Radiohead find that most don't pay for the album
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > Radiohead find that most don't pay for the album
Posted on Nov 07, 2007 12:55 pm
tonyoci
Member Since: Jan 24, 2006
Of course this doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands that pirated the thing.
Also interested is that 36% at avg $6 still = $2million +++ with no record company to worry about.
www.breitbart.com/article...;show_article=1
(Excerpts)
Most Fans Paid $0 for Radiohead Album
Nov 6 03:39 PM US/Eastern
LOS ANGELES (AP) - 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.
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.
[ Back to Top ]
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 07, 2007 01:20 pm From the article, they mention that this info is not from radioheads web stats, but rather info obtained from a couple hundred general population internet users who went and downloaded the album. With that being the case, i'm not sure if there was a large enough sample size to know how legit these results are. I'd be more interested to know what the actual totals are from radiohead's site.
Nov 07, 2007 01:34 pm If 200,000 is not a good sample size then I don't know what is :)
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 07, 2007 01:40 pm the sample size as it pertains to radiohead's downloads and revenues are, according to the article, "a few hundred people"
Quote:
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.
but for a random number 200,000 is normally a pretty good sample size.
EDIT:
Also wondering where you're getting your $2 mill ++ figure from...
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Nov 07, 2007 01:48 pm I read an article right after the release that said that only 1/3 of the downloaders paid nothing for it. I don't doubt that less avid fans who waited to download it are less prone to pay for it.
But hell, I applaud them for selling something that was going to eventually be leaked and distributed for free anyways. That's all that happened to their last album.
Personally, I paid $5 (2.5 pounds, hoping my conversion is right). The 160kbps mp3 format was the main reason I didn't pay as much as I would have paid for a CD. Plus, the mp3s dont play on my iPod, so I would have paid even less if I'd known that.
Great album though, their best since OK computer in my opinion. Terrific, makes me feel good all over to listen to it. Can't wait to own it on CD. Although my $5 should be applied towards the CD purchase.
Nov 07, 2007 01:49 pm The beauty of statistical analysis...look at it enough ways, dice it up in the right groups you can make anything say anything.
BeerHunterwww.TheLondonProject.caMember
Since: Feb 07, 2005
Nov 07, 2007 01:50 pm Quote:
Of course this doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands that pirated the thing.
How do you pirate a potentially free album?
Nov 07, 2007 01:51 pm That reminds me of a SpongeBob cartoon where they stole a balloon on Free Balloon Day.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 07, 2007 01:59 pm you can make stats say anything, but those statements don't always stand up to scrutiny...
Nov 07, 2007 02:06 pm There was a big story on how much this album was pirated, the official and legal source was from their website, where you could get it for free, however hundreds of thousands were downloaded on the various bit-torrent networks that were not "legal" hence pirated.
Coolo, I read what you said as a couple of hundred thousand :) The $2million was posted on the blog I found this one, clearly a misunderstanding of the 1.2 million visitors, however other reports do show that it did "sell" 1.2 million -
No need to take it so personal dude, this was not a "lets post some info about Radiohead to make Coolo look bad" thread.
I definitely applaud Radiohead though I think a popular band like them over simplifies the problem. My issue is with the high prices charged for music, CD's and single downloads. Drop the prices and sell more music AND get more of it into the hands of the people doing the works (artists and studios) not the suits.
cooloFrisco's Most UnderratedMember
Since: Jan 28, 2003
Nov 07, 2007 02:14 pm ha ha, i wasn't taking it personal tony, hence the smiley icon with the tongue sticking out... my other comment (stats standing up to scrutiny) was a general one, not directed specifically at you, just responding to db.
however, i am genuinely interested in the results of this "experiment" and would like to see "official" numbers.
also, i fully agree with your entire last paragraph!
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Nov 07, 2007 08:17 pm Ya, the stats being published by these internet companies are not even close. Over the years I have made friends with lots of inside people. And from what I have gathered in bits, Radiohead made out like a bandit. And as well didn't mind the extra download help of the bit torrents that were going around. In fact it sounded as though they almost counted on that happening.
The idea was to get the music out there, and if those who got it liked it enough and wanted better quality then the CD would be purchased at a later time.
For me I pre ordered as I usually do with artists I know I will like. Along with that came a bonus toward the upcoming box set that is in the works.
I have ordered all the NIN media via his website except of course for Pretty Hate Machine. And it was always on a pre order basis. That has gotten me more goodies then you will get buying to from the record store. Some of the material will never be released in the store as well so ordering direct from the artist can pay off in the end.
I too am curious to see what Radiohead has to say in the end.
DiemusikString benderMember
Since: Unknown
Nov 07, 2007 08:43 pm The basic math says they still win at 38%.
The "average" artist is said to earn about $1.00 per CD sale. So lets use easy round numbers and pretend they sold 100,000 that would obviously translate into $100,000. Now 38% of 100,000 is 38,000 times the $6.00 average makes $228,000. Plus like Tony mentioned in the original post there would have been no record company to deal with that would take a bite of that original $1.00 per album too. I hope once the dust settles they post some hard numbers. I think its going to be like Noize said and they will have made out like bandits.
Nov 07, 2007 09:34 pm Diemusik, you've gotta read my stuff in the other thread on Radiohead.
The average artist makes more like 50c per CD and then, most likely, owes that to the record company for all the ridiculous expenses they charge. Most groups that sell 100,000 on a major label end up owing money. Radiohead, as you said, makes out great and next year will sell the thing on CD also.
The problem for me is that this approach is less useful to the small artist.
DiemusikString benderMember
Since: Unknown
Nov 07, 2007 10:09 pm I completely agree. I don't think a small artist would ever make a dime if they tried to sell with this method. I do however like that there are large artist out there that are shaking things up and looking for new ways to do business. That Saul Williams/ Trent Reznor album is being released in a similar way, by $5 download or for free. They are not tied to a label either on that project. Actually I just read an interview with Trent and he is saying now that he is away from the majors he has no plans to go back.
I wish there was a good solution for the small artist.
Nov 08, 2007 02:32 am the model isn't going to work. most people won't pay. this may end up looking, in retrospect, like something that everyone just fell for because it was a rebellious thing to do, and because we were looking for that at the time. i can't see how this would ever be sustainable.
Nov 08, 2007 09:39 am I'm not convinced about that Forty, as the numbers show, even if most people don't pay you still make out well if you're not using a record company and if you're not spending 18 months in the studio to record your album.
I can't figure out all the details but in my opinion young bands should be staying independent, teaming up with companies that make CD's etc. for a good price, and close to giving the music away. Record effeciently, sell your downloads for whatever anyone wants to pay, sell CD's for $5, put Paypal on your site for donations, tour, sell merchandise etc. etc.
The problem is that most bands want to "make it big" if everyone was happy earning the equivalent of a good salary then the system would work a lot better. A small indie band should be happy selling 10,000 downloads but they want 100,000 or 1,000,000 and for that you really start needing promotion. I read tons of music biographies and all the old bands, The Who, Genesis etc. talk about how much more expensive it became once the business became, single, video and promotion based.
Nov 08, 2007 12:51 pm many of the people that are springing for this now are doing so for the novelty, though, too, don't forget. big news coverage and a feeling of excitement that won't last...
Nov 08, 2007 02:47 pm But what's interesting right, is that I am a notorious music pirater (OK I admit it) but I much prefer to buy my music from AllofMp3 or similar. So I am willing to pay for music that is reliable, quality, a good catalog etc. Of course I'm only paying $2 for a CD but to me that's living proof that if you reduce the price people will pay and buy more.
I'm not really saying all music should be free but I think it should be a hell of a lot cheaper. There was some study that showed that if a single download was 10c they would sell 15 times as many = more profits.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Nov 08, 2007 05:48 pm Its the simple fact that the artists doing this are giving the buyer an option. Lower price for a bit lower quality. Which is what an mp3 is going to be. Higher price and you get a CD or high bit rate down loadable file.
I do believe though that this is gong to take awhile to catch on. Look how long it took the CD to become the media of choice for almost everyone. This will be the same kind of thing, slow moving but eventual success.
