"Pay What You Want: How Radiohead Took the Online Gamble That Could Change the Record Business"
by Jon Pareles @ NY Times, Arts&Leisure section
December 8, 2007
Radiohead's distribution of its latest album, "In Rainbows", is proving to be a success, but the band won't tell us just how many copies of the album have been downloaded, what % of those who downloaded it did so for free, or what the average price is for those who voluntarily paid to download the album. At first I did not like that the band would not tell the public these statistics. I was confident that it would make money and I felt it was necessary to make this information public in order to prove to the public that the the current copyright laws do not actually benefit the musicians, but rather the major record labels and the media industry at large. After reading today's article in the NY times, "Pay What You Want: How Radiohead Took the Online Gamble That Could Change the Record Business", I changed my mind. Not only does it seem like the band has caused quite a stir within the music business and among the general public, but it is evident that the old school industry is scared that others will follow in Radiohead's path even without knowing the financial outcome of the band's strategical move. In a way, this is the ultimate success for those who feel that the current copyright system does not promote the interests of creators, artists and the like.
Also it is worth noting, according to this article, that Public Enemy and the Smashing Pumpkins gave away albums over the internet several years ago. Perhaps the fact that Radiohead is more of a cult-like, less mainstream band, has gained them greater recognition, or because they are not only giving away "In Rainbows", but rather, offering people the opportunty to pay for it if want to do so. Who knows?
The only data regarding downloads and sales that was made available in this article comes from ComScore which claims, according to their market research, that the average price per download was $2.26, including the zero cost of free downloands. ComScore did not specify the total number of downloads, but it said that 'a significant %' of the 1.2 million people who have visited the inrainbows.com website in October of 2007 did download the album.
The album is incredible and I highly recommend giving it a listen...to download it go to: www.inrainbows.com
I paid 5 Euros for the album.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for letting me read your blog!
I liked the article by Pareles, but substantive analysis of the meaning of what Radiohead did has yet to appear in the mainstream. It speaks to many of the issues you highlight: art, commerce, economics, free culture, intellectual property, ethics, etc. Fascinating.
While Thom Yorke was (reliably) coy about the band's decision, Trent Reznor was much more direct in his reason for recently allowing Nine Inch Nails fans to "steal" the band's new album:
"Well, in Brisbane I end up meeting and greeting some record label people, who are pleasant enough, and one of them is a sales guy, so I say "Why is this the case?" He goes "Because your packaging is a lot more expensive". I know how much the packaging costs -- it costs me, not them, it costs me 83 cents more to have a CD with the colour-changing ink on it. I'm taking the hit on that, not them. So I said "Well, it doesn't cost $10 more". "Ah, well, you're right, it doesn't. Basically it's because we know you've got a core audience that's gonna buy whatever we put out, so we can charge more for that. It's the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy it. True fans will pay whatever". And I just said "That's the most insulting thing I've heard. I've garnered a core audience that you feel it's OK to rip off? F--- you'. That's also why you don't see any label people here, 'cos I said 'F--- you people. Stay out of my f---ing show. If you wanna come, pay the ticket like anyone else. F--- you guys". They're thieves. I don't blame people for stealing music if this is the kind of s--- that they pull off."
Colorful language aside, Reznor makes an interesting point. Even he doesn't make a living off of album sales, but by touring. Radiohead too--case in point: when they came to the Tower theatre last year, I think the tickets sold out before they even went on sale, if that makes any sense.
The economic impact interests me because I'm more interested in the spirit behind the laws than the laws themselves. Downloading music that's under copyright is illegal--this is not that interesting of an argument. It's like saying, "The reason you shouldn't jaywalk is because it's against the law." Huh? Sounds like my mother.
The more interesting question is, should downloading music that's under copyright be illegal, particularly when the artists in question are insanely rich and successful already. I mean, wasn't the orginal intent of copyright to encourage innovation and protect the intellectual property of the little guy?
Oh, and I paid 5 pounds, too.
Post a Comment