New Radiohead Album Oct 10th. Cost? It's up to you! No, Seriously.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

http://crunchgear.com/2007/10/01/new-radiohead-album-costs-whatever-you-want-it-to/     

Even though they're letting the downloaders name the price, I still bet they make more money, per album, than they would if they were selling it through a record label.

I can't see a negative side to this.

[KenToad]

That is awesome news.  I've been listening to Radiohead  pretty much exclusively for the last two years.  I'll gladly pay $10 to directly download from them and completely bypass the Record label and their cut.

I'm surprised this all took so long to develop, but thank goodness it's possible now.

[Havok]

This is wonderful. Hopefully this is a first nail in the coffin for the RIAA and MPAA...

 

[shmokes]

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.  Stephen King attempted to cut out the publisher like five or eight years ago or something, and that thing seems to have just fizzled and died.  He just publishes normally now.  His wasn't exactly the same, cos you couldn't name your own price, but . . .


Also, it's worth noting that this might work for Radiohead, but only because of the record labels.  The label turned them into a household name.  If they hadn't already been turned into superstars by the recording industry, this little scheme wouldn't buy them breakfast.

[KenToad]

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.  Stephen King attempted to cut out the publisher like five or eight years ago or something, and that thing seems to have just fizzled and died.  He just publishes normally now.  His wasn't exactly the same, cos you couldn't name your own price, but . . .


Also, it's worth noting that this might work for Radiohead, but only because of the record labels.  The label turned them into a household name.  If they hadn't already been turned into superstars by the recording industry, this little scheme wouldn't buy them breakfast.

I think it depends upon your definition of "work," given that exposure has to start somewhere and even the biggest bands played for expenses or less at some point.  But, yeah, I thought about that, too.  It's not the huge break from the corporate media machine that I've been hoping for, but it still makes me happy, especially the part about naming your own price.  I've always heard that bands/artists, make most of their money doing concerts and that the albums are basically just promotional vehicles.  Maybe this will enable Radiohead to make more than usual from album sales.   

[shmokes]

It's possible.  I remember reading an article about how much money artists make per album sold.  I think for most it was around $1, but for a few mega stars like Madonna, they might make considerably more, like $2.50.  So, yeah, for a band like Radiohead, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that they could make more money.  If the average customer paid them, say, $5, they'd have to sell FAR fewer albums to make the same as much money as they would have made with the label.

But, once again, this is Radiohead.  Can you imagine a nobody garage band getting offered a signing/touring deal with one of the major record labels, and turning them down on the grounds that they thought they'd be able to do better through word-of-mouth and digital distribution?  No way.  Some bands might make a small amount of money, but nobody is going from zero to rich without a label.

And even for Radiohead, are they going to run into any unforeseen consequences?  What effect will their divorce from the major labels have on their air time?  You might argue that while they won't sell nearly as many albums, they don't have to sell nearly as many to be the same as profitable, but that's only if you look at CD sales alone when calculating profit.  If a typical Radiohead album sells 10 million copies, and they manage to pull in the same as much profit while only selling 2 million, great.  But what affect might this relatively poor sales performance have on their next concert?  Do you really think that the 8 million people who didn't buy this album, in spite of it being such a great deal, are going to be at the next Radiohead concert?  Probably not.  Most of these consumers buy what the corporations tell them to buy.  If the album ain't on Billboard's top 40, and consumers aren't hearing it on the radio, only the die-hards are going to purchase it.  So what's this going to do to ticket sales?  Will their at their concert also shrink by 80%?  What does that mean for merchandise?  Merchandise is a freaking cash cow at concerts. 

So really, Radiohead isn't saying, "We don't need you Record Label."  They're saying, "Thanks to all your hard work, we don't need you anymore."  And even then, there's a pretty fair chance that they're going to turn out to be wrong about that.  I hate the RIAA as much or more than the next guy, but I think the late AllofMP3.com shows a much clearer path of where the record industry must go not only to flourish, but to survive.  I'm amazed at how moronic the execs are at those labels.  But I don't think this particular experiment will prove to be any more effective than the strategies the labels have tried so far.

[Zero_Hour]

An interesting read regarding Recording contracts, expenses and royalties:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
It's simplified, but a fairly accurate picture of how the industry works when signing new bands.
The short version is: Most bands are screwed. Most of their royalty check is spent before the albums are sold to earn it. A lot of bands that don't meet with success on a large enough scale, can't even go back to an indie label, because they owe their Major more money than they are ever likely to recoup.

I agree that Radiohead are in a fairly unique position to go this route, compared to most bands. They have a long established catalog and reputation, and will be able to generate a fair amount of publicity without the help of a Major Label's promotional machine. They'll definitely be able to do it for a lot less money too, since a frighteningly large portion of Major Label promotional budgets are spent picking up bar tabs. Regardless of the amount of airplay they get (seriously, what was the last track of theirs to get major FM airplay? I'm betting it was off of OK Computer, several releases ago), they have a large enough fan base to take this gamble. Even if the sales decline below the million mark, which is unlikely, their fanbase is large enough to keep them touring decent sized venues for the foreseeable future. They are definitely past the point where a Major can really offer them anything useful, good for them on cutting the cord.

The other aspect of their experiment is equally interesting: You can buy a deluxe package that will include a double Vinyl LP, CD, A second CD of additional tracks (apparently not part of the download package), liner notes, and the ability to download the digital files. for £40.00  (damn exchange rate is gonna make that very pricey in the US ) I'll be really interested to hear how many physical units they ship, since it definitely seems geared for the more "die hard" fan.

[polaris]

i think its bollocks really, just trying to follow a trend. i dont understand the problem with record companies making money for doing a job, regardless of how much it is. nobodys forcing people to release records and its in the record companies interest to maximise sales and therefore make as much money for the band as possible along with themselves. i find it really odd the way people have an issue with an organized network of distribution for music, but not any other product like books for example.

[KenToad]

i think its bollocks really, just trying to follow a trend. i dont understand the problem with record companies making money for doing a job, regardless of how much it is. nobodys forcing people to release records and its in the record companies interest to maximise sales and therefore make as much money for the band as possible along with themselves. i find it really odd the way people have an issue with an organized network of distribution for music, but not any other product like books for example.

Well, there are several arguments being tossed around in this thread.  One is the idea that a relatively small number of corporate mega-media conglomerates or whatever redundant thing you call them can potentially lock down an industry, i.e. stifle real creativity essentially by refusing to publish and promote anything they can't see an existing market for, (or worse, for anything they deem "immoral") ... which is when originality suffers.

When the industry gets large enough and controls enough "defining" formats of a certain media, you have to seriously question whether it is the execs, etc. who really decide what songs will ever get a chance at the Top 40, music videos, you name it. 

The alternative argument is usually that the media monster companies will perform some kind of filtering service and promote/enable the spread of good music.  My main point against that has to do with size and amount of control over market an individual corporation has ... because I believe the argument that the bigger  the company is the less likely that they are going to be willing to take risks and/or fill niches. 

This isn't really my field, so I hope this is at least a little bit elucidating.  And, yes, I'm very concerned about these same effects in other types of media, especially books.  Movies are an oddity, since they got locked down by the Hollywood machine early and have only lately really started to diversify: I would say that that is mainly due to the virtual end of expensive film (the actual material) and increasing accessibility of high quality digital recorders and digital videos. 

As for Radiohead, yeah, despite their name, they are not really a radio band.  And I'm so thankful.  I think their last really huge radio/TV hit was Creep and, since it was their first album and nothing else on the album was Radio/Video friendly, they got labeled by many in the industry as one-hit-wonders, if you can believe that.  And I think a lot of their appeal all along has been their consistent innovation and ability to make amazing music that flows against the mainstream grain, so I don't really think that Shmokes' idea about unforseen consequences will have too much of an effect, since Radiohead has already alienated the average mainstream consumer.

Another point is that we still seem to live in age where everyone believes that being on TV is equivalent to fame and success, even though pretty much everybody agrees that almost everything on TV is utter crap.  Radio is or has been similar, although we seem to be moving into an age where getting a lot of views on YouTube has made a few "stars."

Just as a side note regarding books:  I find it really funny that even bestselling authors like James Patterson are hiring writers to write their books for them.  I keep seeing "by James Patterson" really huge and then looking and seeing, in smaller print, "with such and such unknown 'ghost' writer."  What an amazing world we live in.  Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article about this:

Although Mr. Patterson has been as good as any other top author at marketing his own identity, he said his strength was in storytelling. "I spin yarns," he said. "I love it. I have a folder with several hundred ideas for stories. They just come and I'll say: 'There is a story here.' "

During a visit to Chapel Hill, N.C., for example, he saw posters asking for help in finding missing women. That led to the plot for "Kiss the Girls," a 1995 thriller about two murderers who compete to kill girls. The book is in the Alex Cross series, which is centered on the exploits of a black detective.

Mr. Patterson said he often worked with co-authors because he believed that he was more proficient at creating the story line than at executing it.

"I found that it is rare that you get a craftsman and an idea person in the same body," Mr. Patterson said. "With me, I struggle like crazy. I can do the craft at an acceptable level, but the ideas are what I like." He said the co-authors received a flat fee and, most often, credit on the book cover.

In novel writing, as in advertising, Mr. Patterson wants the final say. Once there is a first draft of a book that has a co-author, "I may ask the collaborator for a polish," he said.

The music industry has been at this point or worse for years, producers make the sounds that make the hits and generations of "stars" lack the ability to sing their own stuff live, or just have zero creative input.  It's pretty disgusting, once you start thinking about it. 

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . there's a lot not to like about the record industry.  Fiona Apple's last album sat on the shelf for over a year after she finished it.  Sony wouldn't publish it until she altered it so that they had some nice formulaic 3 minute ditties that would be radio friendly.  If they don't think that her product is marketable, that's fine.  They shouldn't be forced to release it.  But they own her.  They own her likeness as a musician.  She cannot release music to the market except on their label.  If they refuse to release her work, what does she do?  Any other label would have scooped her up in a second if given the opportunity.  But she's under contract with Sony. 

But the thing that really bugs me about the record industry is that it's just run so poorly.  They treat music like a luxury good to make money, instead of relying on economies of scale.  What do CDs cost today?  $17?  That's ---smurfing--- insane.  It's a little stamped piece of plastic with a little paper pamphlet.  People are turning more and more to pirated media because legitimate music is unreasonably expensive.  Case in point, I hadn't bought a CD in about 10 years when I came across allofmp3.com (now gone thanks to coercion by the U.S.).  I love music.  I'm a damned enthusiast.  But I just couldn't afford to buy more than five or six albums a year and it's hard to be an enthusiast with a budget like that. I just couldn't afford to care about the music scene -- to be into it.  But allofmp3.com changed that.  They were basically offering the same service as iTunes, but you only paid 2 cents per megabyte, so the cost of an album depended on the quality you downloaded, but a typical album encoded in 192 kbp MP3 (yeah . . . no DRM) would cost about $1.20 or $1.50.  So I started buying music.  Immediately, I stopped pirating, not because of the principle of the thing -- like I couldn't justify it any longer now that there was an affordable alternative, but because pirating music is a pain in the ass.  There's no control for quality, there's no telling whether what you get will ACTUALLY be what the filename says you're getting, you increase your risk for viruses, you never know when you'll actually get something, especially if it's not very popular so nobody is seeding it.  It's a pain.  I would rather pay a reasonable amount of money and get what I want, when I want.

But a funny thing happened.  I became an enthusiast again.  I'd put $20 in my account and go on a shopping spree.  I was discovering new music again and having a blast.  I'd see things that looked interesting, or that were recommended by people with similar tastes and I'd buy an entire album without ever listening to it, or after hearing a sample of just one song.  Hell . . . at just over $1 per album, what did I have to lose if I didn't like it?  And the fact that I was finding so much good stuff, totally justified the occassional stinker and wasted $1.  But, like iTunes, allofmp3 gave you access to your account history, showing all your purchases etc..  in less than a year I spent well over $100 there.  $100!  Someone who hadn't bought a CD in over a decade, who's financial position hadn't changed recently or anything like that, suddenly shells out $100 in music in less than a year?  What happened? 

What happened was that I was no longer priced out of the market.  It's that simple.  I was always interested music, but the labels turned it into a luxury item only for the rich.  But there are a lot of people out there like me.  So maybe the labels aren't going to make $17 per CD off of me, but at $17 per CD the amount of money the record labels make from people like me is $0 per year.  That's not much revenue.  If they'd price their product reasonably, they'd have millions more customers, and they'd eliminate the major incentive to steal music through bittorrent in the process.  It would more than make up for the lower profit per unit, IMO.  Plus, people who aren't into the music scene cos they can't afford to buy music are likely just plain not into the music scene.  They probably aren't going to concerts and stuff like that either. 

and so on . . .

[ChadTower]

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.  Stephen King attempted to cut out the publisher like five or eight years ago or something, and that thing seems to have just fizzled and died.  He just publishes normally now.  His wasn't exactly the same, cos you couldn't name your own price, but . . .

Getting run down by a car and left in a ditch can have that effect on someone trying to cut out the publisher.

(we'll just disregard the fact that he was hit before he tried to cut them out.  It's funnier this way)

[boykster]

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.  Stephen King attempted to cut out the publisher like five or eight years ago or something, and that thing seems to have just fizzled and died.  He just publishes normally now.  His wasn't exactly the same, cos you couldn't name your own price, but . . .

Getting run down by a car and left in a ditch can have that effect on someone trying to cut out the publisher.

(we'll just disregard the fact that he was hit before he tried to cut them out.  It's funnier this way)

would make for a great serial thriller/horror novel I'd bet 

[SithMaster]

It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.  Stephen King attempted to cut out the publisher like five or eight years ago or something, and that thing seems to have just fizzled and died.  He just publishes normally now.  His wasn't exactly the same, cos you couldn't name your own price, but . . .

Getting run down by a car and left in a ditch can have that effect on someone trying to cut out the publisher.

(we'll just disregard the fact that he was hit before he tried to cut them out.  It's funnier this way)

would make for a great serial thriller/horror novel I'd bet 

wasnt this a movie already though?  I remember some writer had a car accident and some crazy women forced him to rewrite a novel she liked (he wrote it) but the ending didnt turn out the way she would of liked.  she killed all sorts of people trying to keep him a secret.

[shmokes]

Yes.  Misery.  But the real-life injury came years later when King was jogging down the road and a guy with mental problems  . . . can't remember if he was considered mentally retarded or something else . . . anyway, guy was driving down the road in a van and just ran him over, almost killing him.  He did not, however, kidnap him afterward and force  him to write a novel for him. 

[KenToad]

Just had to say that I did pay 5 pounds for the album and I really love it.  Like all Radiohead albums, it takes some listening, especially just to understand what Thom Yorke is saying, but then there's a little click and you get it.  And a few of the songs are really incredible right off the bat, especially Bodysnatchers and Faust Arp.

I much prefer songs getting better the more I listen to them than getting that initial poppy high and then getting worse every time, if that makes sense.

Here is an interesting article suggesting that Radiohead have already made millions on this deal and that many other major artists look to be following in their footsteps:

theage Article