Radiohead criticized as band shuts down 'In Rainbows' promotion
One of the recording industry's most daring experiments ended on Monday. Three months after Radiohead stunned the music industry by allowing fans to pay whatever they wanted for the album, In Rainbows, the band has now opted for a more traditional sales approach.
That was fast.
Just weeks ago, the group was being congratulated for laying the groundwork for a new business model that pundits said could one day save the music industry. But as Radiohead prepares to distribute songs the old-fashion way--selling CDs out of retail stores--not everybody is cheering.
Nicky Wire, a member of the Manic Street Preachers, a rock band whose hits include "Send Away The Tigers," told a news publication last week that Radiohead's offer "demeans music."
"Fair play to Radiohead for doing something different," Wire told the United Kingdom's Daily Star. "It's certainly great publicity, but I think it kind of demeans music. Music used to be a market; now it's all gone digital. It's worrying (that) cinema is doing well, video games are doing well, but music isn't. The free-download phenomenon is ruining the industry."
Such statements are heresy to the "free" culture, but Wire may be right to question whether Radiohead's experiment was a success.
Nobody other than Radiohead and its handlers know how much money the groundbreaking promotion generated, and they aren't sharing figures with the public. Nonetheless, there are signs that the revenue was less than spectacular.
Last month, ComScore, a traffic-tracking company, stirred controversy when it estimated that 62 percent of those who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying a cent for the music.
The band called ComScore's figures, which were calculated by tracking a sample group, "wholly inaccurate."
The obvious question now is why would Radiohead kill the promotion and go back to a traditional sales model if the cash were rolling in?
The album is still in its infancy, say music industry executives. The economic life span of an album can last as long as two years. It starts when an act releases a record and is extended when the performer goes on a concert tour.
"For those of you who wish to buy In Rainbows in the usual way," said a message at Radiohead's site on Tuesday, "it will be available on CD/vinyl and download from traditional outlets from the 31st December 2007."
Several publications have also reported that Radiohead is negotiating to make In Rainbows available on iTunes.
You can argue that the reason to pull the plug on the offering is to give the band a chance to tap into the shrinking but lucrative CD market. Discs are still the way most people listen to music.
But if the pay-what-you-want promotion was a cash cow, why not keep it going at the same time that you sell CDs? If the digital and CD markets are separate then there's no fear of undercutting disc sales. If they are not, then hasn't the high-profile online promotion already doomed physical sales?
And then there are the statements made this weekend by the group's manager, Chris Hufford, in an interview with the The New York Times. He indicated that the In Rainbows strategy was a one-off.
"This was a solution to a series of issues," Hufford told the Times. "I doubt it would work the same way ever again."
He's not saying the promotion was a bust, but neither is he hollering, "Eureka, we've discovered the new paradigm!"
There's no doubt that Radiohead's gutsy move scored points with fans. Another benefit is that other performers who follow Radiohead's experiment, such as rapper Saul Williams, are sure to learn much from their experiences. They might even improve on the idea.
Last month, Williams launched an offering similar to Radiohead's but tweaked it so people would have more motivation to plunk down money. At the same time he gave away a digital version of his album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardus, Williams offered a higher quality download that could only be obtained with a $5 donation.
At this point, it looks like Radiohead began a discussion. There's plenty still to be debated.
- Topics:
-
Media
- Bookmark:
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
knew that all the tech savvy people were going to get their
hands on a leaked pre-release for free anyway, so they made a
big publicity stunt out of it. And now that all the downloaders
have their copy, they're discontinuing the free downloads and
putting out the official physical disc for everyone else who isn't
a free download ***** (all guilty here).
What are we going to do to save the music industry? Hopefully
that whole thing about bands barely making any money of
album sales will hold true, and artists will be able to make
money off of live performances and the other whorish crap we
have to do. Maybe people don't deserve good music anymore.
Radiohead released a low bit rate version of their own record in
place of the unauthorized leaks that they've experienced with
their last three records. They hoped it would drum up interest...
it did. Even if it didn't fundamentally change the distribution of
music, it's still a proof of concept with regards to limited free
access. It's expensive to run their servers, and if they're not
making that much cash off of them then they might as well shut
them down and let the trading go peer to peer from here on out.
I think the Manic Street Preachers, who have been desperate for
a hit for quite a while, don't necessarily have the best standing
when it comes to the degradation of music as an enterprise.
Video games have created new content management paradigms
that have yet to be realized by the music world, and movies have
been in free fall since the mid nineties. Music was degraded by
an industry that sold fifteen dollar CDs with one good song that
scratched up and got lost, not by internet file sharing.
Further, I think it's the music industries fault for exploiting
content in the way it has for the last fifty years. Music used to
be an artificial market, artificially inflated in price because of the
unavailability of the means of production. Now the big five (or is
it the big three these days) don't have their sandbox, and they're
not smart enough to figure out a new way to make it.
Radiohead never said they would make money on this. They
enjoyed messing with people, and they know that the festival
dates their going to play next summer will payout at about a
million a piece, so they're not worrying. I think it's way too soon
to be calling their coup a success or failure though. It's a
different paradigm, let it all play out.
Experiments like Radiohead's, and stores like AllOfMp3.com etc. really argue the price point. People would actually spend more on music if they could buy it by the track (insted of by the album), and for about 10c to 20c per song. $1 per song is an unreasonably high price.
This is a question of pricing however. DRM issues are related to *interoperability* and *fair use*. No matter what pricing structure you use, there will always be people who will get their music for free if they can. Just like pricing any common goods doesn't prevent theft at a grocery store, pricing songs correctly won't prevent piracy. And the problem extends to other media as well -- songs might reach 10c/track at some point -- but this will never happen for movies, for example. And at even say $10/movie, people will still be using bittorrent. So DRM is really an inevitable reality.
Enter interoperability (and hopefully the government or courts). We need someone to really nail down and define what rights we have as consumers, and regulations that ensure that all DRM systems protect those rights. i.e. I *should* be able to buy a track from iTunes and use it on a Zune if I so choose. I *should* be able to rip music from a CD and use it in my iPod or Zen or both. I *should* be able to buy one single copy of a song, and distribute it within all members of my family, and all devices we own, irrecpective of manufacturer, but no further distribution than that.
So we really need the government to step in and nail these rights and enact legislation that says that any DRM system must adhere to the interoperability guidelines above, and must be at least modelled around this abstract unit called a household.
1. I could do it - legally!
2. I did not hear the album first (and I could do that if I was to my local record store)
3. IT IS IN MP3 LOW QUALITY (160 kbps) FORMAT! I mean, this is not CD quality!
So, for me, what I got was a product sample, not a *real* album. In my home stereo, you CAN hear the difference between any lossy format (WMA, MP3, AAC...) and a *real* CD.
So, the real question should be: WHY WOULD I PAY FOR THIS?
Now that I have the album, if I like it and I want a full quality CD, I should buy one in the record shop.
But hey- we're used to it. It's the only way we talk about paying for music. I had a problem with the Radiohead thing for the same reasons as mentioned- can't hear it first, low quality. But my main gripe was that even with the pay what you like model, they are still focussed on paying by the unit.
My suggestion is to drop the pay by the song/CD model and use the low quality song files as advertising for the real payment scheme- signing up fans as sponsors. A sponsor might have access to exclusive material, or first dibs on tickets, or any number of perks. A fan base of a few thousands could support a mid to low level act much much better than record sales.
Every one of my sponsors is special to me- we are doing something together, rather than me being the manufacturer and they being the consumer. Interesting way to be about it.
www.somewhereoutwest.com
I never considered the possibility that the digital download would be available forever. I figured it would eventually go away once the actual CD was released.
I love Radiohead for the way they change things up. To me, they are the best band of the last 15 years. Even if they didn't leave this pay what you want thing up for a very long time, it rattled a lot of cages, it brought about a tremendous amount of dialog and made many people question the music industry, so in that aspect, I think they succeeded in what they set out to do.
media even if it is dotcom big media.
People purchased the music directly from artist and it DOESN'T
matter how much they paid for it or how they got it.
This fact seems to raise eyebrows on a dotcom who paid
millions of dollars for mp3.com and couldn't even sell a single
mp3.
People, artists and cheap bandwidth or P2P. It is the sad fact,
people started to hate "big" everything. Big record companies,
big software vendors, big MEDIA, big NEWS SITES who thinks
everyone is stupid but they are clever.
Thanks to Radiohead for showing who is actually against
independent market.
equipment, high end DSP software enabled Mac and also low end
stuff like mobile phone without any tweak.
It is standard 160Kbps VBR mp3. That is what I would use if I
purchased the audio CD and ripped it.
I think some people doesn't understand the fact that it is a
concept rock album of 2000s. These guys and similar ones
distort the sound, tweak the sounds, use lo-fi drum machines
ON PURPOSE. It doesn't change the fact that mp3 is possibly
done from studio 24bit/36 bit masters.
If people look up "lo fi", "drum and bass", "distortion", "vintage
guitar equipment" , they will understand that the music sounds
low end on purpose.
and the music, but they've head their head up their collective
***** for a long time. Probably Thom Yorke has an elaborate
Statement he thinks he is making... Or Apple just moneyhatted
them into bringing their catalogue over to iTunes finally.
Ironically, I think the model of "Pay What You Want" will endure
for both the digital distribution of independent music and films.
And such a model is hardly "killing" independent music. In fact,
it is fostering independent artistry when anyone can toss their
album or film up on a website and say, "Hey, Pay whatever for it!"
Of course, that kind of model won't make you rich, and you
certainly can't live the rock-n-roll lifestyle of Hookers and Blow
off of those sales. Hence the complaints about the Pay Whatever
mode killing music are really code for the Pay Whatever Model
returning music and films back into a Working Profession, not an
Opportunity to hit the Powerball lotto.
But I thought it was about the music, right guys?
Yeah, right.
Some paid alot, some paid very little and other didn't pay at all. Some simply downloaded it off the net via a p2p network. Which ever way you got your copy, the entire experience gave Raidohead a glimpse into the current "Free" culture.
It worked quite well for years as people could listen to and even tape songs from radio. But gladly bought music they heard that they liked. If artists gave away compressed, limited frequency range music of similar quality to FM radio there are some people who would download that to hear it and then buy the higher quality. The artist gets the free exposure and the sales. There are others who would just keep the lower quality and be happy with it. But those people probably wouldn't buy the music in any case.
Those paying $0 would be clearly identified and regularly referred to with some sort of mild sarcastic comment letting them know the band really appreciates getting absolutely nothing for all their effort.
Those who paid the "peferred amount or above" would have scrolls on the screen paying repeated thanks and with actual notes of appreciation to those who paid the most.
Combining the negative and the positive in order to get the most people to do at least the minimum expected thing is very effective.
It's utterly inane though to expect people to do the right thing when doing the wrong thing they get the same as paying members and can do so anonymously.
Those who paid nothing will feel like real dikheds for being such tightwads towards a band they supposedly like.
Finally provide a "what do you think/have your say about this" forum on the site.
The band would NOT have to tell anyone to do this, but you can bet 90% of the posts will consist of paying "true" fans ripping the freeloading fans a new ******** for being cheapskate losers for downloading without paying a dime.
This would probably have made it worthwhile.
However anyone seeking a solution like this in order to get near universal buy-in is a fool.
It's human nature to take something worth money when its offered for free without giving anything for it. It's not good or bad. It's human nature.
- Radiohead should know better...
-
by rhines61
December 17, 2007 9:06 AM PST
- Any band that buys into this notion that giving away its music is somehow a viable business model is crazy. Music is a commodity, a product and should be sold. The challenge is how to use this new technology to the advantage of the band. If you want to give your products away you have every right, just don't complain when your broke and out of business.
-
Reply to this comment
View
reply
-
-
See all 33 Comments >>