Comments on: People do pay for music

CNET Blog Network contributor Gordon Haff is shaking his head at much of the media coverage of downloading Radiohead's album.

[the Otter]

My thoughts exactly.

I?m one of the ?freeloaders,? and I?ve got to say that that?s the only price I would
ever think to pay for a Radiohead album. Why? Because I?m not familiar with them
and if it hadn?t been for this free download, I still wouldn?t be.

To be fair, I haven?t actually listened to it yet; I?ve probably got too much
unlistened-to stuff in my iTunes Library to *ever* listen to it all. But if, once I do
listen to it, I find that I like it, that gives me the impetus to buy more Radiohead
stuff and bam! they?ve got a new fan and more than enough income to offset the
one free album.

In short, Radiohead?s got more of a clue that the entire RIAA combined. Get real,
guys.

[russkeller]

I just lost a $600 Music Library

DRM BLOWS! Now that Urge switched to Rhapsody I just lost my entire library.

I really really wanted to belive in this stuff but the Music Industry dosn't have it down. I just paid that price the hard way and they're only response is oh well we got your money. Apparently the disreputable file sharing services are the ONLY reliable online method of getting music.

[bledsoe812]

I'm interested to know...

how much money an average artist retains from an album sale under normal record label contract. I would assume Radiohead is retaining all "donations" from this album. If the $2.38 they are averaging now is higher than what they would retain under normal record label contracts, then how could anyone consider this trial a failure? Oh yeah, the record labels don't want you to think that.

[HardwareGeeks]

If you do the Math

If you do the math and average what they made between every single download.

They made 2.28 cents, 10 cents less than they would of made with the Music Industry. But hey thats still a lot of money and propts to radio head to show you don't have to be a label to make money.

[SergioEscamilla]

They don't make it easy for you...

I payed £4.90 for In Rainbows considering Radiohead is my favorite band. I live in Mexico, and it is hard to get some CD's and Carlos Slim the richest man in the world (mexican) owns every music record store in Mexico, therefore variety is not an option.
I (illegally, considering I live outside the US) subscribed to URGE service and payed my 14.95 a month, I really believe that people should pay for music! I continue buying CD's when I like the album! and now with the switch to Rhapsody, just like russkeller I lost an entire library, what are my options? considering I cannot use any subscription music services outisde the US except Rhapsody and it sucks!! The only, is downloading it DRM-Free illegally! mp3 is the only thing you can trust!
I wish Radiohead demonstrates that the music industry MUST change!

[texashale]

Kudos to Radiohead

Back when the whole Knapster thing was going on, Offspring was in support of Knapster and Metallica was opposed. Well, I though that Offspring was ok, but that was about it, until they showed their support. I don't listen to Offspring, but I am a fan. I did like Metallica a lot before then, now I don't listen to them much anymore and I am definitely NOT a fan anymore. I have liked Radiohead in the past, but now I am a fan. I haven't d/l their album, but I intend to. The RIAA is getting their just deserts if you ask me, think about how many producers and record exec's who have gotten filthy rich off of screwing musicians (think of John Fogerty and how he was screwed out of revenue from CCR!) I truly hope that Radiohead gets all the money from selling their album online and I hope it is the beginning of the end for the RIAA! LONG LIVE ROCK AND ROLL!!! :-)

[Mr Twain]

CNET Started It

I'm glad to read this - as it corrects much of the negative spin that CNET blogger Greg Sandoval started about "In Rainbows" in his entry on the news Blog of Novemeber 5th. Yep - CNET were the first naysayers on this subject. Who woulda thunk it?

[Stephen Russell]

Free download to put your butt in a concert Seat.

Radiohead knows that 2.00 per disk is childs play in making real money. Now getting you to cough up 60.00 for a 90 min concert on the other hand is true marketing.

Think of this as "Marketing 521" in the graduate school of the music business.

Smart move band. I wish more bands got the idea. Some do on bt.etree.org They allow you hear the concert knowing that a fan will pay tooth and nail to see them LIVE!

[sethum1]

How does $2.7 million compare?

With 38% of 1.2 million downloaders paying an average of $6, Radiohead apparently raked in $2,736,000 of pure revenue direct to the artists, right? I wonder how that compares to their usual haul from physical CD sales after the retailers, record label companies, manufacturers, packagers, shippers, marketers, etc. all take their cut.

I hope, for Radiohead's sake and independent artists everywhere, that this is a viable business model.

[ghaff]

Higher portion of revenues certainly

As a successful band, Radiohead might well have had a better label deal than the average musician and they have at least some costs associated with selling music this way. But I think it fair to say that they keep a significantly higher proportion of the revenues this way. 2x, 5x I don't know, but significant.

[dwaynencsu]

Cost of the songs

I wounder how much the artist even make off of a CD. When you figure in the cost of all the people at the record label and the retail stores, ~$2.50 for a CD of songs might not have been that bad for them,

[ksteed]

Smarter than the average bear

I think Radiohead is smart to promote themselves in this way. Who cares what the stats say. They have enough money to go around, and it's probably why they did this. Plus they don't ***** themselves out on iTunes, which I think is smart. They are a very organic band, doing things differently, and I guess when you do something like offer your new cd for a "pay-what-you-want" price then you'll get this sort of world wide attention.

Clever boys.

-Kyle Steed
http://www.kylesteed.com/blog

[crampi]

Is my math wrong?

Considering:

> The 38 percent who did cough up cash paid an average of $6 each. A total of 1.2 million people downloaded the album.

1.2 million x 0.38 = 0.456 million people payed money for the album.

0.456 x $6 average = $2.736 million dollars!

That doesn't sound to bad considering I would think its all going to Radiohead, no physical CDs to produce, and no record label in the middle.

[protagonistic]

RE: Radiohead

It is nice to see a little sanity on this subject. But, you have to remember that
much of the news outlets these days are owned by companies with a stake in
the music industry. Hence, it is in their own best interests to promote the
idea that this experiment is a big failure.

As you mention in your article many people do pay for their music and I am
one of them. I do not buy CD's that come via the RIAA. I have several sources
of DRM free music with artists that are every bit as good as the artists
promoted by the RIAA. And the artist actually gets a fair cut of the sales. The
RIAA is dying and they can't figure out why. Well, if you refuse to change you
are going to eventually go away.

[rwi11i]

An Awesome Payday!

For a band with a typical record contract, 1.2 million CD sales could end up
producing ZERO money for the band. Why? Because the label charges the
band for recording costs, video costs, tour support, etc. These costs can
easily top 1 or 2 million dollars. Depending on how much a band earns per
CD, the band could end up OWING the label money after selling a measly 1.2
million CD's. In Radiohead's case, they earned 2.7 million dollars in a very
short time. In the "record label world" Radiohead would have had to have sold
over 3 million CD's to earn that kind of money, and would have had to wait
months or longer for the label to actually cough up the money. THIS EVENT IS
A TOTAL SUCCESS FOR ARTISTS EVERYWHERE.

[TaintDeli]

But what about...

...the people who D/L'ed for free and then came back and paid after listening? I, for one, downloaded the album from a Torrent site the day it was released (Radiohead's site was swamped). After listening to it, I really liked it and went and paid them $10 a few days later. There are very few artists I will buy a CD from without hearing it before dropping $10-15. Surely there are others who feel the same way.

I was reluctant to pay for 160k MP3s, but I really believe in what they are doing and wanted to show my support. If they offer FLAC in the future I will gladly pay $20!

[ghaff]

That is another problem with the data

As far as I know, it counted downloads rather than unique downloads. I can also imagine people downloading to 2 separate computers because it was easier that way. And you're also right about the quality--although I suspect that the number of people who take that sort of thing into account is a fairly small minority.