Free Radiohead Album (merged)

rabid

Yes, there did seem to be some confusion in the beginning, which is why I performed a test. It would be very strange if it randomly chose to ask you!

Yes, the minimum payment would be 46p. IIRC I have seen articles implying (and heard on the radio) that you can download it for a minimum of 45p though. I can only assume that they have gotten confused.

I read one article - may have been in the telegraph or perhaps NME - which discussed the average price paid. They suggested that most people were chosing to pay, and then quoted a few URLS of blogs and forums as their source - none of which had more than a few responses! Hmm, overwhelming evidence there...

inspace

The overwhelming evidence you refer to I guess is the MSE poll - remember thers quite a few hardcore money savers on here and possibly a lot less true fans than are posting on other polls on music sites so the balance may be well out.

We will probably never know as radiohead say they wont release any data about amount of sales and figures wont count towards chart placements because of this.

Pay what you think the album is worth - I for one wish I had paid slightly more than I did as its a top notch album but dont feel to bad as it is only a 160kb mp3 so it balances out. I will buy it later whemn on full cd release.

rabid

inspace wrote: »

The overwhelming evidence you refer to I guess is the MSE poll

I'm sorry, I guess I wasn't clear; it was actually sarcasm. The article was reporting findings that, when investigated, appeared to be based on the response of ten or fifteen users.

The response to this thread is one of the best I've seen, although I'd be interested to see the results from whatpricedidyouchoose.com. As you say, many users have come here as savers on the promise of a free album, rather than fans on the promise of a new album from one of their favourite bands. The result is bound to be different.

stov

This album is fantastic...alright i only paid £2! This is Radiohead at their best!:j

rabid

A few stats from The Times.

Edna_Bucket_2

stov wrote: »

This album is fantastic...alright i only paid £2! This is Radiohead at their best!:j

Don't worry - many of us only paid zero!

rabid

And it goes on...

Radiohead Fans Feel Duped By In Rainbows' Poor Sound Quality, Possible Ulterior Motives

lofielectronic

cmrule wrote: »

They aren't stupid.. they know that people are going to download it for free and they will make their money back. Its all over the news today that people can pay what they like for it... a lot of people will just download it because they have heard it all over the news nd want to see what all the fuss is about, and some of those people will become big fans and end up buying previous albums and future albums. It all good publicity at the end of the day.

I think this whole thing was addressed very well over at the Gusset blog last week...

Name Your Price
"Why the record industry is terrified of Radiohead's new album
Radiohead are the latest – and greatest – band to shun the conventional CD release. Their new album is available online – and you don't have to pay for it*"

* Actually, you're asked to pay what you think it is worth, but you can make that as low as a penny, which was far as the press is concerned means it's free.

The album, In Rainbows, is released tomorrow as a download and you can pre-order a box set of double vinyl, double CD (including non-download bonus material), book, photographs etc etc for £40.
This has triggered debate in the office, as I'm sure it has in many other places.

The old school are arguing it will never take off as an idea because of the financial backing of a big labelled needed to make "quality" releases. But that doesn't take into consideration how the industry has changed over the last few years. Costs of recording albums have fallen through the floor, and high-quality recording equipment is now available at prices affordable to almost anyone. The upfront costs of making a recording can now be almost ignored apart from the most lavish of productions.

The public are also used to being able to get music free (illegally) and so want to see some justification for what they spend. Some people want to see lavish packaging to justify the price, others just want a crappy quality low-cost version that's good enough for listening to on headphones. Artists have to provide for both of these and everything in between (in this case the extremes are dealt with only). Considering how much you get with this Radiohead box the 40 quid seems like a good deal (even if Radiohead do bore the pants off of me and do very little that isn't recycling ideas from lesser known artists).

It's hardly a ground breaking idea; many people have done this already. Many vinyl only labels make all of their releases available for free as downloads (eg Clash / Kris as MP3s, there is another that gives away links to FLAC downloads with their vinyl but I can't remember their name right now).
However, I'm impressed to see such a big name doing it. Taking distribution away from the majors and allowing artists to connect directly to their fan base is the way forward. It's been working for Prince for years. The only thing the major labels can still contribute to this is the PR backing to break new artists, but increasingly artists can grow a fan base without that sort of financial backing through myspace or similar. The majors know this and hence every major band you can think of have an official myspace page in an attempt to retain credibility and to minimise exposure of lesser knowns. You wouldn't want an imitator getting your exposure now would you?

Other forms of media are going the same way, with journalism increasingly relying on bloggers. Just flick through any newspaper and note how much content is recycled from online material that is weeks old. It's rife from The Metro through to The Guardian. As Scott Adams predicted again last week:
"I also imagine the business model for bloggers changing. Now bloggers run ads and make money based on the traffic to their sites. In the future, I can imagine bloggers opting in for a system where they allow newspapers to grab their content any time the newspapers want, move it into the newspaper’s own content model on any given day, surround it with their own ads, and pay the blogger a percentage of ad revenue. In other words, every blogger (and cartoonist) would be self-syndicated, but newspapers wouldn’t print the same bloggers every day. They’d grab only the best writings of the day based on social voting and the newspaper’s own editorial opinions."
The same thing can happen with music. It is already the way many compilation / hits albums are put together, gathering lots of smaller labels / artists material together and reselling it under a larger brand.

You will never stop new talent emerging, regardless of how little financial reward is available. In fact, less financial reward would probably be a good thing for the industry. It will hopefully stem the flow of talentless wannabies and tabloid fodder (Doherty, Winehouse, the Gallergers et al.) that currently fill the media and the charts. If music is only being made by people who do it for the love of it, rather than people who see it as a business (see Pop Idol) then that can only be a good thing.

Artists have been experimenting with working out what they can charge for their work. The music industry is in turmoil and in another generation's time will be barely recognisable compared to what it was before. Asking the people who buy the music to pay what they think it is worth is a very brave move but a sensible step towards the new model.

Something vary similar is also happening with software. People generally dislike and distrust Microsoft, but continue to use their products due to their monopoly. They are regarded as a necessary evil now, but will they retain that position? There will always be an underground of users willing to make that extra bit of personal effort to get a product that does what they want rather than what someone else wants them to do with it. These are the GNU/Linux OS users, the people who want their music without DRM, and the people who would rather read and contribute to /., indiemedia, or thenewsisnowfree than any of the traditional news feeds.

Photography is similar. Some of the best photography I've seen in recent years has been on Flickr, published under CC licences by people who are happy to do it for the love of it rather than for the financial rewards (although many Pro photographers also use it to get exposure**). Thanks to this my own photography has been in the Schmapp! Travel guides to London, Bath, Liverpool, and Plymouth, and thenewsisnowfree network has used my photography of Bristol airport security, Bristol Kite Festival, and graffiti in a London hotel room. My pictures would never have got there any other way.
** Pun unintentional

Media and software alike should be made by the people, for the people. Not by corporations, for the profit. But you know that already. Otherwise I doubt that you'd be reading this.
Rant over.
Labels: Copyright, Media, Music

:: Dan 9.10.07

From http://gusset.co.uk

KungFuJoe

Pinkkaz - I see your point about the way many in the music biz get little recompense for their time and effort, but it's easy to see why people don't feel like paying the high prices for recorded music (or films), especially when you see the prices in other countries. Back when CDs were up to £16 here, they were around £8 in the States and I remember them being about £7.50 in Tower Records in Bangkok (or <£2 on any market ). So somebody in the line between artist and consumer is making excessive profit, hence the resentment felt by many consumers and the reduced guilt about illegal downloading/copying.

Also, I should have clarified my earlier comment about publicity. Radiohead aren't the sort to seek it for the sake of it (or for the sake of additional profit either), but obviously the approach they've taken with this release has made their new album launch occupy at least a page all in all of every national paper, as well as getting slots on the TV news, which all helps get new listeners. My point was more that for people like those in Radiohead, the key benefit of this is to get their music listened to and their messages heard, rather than to give them the means to go out and buy a diamond encrusted Bentley...

Regarding other comments criticising people enjoying getting it for free, well, this is a money-saving site after all. And they're well within their rights to do it. Chances are, most of them wouldn't have listened to the music otherwise, so it's not an inherently bad thing IMHO.

Ferris

KungFuJoe wrote: »

Also, I should have clarified my earlier comment about publicity. Radiohead aren't the sort to seek it for the sake of it (or for the sake of additional profit either), but obviously the approach they've taken with this release has made their new album launch occupy at least a page all in all of every national paper, as well as getting slots on the TV news, which all helps get new listeners. My point was more that for people like those in Radiohead, the key benefit of this is to get their music listened to and their messages heard, rather than to give them the means to go out and buy a diamond encrusted Bentley...

i believed that philanthropic idea too until just the other day when i read the music week article from the management. i'm a little bit disappointed with radiohead to be honest; this was a genuine opportunity to do something truly different... instead it's just bells and whistles and the same old thing...

still, now even more glad i didn't get around to paying for it second time around