy.com this morning but not impressed enough to buy it.
Would agree with dummied on max. profits ... Costs are relatively fixed in digital (especially when you're not paying a label), so the name of the game is revenue volume (not expense control) ... Time will tell on how many they sell and for what average price ... still, a great academic exercise if nothing else (realizing, of course, that my minor in economics dates back more than a decade).
I understand what you're saying. By "maximize," I mean "make the greatest possible amount of money." Giving away your album doesn't do that. Also, Pitchfork says that the album sound is less than stellar because of its 160 kbps sound quality -- although to be honest I am not enough of a sound geek to appreciate the difference between that and CD quality.
Update on sales numbers so far: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071011121649.tivlafw4&show_article=1
From the article: On Wednesday about a third of fans decided to pay absolutely nothing, according to The Times daily, citing a poll of 3,000 people who bought it from the website.
"I chose zero, but maybe if I had a chance to chip in 10 bucks, after I hear it if it's great, then I would," said one identified fan from Australia, shortly after downloading the album.
The average price chosen was four pounds -- half the typical album price on online music retailing leader I-Tunes of around eight pounds -- although 67 people paid more than 10 pounds, according to the poll.
I've been thinking about this some more, and when it comes right down to it: those 1/3 of downloaders probably aren't going to be actual customers anyway.
That guy who said he'd want to listen to it first, he wasn't going to buy that album in the first place.
Getting music for free remains so incredibly easy that even if you go with a traditional model and charge everybody, say, $10, you're still relying on people to make the choice of "Do I just go download this for free or do I support this band I like and give them some money for it"?
And as an side, if the British iTunes is really charging folks 8 pounds ($16.25 or so) for an album, it's a bloody travesty. It's a wonder anyone buys any music from there at all ...
I don't download music for free, but I know it used to be a more mainstream activity six or seven years ago in the unchecked days of Napster and Audio Galaxy than it is these days. I do, however use www.emusic.com, which is cheap and terrific.
At any rate, if you aren't a band with built-in buzz, you're gonna need to do much more than just throw your album out on the Internet to generate press and sell (or give away) a lot of records. That is, unless you are Clap Your Hands Say Yeah.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5023133
4gbp and it was worth every pence.
http://www.indy.com/posts/504
Check out the free streaming performance of in rainbows on www.current.com or catch it on air several times throughout new years day.