Radiohead - In Rainbows : What Are You Paying?

I'll almost certainly buy the regular CD when it shows up. I may or may not download the mp3s in the meantime; if I do I won't pay for them and I won't keep them after a listen or two.

Given that artists usually only receive about £1.22 of a CD sold in the UK, isn't that a good price to pay? As all this is going directly to Radiohead Inc, methinks they might make MORE money from this than going through a record company, no?

they're both interesting experiments in "moral choices."

but it's a fairly broken experiment, no? if it turns out that 75% of the people downloading end up paying $10 or whatever then sure, it's a testament to people's generosity etc etc, but if it turns out 99% of the downloaders pay ten cents, it's too easy to chalk it up to 'trying it out before i buy the real thing' or 'didn't want to wait until december for my discbox' or any number of other valid excuses. not that it won't be interesting to see how it all turns out, but it's a little one sided?

Since this seems to be thread where people are talking about the economics, certainly on the basis of the linked Bob Mould board...

Am I the only person on here in the Neubauten Supporter Project? As far as I can work out, Supporters entirely finance the first print run during subscription leaving all non-supporter sales at profit.

The first attempt was a bit of a failure, and needed Mute to put out Perpetuum Mobile as well. The second attempt, and the release of Grundstueck went a bit better with a proper self-release for both the CD and the DVD (although in different packaging to the supporter versions). This time seems to be going well, with the public release of the album in a couple of weeks (although with less tracks than the supporter album).

In total this time, for my 65Euro I've had (or am getting) the album Alles Wieder Offen in an extended Supporter-only version, a DVD containing at least one live show and decent quality highlights of the webcasted material throughout the project, another free digital album (Jewels) which was available in mp3 or WAV and almost monthly clusters of webcasts (varying from rehearsals to interviews to full live shows).

I think it's been good value, to be honest.

Historic: I bought KidA, the first Radiohead album I bought.

I got "Amn" off d/l, but bought it later.

I got the live one and "hail" off d/l, wasn't fussed about either tbh. would not have bought either.

(Is there an album I missed out there?)

(d/l = free ones natch)

no option for the people who won't get the album, even it is free.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1193/1475809377_95b82a8df1.jpg?v=0

If you can download this album as WAV, FLAC and high bitrate then great. I may do that and then pay them something if I end up liking it. Not interested in physical copy and I don't really like the artwork they've got for this album - seems really flat and uninspired. They should also consider offering (if not 'selling') distinct parts of the recordings separately - this band has always been more remixable than is thought.

not that it won't be interesting to see how it all turns out, but it's a little one sided?

Yes, you're right. Still very interesting to see how this unfolds.

It also won't be a very true representation of how the album is distributed, given that 90% of those who eventually get it for free will do so from bit torrent, rapidshare, etc, - not the Radiohead site.

if they can get it for free from the Radiohead site why not get it from there tho? will be people bothered enough to download it who never go to their site tho i suppose.

Really, if you're going to pay them zero, wouldn't it be a better idea to grab it elsewhere to minimize Radiohead's bandwidth bills? Otherwise you're still costing them a minuscule amount for your free download.

there is a service charge (45p?) added to every order to cover bandwidth / infrastructure costs.

even the free ones?

I think the service charge is there if you put anything other than absolutely nothing.

Really, if you're going to pay them zero, wouldn't it be a better idea to grab it elsewhere to minimize Radiohead's bandwidth bills? Otherwise you're still costing them a minuscule amount for your free download.

-- mh, Wednesday, October 3, 2007 2:09 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

Yeah, but I'm sure a lot of people would want to download it directly from RH, free or not, so that they can contribute to the band's "sales figures" and show their support for this experiment.

show your support by being a leech? odd concept.

I mean as a symbolic gesture, to say "yeah, this pay-as-you-please system is great, look how many people participated in it, more bands should do this."

I mean if it turns out that a couple million people or more download this off RH's site, it'll make the kind of 'statement' they clearly want it to make whether most of those people paid nothing or 99 pounds.

ok, to bolster the numbers.

i think they may do well out of this - fans will pay enough to make it profitable (and may end up paying again for proper cd down the line), non fans won't pay anything but probably wouldn't buy the cd either. their server costs are low and are covered by service charge(?). no middle man. 100% of a fiver is probably more than the usual artist cut from a cd after all.

that said, i am surprised at the number of cheapskates and freeloaders on ilm (and slashdot and...)

> even the free ones?

actually, i don't know. didn't click through to order page as i'm radiohead agnostic.

could the future of radiohead as a band rest on this? should people consider this (either way) when they enter their amount?

can't they just give it away with the News Of The World?

well, another aspect is the lack of packaging that a download only release means, which is a good thing (probably cancelled out by the uberbox, which it does appear is selling well).

i do worry how many copies of, say, the echo and the bunnymen thing that came with the sunday star a few weeks ago just go straight to landfill.

another thing to consider is that they now have all your addresses...

that said, i am surprised at the number of cheapskates and freeloaders on ilm

They've got a business model. It's "loss leader to stimulate interest + high-profit-margin product". It might be new for selling albums, but it's been around forever. Supermarkets often sell products at less than cost. When they do, do we feel morally obliged to give the supermarkets the difference?

i think it's different. ok, a download isn't tangible so there really is no cost for the product (may not even count as a product). but everyone knows that studio time isn't free. thom has to eat (albeit not much)

also, nobody is a *fan* of supermarkets. when was the last time you were interested in the new sainsbury's release?

is interesting. can be argued either way, i guess. i always feel a bit cheap when i get something for nothing and try and return the compliment.

oh, these people have an interesting take too:
http://www.hiddenmusic.co.uk/news/whyfree/
(ie the moment you release anything then anybody can access it for nothing (not legally but...) so you may as well not charge. is a lot like the free software movement.

also, nobody is a *fan* of supermarkets.

Yeah, the psychology of it all is interesting. If a supermarket gives something away for free, no one is going to give money for it. But we have warm, fuzzy feelings towards our favourite band, so we might. Although objectively that doesn't make a lot of sense.

another imperfect analogy: events with a suggested donation for entry.

Like the London Science Museum, you mean

Well, I just think for a lot of people (the 80% who will download this for free who are vaguely interested in a new Radiohead album), it's easier to do their usual bit torrenting (where Radiohead joins a queue alongside anything else) rather than go to a site and sign up etc. I mean, they're not exactly making it hard, but still a tiny bit harder than normal.

xpost
i haven't been, but yeah the only things i've attended using this scheme are museums and rock shows. i always pay it.

... but do i only pay it because PEOPLE ARE WATCHING?? etc

well a lot of those things are nonprofits

> I mean, they're not exactly making it hard, but still a tiny bit harder than normal.

they are making it more *legal* than normal. people seem to forget that.

museums, yes, good point. last couple of times i've been to BM i've gone there to kill 15 minutes. or to see one thing that was shut the time before. and haven't paid. ditto the tate. if i'm going there in order to go there specifically for something (the whiteread boxes) then i do.

look, i pay my taxes, godammit. 8)

(are museums lottery funded, government funded? i forget. i doubt radiohead are)

Museums are primarily funded from central government (we're talking UK right?). For the BM it's about 75% of the funding (I think) but also get money from lottery and supporters and, well, just about everywhere they can get it.

none of the above.

http://blog.limewire.com/posts/564-How-much-did-you-pay-for-the-new-Radiohead-album-

As you probably know, Radiohead's new album, In Rainbows, is currently available for pre-order. Everybody's talking about the band's brilliant marketing plan - - allowing listeners to choose the price they pay for a downloadable copy of their digital album. Quite a unique model.

A co-worker here at Lime Wire decided he wanted to pay $500 for the album. However, the online order form maxed out at £99.99, which came out to $205.81. Come on, Radiohead. People think you're worth more than that.

http://limespot.com/media/7/893,661,159,p,n.png

On Oink there's about 11 different requests in various formats (flac, v0, vinyl rip etc) totalling over 11,000.

So not everyone wants to sign up to download legally.

And of course people will download (illegally) the 2nd disk of tracks.

NOT REAL FANS (XP)

i did 2.50 pounds/$5 + whatever the service fee was...i'd ultimately like to buy it on vinyl without having to spend 80 so hopefully they will do that.

i did $0.00, will buy the regular plain ol CD when it hits the US next (regardless of whether or not it's any good). don't feel guilty in the least.

i paid 1.50 plus 0.45 handling charge for the dl. even though i paid next to nothing, i hope the mp3s are good quality, but i cant imagine them being more than 320kbps, which is still nowhere near cd quality.

i did like who i will be charged by though - 'This transaction will appear on your credit card bill as WASTE PRODUCTS LTD'. radiohead must not like mp3s much either.

W.A.S.T.E. is the name of their company that does their merchandise.

but i cant imagine them being more than 320kbps, which is still nowhere near cd quality.

You what? I thought the consensus was that 256, 320 and cd are indistinguishable by human ears?

Maybe he's not human.

cds have a kbps of 1378.125 kbit/s which is quite a bit more than a 320 kbps mp3.

They"re paying me to listen to it...

(regardless of whether or not it's any good)

why would you buy it if it's no good

Yeah, that seemed strange to me, too.

i did $0.00, will buy the regular plain ol CD when it hits the US next (regardless of whether or not it's any good). don't feel guilty in the least.
-- Beatrix Kiddo, Wednesday, 3 October 2007 22:25 (Yesterday) Link

Ditto

why would you buy it if it's no good
-- dmr, Thursday, October 4, 2007 2:45 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

We are completists

cds have a kbps of 1378.125 kbit/s which is quite a bit more than a 320 kbps mp3

i don't believe anybody who claims they can really hear the difference tho