62% of people who downloaded Radiohead's new album opted to pay $0.00

Dave Muscato · #1 11-07-2007, 04:06 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/...download_study

I saw this and had to share.

So much for it all averaging out, huh?

I suppose if they charge $150/ticket to make up for it, it will.

What's happening to our industry??

dancehallclasher · #2 11-07-2007, 04:28 AM

What's happening to our industry is that Radiohead is scaring the pants off it, which is a very good thing. It still adds up to $2.7 million that goes directly to the band with no label middlemen skimming off the top (or rather, skimming off everything but the bottom). They're beholden to nobody, under contract to nobody, and making millions all by themselves, without even charging a set price. Not to see this as a big win for them is to ignore how much the industry screws most artists.

Phil Mailloux · #3 11-07-2007, 04:30 AM

I paid 1 pound for it. Looking at those figures, if 1 million people downloaded the album and 40% paid an average of 6$ each, then that's more than 2 million dollars straight in their pockets.

They probably made more money than any other album they made before.

dancehallclasher · #4 11-07-2007, 04:40 AM

^^^yeah, a band on a major generally makes what, $1 per album sold? Radiohead made more than double that.

So what's with the "so much for it all averaging out" comment? Take a minute to do the math

**Pacman** · #5 11-07-2007, 04:41 AM

It shows that 62% of their "fans" are selfish, and don't really care about hearing from the band again. Sad, but not really surprising.

sensible68 · #6 11-07-2007, 04:53 AM

"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."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

It shows that 62% of their "fans" are selfish, and don't really care about hearing from the band again. Sad, but not really surprising.

well, alternatively they are people who wouldn't ordinarily buy a radiohead album, so radiohead may now have a few more fans?

I reckon the real fans will probably buy the tangible media regardless.

Depth_Charge · #7 11-07-2007, 05:33 AM

I got the album from a torrent site since the download wouldn't work from their site.

No matter where I got it from, or what I paid for it, it would have sucked all the same (for me at least).

The Mock Turtle Regulator · #8 11-07-2007, 06:08 AM

the 62% aren't fans, they're people attracted by all the publicity over the "name your price " offer. but they might be induced to go watch radiohead live, or pick up a back catalogue album.

the fans are the people who paid $10 or so- who would have bought it on CD anyway- and probably will when it's thus released.

it's important to remember that Radiohead are in this great position of having a huge name and a strong fanbase through having been promoted, distributed and generally supported by a major label previously.

...I can't stand Radiohead though.....

Tony G · #9 11-07-2007, 06:10 AM

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=377653

brianrost · #10 11-07-2007, 07:23 AM

I'm not surprised at all, in fact I expected results like that. It correlates well to earlier studies about file-sharing behavior. As an earlier post points out, if the band has brought in over $2 million then they made out more than OK.

The record, movie and software industries often inflate their "losses" by making the flawed assumption that every unpaid copy is a lost sale when in reality most of those people would not have bought the product if they had to pay for it.

I'm sure the 38% who did pay are in fact the bulk of Radiohead's fan base and the 62% were mostly just curious since the download scheme got a lot of press coverage.

Philbiker · #11 11-07-2007, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancehallclasher

What's happening to our industry is that Radiohead is scaring the pants off it, which is a very good thing. It still adds up to $2.7 million that goes directly to the band with no label middlemen skimming off the top (or rather, skimming off everything but the bottom). They're beholden to nobody, under contract to nobody, and making millions all by themselves, without even charging a set price. Not to see this as a big win for them is to ignore how much the industry screws most artists.

They would virtually unknown if it weren't for the industry "screwing" them by marketing, promoting, and distributing their earlier works.

dancehallclasher · #12 11-07-2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philbiker

They would virtually unknown if it weren't for the industry "screwing" them by marketing, promoting, and distributing their earlier works.

1) It's a question of money allocation, first of all. If you're the average band who gets signed to a major, you're not going to get a fair share of the distribution budget compared to the latest manufactured pop starlet that your label thinks will sell more than you (which may be true, and I know it's business, but it's bad business for your average band who really has to hustle to pay its dues).

2) They wouldn't need the label's help to that extent if there weren't an entrenched system of payola to cut through and DJs were allowed to play what is, in their best judgment, good music. This is something that bands like Radiohead are changing. People are getting fed up with the radio and going to other sources -- mainly the internet -- to see what really is the best the music world has to offer. Take the meteoric rise of, say, the Decemberists or the Arcade Fire. It never could have happened without the internet, if people had to rely on the radio to hear good new music. Clear Channel would rather play more N*Sync than take a chance on interesting indie music.

Depth_Charge · #13 11-07-2007, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philbiker

They would virtually unknown if it weren't for the industry "screwing" them by marketing, promoting, and distributing their earlier works.

Thats' what I keep thinking. It would be much more impressive if a band made it on their own and didn't have the backing of a corporation to build a massive fan base in the first place. Ahh, pipe dreams

morf · #14 11-07-2007, 08:58 AM

I think that's a damn good number, considering. It means that 48% of fans are actually willing to pay for that album. Thats a HUGE number IMHO.

morf · #15 11-07-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Depth_Charge

Thats' what I keep thinking. It would be much more impressive if a band made it on their own and didn't have the backing of a corporation to build a massive fan base in the first place. Ahh, pipe dreams

Oh? How about The Arctic Monkeys? AFAIK they made it on their own, how you ask? Sharing each of their songs online. That's how they got picked up.

ehque · #16 11-07-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philbiker

They would virtually unknown if it weren't for the industry "screwing" them by marketing, promoting, and distributing their earlier works.

Good music markets itself, provided some shrewd business sense is involved.

I'm not saying "the industry" doesn't work, but it's definitely not the only way to get your music out there and get known.

It's like those internet pharmacies. You can advertise all you want, but if you're selling blue chalk tablets with the V chiseled into them with a screwdriver, you're not going to get much sold.

MysticMichael · #17 11-07-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philbiker

They would virtually unknown if it weren't for the industry "screwing" them by marketing, promoting, and distributing their earlier works.

I wouldn't grieve too much for the music industry. It has a way of extracting its pound of flesh - regardless of whether the band ever gets its due. Its time has come - and is now going. The big question is: How will the new music industry look? And what measures can be taken to prevent it from ever becoming as predatory as the industry it is replacing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Depth_Charge

It would be much more impressive if a band made it on their own and didn't have the backing of a corporation to build a massive fan base in the first place. Ahh, pipe dreams

It's more than a pipe dream. It's in process of happening already...

MM

ehque · #18 11-07-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticMichael

How will the new music industry look? And what measures can be taken to prevent it from ever becoming as predatory as the industry it is replacing?

It's capitalism man, no way around it!

Unless, get Google to run the thing.

IB3K · #19 11-07-2007, 10:55 AM

There's a double post going, and I meant to post here. Anyway.

Just doing napkin math. So say $6 * .38 * 1.2M= $2.74M

According to SoundScan between November 1st 2002 and October 31st 2003 Hail To The Thief sold 1,806,000 units. That's a YEAR's worth of sales. Say they get 20% of $6.50 which would be $1.3 per unit. That's $2.35M. So they are $390,000 AHEAD just in the first month or so. If you were to stop the downloads right now and invest the money conservatively you would be close to $0.5M ahead just on what has happened with the downloads (if the numbers are accurate). And I would imagine there was WAY less headaches to make that amount in terms of distribution problems. Also this excludes revenue from the box set that they put out. Obviously there is production and distribution costs for that, but just 35k units or so would match the $3M in gross. You would have to know costs to press vinyl and the CD's and build the packaging to see what they keep from that. This also excludes future download revenue and all the revenue from the box sets.

Another thing is evaluating what this does for their fan base, which would translate to higher merchandising demand. How many more people were exposed to their music and of those how many became fans? So to look at the 60% that didn't pay is really looking in the wrong area IMHO.

I don't know if you can say it's an overwhelming success, but you CAN'T say it's a failure. Or put another way, if I were a record company I wouldn't be jumping for joy right now. In fact I'd probably be ****ing myself.

Philbiker · #20 11-07-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dancehallclasher

2) They wouldn't need the label's help to that extent if there weren't an entrenched system of payola to cut through and DJs were allowed to play what is, in their best judgment, good music.

I disagree with this starry-eyed idealistic sentiment, nice as it is. Musical quality is routine, not something special. There are so many excellent independant artists that there is no way that there could ever be any kind of cohesive music scene without the guidance of some kind of distributionship mechanism. People don't go searching for great new music, they want it brought to them.

When was the last time you went on Myspace and just listened to random artists for a few hours at a time. For every 8 or 10 stinkers there is at least one real genuine talent that could easily sell on a major. Who wants to go wading through all that crap to find the good stuff? Certainly not radio program directors whose job is to play what sells commercials.

The music business, corrupt and shady as it is, does an important service. Sometimes not very well, but they do something.

There is no doubt, however, that the industry is being shaken to its core right now, undergoing profound change. Perhaps they can shed some of the deadwood.