Comments on: Study: Free beats fee for Radiohead's 'In Rainbows'

Research firm ComScore says that 62 percent of those who downloaded album paid nothing. Even with only a minority paying for the album, a former record industry executive estimates that Radiohead may not have done too badly.

[digitalshaman]

RADIOHEAD GETS ALL THE VIG!

the comment that music can bring revenues in for 2 years is a
bad hasty generalization. it depends purely on whether it is an
album or a single and just what music it is ...

look at the top selling albums of all time and you can see a
pattern between generations as well as longsellers that have
been re-released over and over and over again .. did anyone
score tix to led zeppelin?? talk about long sellers

the reality is that only 0.03% of music (about 50-60 albums in
the states) bring in over 50% of the revenues, annually. More,
major label bands only make money 3-5% of the time, and sell
on average just 5K per release (indies is like 1.5K that are of any
significance)

BUT, here is the rub ... most music contracts are advances
against FUTURE royalties ... dont see too many actors signing up
they get an ongoing take as well as up-front.

which brings me to the most important point completely missed,
chuck -- radiohead keeps the money -- it does not get a royalty
check for 12-14% of sales against revenue breakout numbers it
rarely can confirm actuarially. it takes what it can get which ill
bet is better than claim drm can stop copying and p2p is going
away ...

it gets e-mail addresses of its fans -- it knows who paid and
who did not -- THAT IS A REAL BUSINESS!! -- they are selling
music so, the follow-up is, will they make more music under this
model must be compared with what they would be *paid* by the
EMI or any label... the merchandising and touring was always
going to the artists with smaller splits to venues and promoters.

AND... they keep the rights!! so, THEY get to re-release and tour
knowing just who butters their RAINBOW.

i'll throw another example in ... ever hear of ARCTIC MONKEYS
-- maybe you should ... they may be the first true success on
the internet (even if they did later sign with Domino and Warners
for the US)...

[[d i g i t a l i s]]

[digitalshaman]

when did you buy an album??

gee, kid-a, amnesiac, ok-computer come to mind as REAL
albums ... outta-da-blue even the eery music in vanilla sky is a
radiohead piece ...

i digress ... you obviously are not a music fan and for that you
cannot be a "record" fan (rolling stones? that's your example?) -
the record business is now a music business again...

it is not about metallica or any band that is not relevant, or
believed in drm ... those that want to stay relevant will find their
own ways to get closer to the ones who are "willing to pay"

comparing this approach to "cutting the middle man" is a little
naive -- there is just less in the middle ... fact is, they do have a
distribution deal lined up after the "experiement" but they'll get
more than the typical 12-14% that the label counts FOR them...

[umcrouc0]

$3-$5 per CD in royalities?

That's extremely high compared with the 9.1 cent per song standard physical royalty rate. Plus the fact that most people only get paid for 12 songs per CD even if they have more. It generally tops out just over $1 per CD. I'd question how the cost of setting up digital distribution are estimated. The article implies there is a high price associated with it. All you need is to setup a download site and credit card payment. There are companies on the net that offer this service for a few dollar a month running off of your website. As long as you have the bandwidth. So maybe a couple thousand max if they paid someone too much for their website design.

[complex09]

This a phony story made up by comScore!

Something very fishy is going on. This is the reason. Since Radiohead has dropped their record company and the album is only being sold through Radiohead?s website, they are the only people who would definitely know the sales / download number. Radiohead has very publicly said that they will release the information six months after the download release. Why all of the news companies are trusting Comscore company which is a known spammer and spyware installer is beyond me (check Norton and also McAfee).

Who on earth would allow a company to install a monitoring software to watch everything you do online. Especially while purchasing which involves disclosing your credit card numbers. This is called spyware. Not only that but how do they know how much people paid? You did have to pay at least $1 in service processing fees to download the album. Check out the web site!

Here is my take on it. Music companies are paying Comscore to release phony numbers to make the band look silly to prevent other bands from dropping their record company. I bet if there was an investigating reporter they could easily find the story. After all, why is Comscore putting out an effort to tract the Radiohead deal? Someone is paying them. Follow the money.

[tdhowe]

I agree

Something fishy is going on here. My guess is they randomly sampled a few hundred people (at most) they found that had bought the album and then extrapolated to everyone that purchased the album.
Stories like this are just a waste of time until the real numbers are released in the spring. Although maybe they will inspire some people to get the album and pay something reasonable for the download just to stick it to the man (RIAA/MPAA).
My own hope for the numbers is that they will account things like one unique user downloading multiple times or one user returned to pay for the album later after listening to it.

[trevor reekie]

free for all

Colonel Tom Parker who owned Elvis once said 'how much does it
cost if it's free ?' ... the industry has come a full 360

[digitalshaman]

and bill gates said software isn't free ...

... so, the labels are worth less than their pieces (the "acts" they
sign to contaracts) because as with free agency, in any field,
you';ve got catalog that pays for itself (call it a franchise); you've
got new music for which labels have little money to actually
devote investment to GROW a band that may or may not pan out
with any lengthy "promotion" -- anyone purchase rolling stone
or billboard recently? are they relevant? (call it a draft); and you
have folks who know if they want to make a living they better
entertain (call them the "players") ...

whatever you do for a living, it is hard for me to believe you will
not experience the same pressures in your givne field ... the
labels had physical distribution and publishing rights
monopolies but not a monopoly of listener's time (or
attention) ...

kurt cobain was no smiley face but he was on the mark :

"... with the lights out it's less dangerous
here we are now entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
here we are now entertain us ..."

sounds about right ...

[[digitalis]]

[M C]

It's official: ComScore is wrong

As if we didn't know this anyway (assuming the average person who wants ComScore to track them represents the average Radiohead fan is kind of stupid on its very face), Radiohead themselves have debunked this bit of media grandstanding:

"As the album could only be downloaded from the band's website, it is impossible for outside organisations to have accurate figures on sales. The figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project."

But still a good way to get into the news, ComScore, and maybe even some business from companies who don't pay attention well.