Radiohead's experiment=FAILURE
 

"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."

Nice fans they have. More proof people are welfare loving cheap ass fuckers. I mean not even a lousy $1 or hell, even a quarter?

No surprises.

Well I wouldnt say welfare. I would just say it goes to show that the majority feel that whatever you do has no value and they deserve everything handed to them.

I would love to see full stats. I would almost be positive that like 5% of the people counted for like 90% of the money made.

Real music fans!

Great answer!

um....that's called WELFARE

From TMZ:

More than six out of 10 people who downloaded the new Radiohead album, "In Rainbows," did so for free after the band gave users the freedom to pay whatever they wanted. How does "nothing" sound?

Of the people that did fork over some cash, the average price paid was about $6. Nearly 1.2 million people downloaded the album -- do the math; that's a total of $2.736 mil.

That's not nearly as much as they would have made selling the album normally, but then again, they don't have to pay a record label any dues. Radiohead, stickin' it to the man!

How is that album anyway?

You mean paying back the record label the cost of producing the album and distrubuting it in the first place? How dare they ask for re-imbersement! How much of Radioheads own money went into producing the album? As I said with a label they would have paid NOTHING. So you need to take that into account.

Also they are an established band I doubt some nobodies could do this.

go download it for free and see

It's probably more like 80:20.

But none the less, good call, Pareto.

I am not baddog so I rarely like to argue on definitions or semantics. Just to me welfare has always meant assistance due to need. Well also general health and happiness but that is a different type of welfare. I guess many have forgotten the whole need part of welfare and despite what some may say, nobody needs the newest music album.

I can see though what type of welfare you may be speaking of though. Guessing those that expect the system to pay everything for them yet really have no need and could get off their ass and get a job?

the album was great, not their best though by any means.

thing is, they got alot more % of the money then before, so I'm sure they did well with it.

Saul with Trent Reznor's idea might do better, but not bad for a first try.

I bet they made more than they would have if a recored label took a cut.

As I said none of you are taking into account that the record label fronts the cost of producing and distrubting the album. Why do all bands even in today's age where thelabelsa re sen as evil do they still want to be signed by a label? Because most bands are broke and cannot produce and distribute a quailty album on their own. Also labels give them upfront cash before even one album is sold.

For an established band that doesn't have a contract with a label, yeah this method would probably work. They could afford the upfront costs. Also label are usually better at producing and distribution than individual bands. Take our industry. I'd rather go to a site that has movies of my favorite pornstars than go to the sites of those pornstars themselves? WHY? Because most of them are garbage. You'd think it be the opposite.

dont forget about the novelty factor of them being the first to try this and all the free press they got. If every album was available like this I think the numbers would be FAR lower

radiohead has been pure failure from day one :2 cents:

nobody wants to pay a penny for anything nowadays.. people want all for free..

similar to adult..

Aren't they eventually releasing it in the traditional method anyways? It'll do loads better if they do.

i usually find the richer you are the cheaper you are..

i would bet that if you gave away something like "hotdogs" at a 4th of july celebration and let people pay whatever they wanted, i bet the richer people would give less on avg..

i wouldnt put a lock on it but it would be an interesting test to try.

my friend owns a liquor store and he told me the rich people always buy the cheap beer, the day labourers always buy the "high end" beer

I would disagree. Their last album sold around a million copies. They made somewhere between $1.00 and $1.50 per album so they probably got somewhere around 1-1.5 million for the album in royalties less what they have to pay back to the record company for expenses. It looks like they will probably make about twice as much as if they had a record company.

To call it a failure is alittle premature...but then again this is GFY. The album goes on sale ($80 a pop!) at the beginning of December. The free download is similar to a musical TGP...though I bet they get better join conversions.

You show a fundamental lack of understanding of how the music industry works - even through some of your sarcasm....

Production costs are 5/8 of fuck in when compared to the add-ons for distribution and marketing.

Most artists are lucky to see 5% of a CD sales, and THEN with conditions of payback etc.

Between the "donations" and the pre-orders for the special box set (again, WITHOUT "distribution" and "marketing" costs of the record company) they will make a killing.

And good for them.

:2 cents:

spending $5 on niggy was one of the best $5 i have ever spent :thumbsup

not many people know what good beer is or even how it's made. day labourers, aka mexians buy beer that tastes good.

beer is considered a poor mans drink. i know a few rich people who know jack shit about beer and often buy miller light thinking that it's quality.

your example is poor.

I'd venture a guess that history will remember it as a success. Not only will they recoup some of that money with the actual release of the album, but keep in mind how much of a new fan base they developed.

Big band or not, there are certainly a ton of people that've never heard their music, and this gave people a painless way to try them out. I anticipate some really excellent tour figures, which is usually a band's bread-and-butter anyhow.

:2 cents:

I don't understand how people under 18 years old COULD pay for it. They don't have a credit card...

they may not be fans at all but downloading it simply because its there and free, therefore they may not be welfare loving cheap ass fuckers, simply getting something for free.

If I put a muffin infront of you and said you can pay me for this or have it for free, you would more than likley take it

i had 2 visa electrons when i was under 18, i remember signing up to a porn site using one of them :1orglaugh.
that defeats that argument

o rly I didn't know that kind of card was good for anything online.

You might want to consider that most of the people who downloaded for free, might not have otherwise paid for it in a store. They may not even be fans of the band.

I don't consider myself a fan, but I paid 8 bucks for it, because I like what they're trying to do, and I wanted to be a part of it. The album sucks, by the way.

yah? i paid $15 for radiohead, need to get Niggy

It was surely not a failure. Quite the opposite is true.

www.cdbaby.com - the only way to make money from your music.

Shut up fag!

Listen adn answer my question. If this is the way to go how come every god damn little club band can't wait for a record deal from a label?

wasn't there a thread about how successful it was?

also, i had dinner with a sony records VP a few months ago (he's in charge of design for box sets)

anyhoo, he went on about how many times record labels will sign acts with no intent to ever distribute their work, simply signed as a loss.

apparently, it's pretty cut throat

Because little club bands don't have loyal fans throughout the world dying for the new album to be released. This method can only work with big names acts, and I have a feeling we'll see more adopt this.

Musicians make their money from touring, not from album sales. Musicians make $1 for every album sold, less for songs. The average price of a downloader was $2.26. No matter how you look at it, they made more per album doing it this way.

But the best part of it so far has been the massive publicity they have received over it. The free album may have also picked up a few new fans who had never really listened to their music. Maybe those new fans pick up some old albums and see them in concert.

Considering that 99.5% of "big name" acts started as club bands how can this be considered the new way of doing things?

Most established bands have mulitple album contracts. It's not like they can leave the label and start doing this.

Not everyone tours or wants to.

If this becomes the norm then there won't be any increased publicity.

Depends on how you define success. If only getting 38% of people to actually pay your for your work is considered "successful" when then I guess it was. All I know if it was sold in a store 99.99% of people would have paid.

How do you get that they'd have paid nothing if the label had put up the money to record? The first thing the company does once the money starts rolling in is to recoup that cost out of the artist's share. They essential loan the band the money to record the band pays it back upon release. Radiohead doesn't really NEED their money to record, and with a means of distribution like this...there's really no need for a record label, which is their point in all this. The old school record industry are dinosaurs on their way to extinction.