Radiohead - In Rainbows : What Are You Paying?

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

I'm surprised you're saying that. You always want to download flac or wavs don't you?

only for editing with, not for general listening. i'm happy enough with mp3 as long as the bitrate is high enough (i tend to favour anything higher than 192 inc. VBR just 'in case'), the same way i'm happy with JPEGging all my photos at between 66-75% quality just for looking at on screen as opposed to printing out.

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

on good speakers it is remarkably easy. by their very nature MP3s roll off frequencies after 15k regardless of bitrate.

if your home system is big and dedicated (mine isn't as i don't really have the space) perhaps you'd notice as that's the only situation you're likely to listen intently enough?

How many discboxes do you think Radiohead will have sold?

Eight million kajillion.

(warning: paper napkin math and wild estimation follows)

As far as Radiohead's revenue goes, if they sell 25,000 discboxes, and make 40 dollars profit on each one (That's with the estimate that the other 40 dollars would go to packaging and shipping costs), that'll be 1 million dollars profit.

Under the old big label model, that would be the equivalent of selling 1 million albums, assuming they only make about a dollar on each one, with the rest of the revenue going to the label for various costs.

So, using those estimates, they'd make as much money selling 25K discboxes as 1 million CDs. If they make more than 40 dollars profit on each discbox, as they likely will, then they don't even need to sell 25K discboxes.

None of this counts the amound they'll pull in cumulatively for people voluntarily paying for the download, either.

Since you's have bought eight million kajillion discboxes, we don't have to make money by touring any more, (don't) see ya, suckaz!

thom

I paid about $6 ([pound symbol]2.90).

i paid £3.03 and was pleased to find a link to a youtube clip of derrick may discussing "strings of life" on radiohead's website.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Anyone else paid or registered for a download?

Rock legends back Radiohead plan

I wonder what time they'll send out emails.

Indeed. Will there be server chaos?