Most Radiohead fans paid nothing for new album.

[Mon Rominee]

Most fans paid $0 for Radiohead album
By ALEX VEIGA, AP Business Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

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.

Radiohead broke with its past practice of releasing its music in CD format and through a major record label when it released its seventh studio album online itself. The biggest wrinkle was the band's decision to let fans pay as much or as little as they wanted to download a copy.

The results of the study were drawn from data gathered from a few hundred people who are part of comScore's database of 2 million computer users worldwide. The firm, which has permission to monitor the computer users' online behavior, did not provide a margin of error for the study's results.

Between Oct. 1 and Oct. 29, about 1.2 million people visited the Web site the band set up for fans to download the album, comScore said Monday. The research firm did not say how many people in its study actually bought the album.

Among U.S. residents, about 40 percent who downloaded the album paid to do so. Their average payment was $8.05, the firm said.

Some 36 percent of the fans outside the U.S. who downloaded the album opted to pay; on average, those fans paid $4.64, according to the study.

Radiohead's U.S.-based publicist said Tuesday the band had no comment on the study.
music.

The band, which also offered fans the option of buying a lavish box set for about $82, plans to release the album in CD format some time next year.


TO WHICH I SAY:
With the short shelf life of any albums these days, why bother releasing it at all in physical format so long after the fact, unless it was something stellar with even more unavailable content...

I'm actually not surprised so many opted out of paying anything... being on the other side of the fence being a musician, I opted to pay a fair price for the download... but obviously in the minority.

It all equates to music being the everyman artform. Freebie. I won't say I've never dl'ed something without paying, but I just don't see how there is a whole lot of money to be made in releasing music anymore... unless you're still tied to a label in some manner... tour tirelessly, or pander to the 20 something mindless MTV demographic.

Of course thats not to say there is NO money in music, but obviously the days of multi-album multi million dollar deals are long gone...unless yer Beyonce, of course....

[fenderhutz]

Yeah but the AVERAGE person that did pay about 6 US dollars.

640000 people paid for X 6.00= 3.84 million US dollars or about with no physical distribution or a record company taking 80%.

For album that's been out about a month,

That's pretty good.

Even the best contracts in the music business can't say too often they are paying their artists 3.8 million a month for stellar records sales only, Radiohead did a good thing.

[middy]

Originally Posted by fenderhutz

Yeah but the AVERAGE person that did pay paid about 6 US dollars.

640000 people paid for X 6.00= 3.84 million US dollars for about with no physical distribution or a record comapny taking 80%

That's pretty good.

That's why they're trying to make it sound bad.

[Jeremy Crockett]

So, did they get what they paid for?

[markjazzbassist]

how do they count it? i bought the disc box so i got the download for free. so does that mean i count as not paying for the download?

boo media, go radiohead

[Mon Rominee]

I guess it just irks me that people, even their fans couldn't have footed at least a couple bucks for the priveledge of owning the new album. More than likely the scenario is the true fans did pay, and the others that didn't are people who exploited the news report about it...oooh...free? that's for me!

It's like Paste magazine right now is copycatting on their subscription site, where you can pay whatever you want for a year's subscription...I KNOW WHY they are doing it (to say they have more subscribers to command more money for ad space in light of readership) Check it out, tis' a great magazine...I paid for that too...you don't have to, just sayin....

I know I sound jaded in my last post, and by all means bravo to Radiohead for shaking it up a bit, and it's a great friggin album...I'm just disapointed in people...but whatever, it's just my feelings on the matter...

being a musician, as we all are, it's just disheartening to read this...if a band like Radiohead cannot count on their fans when they do them a solid, what chance to the more humble yet still ambitious of us "little guys" have?

I make the majority of my money between performance, and licencing for television, so it's cool, but all in all, not incredibly lucrative, when compared to painters or sculptors, etc...

[Baryonyx]

I tried to download it and it didn't work.

[Jared Lash]

Ron, I understand where you are coming from, but I see it a little differently.

How many of the people that paid nothing aren't Radiohead fans and wouldn't have paid for the album even at a low price, but did so for free just to see what all the fuss was about? In that case, a percentage of those people will likely dig the album and could go on to buy their other stuff. Even if they don't, they are people that wouldn't have bothered except that it was free and therefore Radiohead got more people to hear their music regardless.

Secondly, how many Radiohead fans got the album for nothing knowing that they would be buying the much higher quality CD when it hits stores in December or January? I know a few people that did exactly that. They wanted to hear it right away, but didn't want to pay twice.

For the record, I decided to pay exactly $10 including the transaction fee. I forget exactly how many pounds that was (4.45 or so?) but that's pretty much the average cost of CDs for me, so I figured that was fair.

And not that it's what this thread is about, but I really like the album. It could do with another uptempo/rocker (though Bodysnatchers is great) but other than that I really like it. Probably my third favorite after Kid A and OK Computer and just ahead of The Bends.

[Masher88]

Originally Posted by fenderhutz

Yeah but the AVERAGE person that did pay about 6 US dollars.

640000 people paid for X 6.00= 3.84 million US dollars or about with no physical distribution or a record company taking 80%.

I don't understand where you came up with the number of U.S. buyers as 640,000. The article says that they did not disclose how many people actually BOUGHT the download. Did I miss something?

[fenderhutz]

I read it another article, which I can't find. And they posted the average in US dollars for us.

[BellBottomBlues]

I didn't download it. I'm not a big Radiohead fan and I believe in paying for music. I do really like their idea though.

The reason why I'm not downloading it for nothing is that I'd rather hear it first, rather than have it clutter up my computer, and if I like it, I might give them $10 for a copy of it.

The only time I download music, personally, is when I can't get it in CD format normally and I hate iTunes. Occasionally I ask a friend to send me some songs to see if I like a band, in which case I buy the record.

I can't see how a musician would basically pilfer from other, even if more well off, musicians.

[Mon Rominee]

Originally Posted by TheBigO

Ron, I understand where you are coming from, but I see it a little differently.

Awesome post...I thank you for your thoughts...I hadn't thought of a few of the points you offered! Yes, exposure is definitely key in the long run... I was thinking more along immediate compensation,not the bigger picture, thanks for that.

[IanStephenson]

Originally Posted by TheBigO

Recondly, how many Radiohead fans got the album for nothing knowing that they would be buying the much higher quality CD when it hits stores in December or January? I know a few people that did exactly that. They wanted to hear it right away, but didn't want to pay twice.

That's exactly what I would have done IF I could stand Radiohead.

Downloads suck - low quality (or lower quality at least), and no tangible product, so when your hard disk crashes your screwed. On the other hand I would grab a free copy now, knowing I could get a "real" copy next year.

RH have bagged a whole load of publicity, a whole load of cash, and will sell a whole load of records when it hits the shelves for real next year.

Ian

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by fenderhutz

I read it another article, which I can't find. And they posted the average in US dollars for us.

I dont know if you took this into account or not, but the average person paying $6 was within a 38% bracket, the average doesnt take into account the 62% non-payers. Making the average paid (total) at only being ~$2.30

[Pacman]

Duplicate thread.

[Mon Rominee]

Hey I'm sorry Pac, I didn't realize someone else posted about this...

[dlloyd]

Originally Posted by Mon Rominee

Hey I'm sorry Pac, I didn't realize someone else posted about this...

I think this one was here first.

[Brad Barker]

Originally Posted by fenderhutz

Yeah but the AVERAGE person that did pay about 6 US dollars.

640000 people paid for X 6.00= 3.84 million US dollars or about with no physical distribution or a record company taking 80%.

For album that's been out about a month,

That's pretty good.

Even the best contracts in the music business can't say too often they are paying their artists 3.8 million a month for stellar records sales only, Radiohead did a good thing.

here's my math:

$6 * 0.38 * 1.2 million = $2.74 million

and, no, i didn't pocket the "missing" million.

that's assuming, of course, that every visit to the site resulted in a transaction, which probably isn't the case.

[markjazzbassist]

Originally Posted by Pacman

Duplicate thread.

this thread was first. dave muscato's thread just appeared today, this one has been here for a day or so. plus dave's doesn't have any replies yet.

[louieeadg]

Originally Posted by markjazzbassist

boo media, go radiohead

Booo creepy foot doctor!! Hooooraaaay Beer!