Thanks for providing me your guidance on one of the most basic concepts in a consumer economy.
I determined the value of my instruments before I spent a penny on them by playing them exhaustively before I bought them. If my perceived value of said "J" is at or above the selling price I buy.
Clearly not the methodology that Radiohead had in mind with this experiment. Do they expect me to know it's value without hearing it? Value the tracks based on reputation (the "critically acclaimed" label means absolutley nothing to me. The Dixie Chicks also carry that distinction)?
I based my most recent (and last) Rush record purchase (Test for Echo) on reputation. Dumb.
singlespeedo
biggs:I based my most recent (and last) Rush record purchase (Test for Echo) on reputation. Dumb.
dagger through my heart. haha!
Good points though.
oink
O-Town: "How does one determine an object's worth?" What do you MEAN??? This is one of the most basic concepts in a consumer economy! How did you determine what your instruments were worth? Your car? That breakfast burrito? You look at the market rate for a similar product and start from there. It's 18 songs in 160kbps mp3 format from a critically acclaimed band that, for the sake of discussion, you like. "How much would YOU pay?"
"How does one determine an object's worth?"
What do you MEAN??? This is one of the most basic concepts in a consumer economy! How did you determine what your instruments were worth? Your car? That breakfast burrito?
You look at the market rate for a similar product and start from there.
It's 18 songs in 160kbps mp3 format from a critically acclaimed band that, for the sake of discussion, you like.
"How much would YOU pay?"
Owen, I certainly understand your passion here....but I don't think you are looking at what they did in the right manner......either that.....or Radiohead was looking at it in the wrong manner.
This should not have been a test to see what the consumer believes something is worth. If it was....then it was improperly set up and the results of the test do not truely tell you what the consumers believes their music is worth. Let me explain (ha...like you had a choice!)
In free market economics....the there are 2 basic forces right?
The producers....and the consumers.
The "value" of an item is not determined by either one of those forces. It is determined by BOTH of those forces....competing with each other...and coming to a middle ground.
There are two basic rules that determine value:
1. The producers will (and should) always try to charge as much as they can.
2. The consumers will (and should) always try to pay as little as they can.
These two concepts naturally come at odds with each other....which is what will end up determing the current "value" of a product.
O-Town:You look at the market rate for a similar product and start from there.
How was that "market rate" determined? It was determined by the two forces above competing with each other until a middle ground is reached.
Guy makes a widget.
I want a widget.
Guy asks for $100. I offer $10. He goes down to $50. I come back with $20. He offers $35. I say $30. He agrees.
At that moment in time.....$30 is the value of that widget. Now, let's say the same guy sells that widget to someone else who is willing to pay $50. Then at that moment....$50 is the value.
The main point here is that to determine the value of an item....you need BOTH sides competing with each other. There is no other way.
Radiohead did not do this....they offered up their product at the complete will of only on market force...the consumer. I think it was a neat expierment...but it was not one that would provide any data on what people believed the "value" of their product would be....
.....This is because of rule 2 above. The consumer will (and should) always desire to pay as little as they can for any given product. Am I willing to pay $100 for a new effects pedal? Yes. But if I can find the same one for $10.....I'm a takin it.....
To really determine what people think their album's "value" is....they CAN'T just leave that decision to the consumer. It will not give them the info they desire.
They would need compete with the consumer.....not submit to their will. Market law will always prevail here.
The question "what wouldn't you pay"...........is equal in importance as the question "what would you pay".
To know what the real market value is....you would have to find out how much would be too much for all who downloaded. In other words....at what price would those very same people NOT download the album.
For some....it might be a penny. For others...it might be $20. Wherever the average is......you will find your "value".
Those 62% that paid nothing........all they are saying is that if given the (legal) chance to have that product for free....they will take it. It is very possible that if the product had a hard price...many...most...some...would still buy and download it. But this test does not provide that information...therefore...this test does not tell us anything about what people feel the "value" of 'In Rainbows' currently is.
I paid $5 for it. The reason I didn't pay $10 or $15 was because they didn't say what the quality of the mp3s would be and I'm not a big fan of downloads anyway. I like CDs/Albums...with all the packaging, etc. To me, that tangible packaging is part of the appeal to owning a recording. The quality of the medium IS a factor in it's value. MP3's are not worth as much as a CD...in my opinion, due to the lack of artwork, etc..loss of sound quality. I'm old school.
In the Painting / Photo / print business, an original is worth more than a print, right? If there are duplicate originals...say a series of 20, then the price is typically cheaper than if there were just one. A signed print has more value than an unsigned print, etc...If it all comes down to the quantity released, then the general rule is that the more copies you produce, the less your art is worth...Another factor is the quality of the medium. If it's printed on cheap paper that's going to fade in 10 years, then it certainly isn't going to be worth much.
Of course there is the intangible variable of originality and desireability. A Picasso piece is worth more than anything I paint, even if they are both done using the same materials. And yet I try to sell my CD's for the same price as Radioheads? Does that make sense?
In the music industry model...since music is expressed in so many different medias. Radio, Film, TV, CD, mp3, Live Concert, etc...each having a different value, the measure of success is based on the number of medias the song makes it onto. That's how songwriters reap the value of their songs. The more avenues of expression successfully exploited, the more money the artist (label, etc.) makes.
You break strings...I break keys!!
Ryno: In the Painting / Photo / print business, an original is worth more than a print, right? If there are duplicate originals...say a series of 20, then the price is typically cheaper than if there were just one. A signed print has more value than an unsigned print, etc...If it all comes down to the quantity released, then the general rule is that the more copies you produce, the less your art is worth...Another factor is the quality of the medium. If it's printed on cheap paper that's going to fade in 10 years, then it certainly isn't going to be worth much.
I've never seen this point made before. Very cool.
I got a free refill at Burger King today. I reloaded on Coke. I figured the pop had value but they gave it to me free so I took it. I didn't really feel bad about it until now.
Thanks alot, Owen.
Statistically speaking, if you look at albums bought in stores vs. downloaded illegally, Id be willing to bet it's relatively AS skewed.. Id be willing to bet had they just released the album hard copy in stores, about 40% of the people who had it in possession would have bought it hard copy (possibly less), and 60% or so would have downloaded it illegally without buying it. The situation here, Owen, is that they most likely KNEW this would happen, hence why they announced the physical release for later on regardless.. The key factor is THIS:
They released a somewhat low quality mp3 release of 10 songs (not 18. I only got ten.). And they made MORE MONEY doing so than they would have by selling it through EMI. To make the money they did on this little 'stunt' (and if you can't see that this was wholly a publicity stunt in the long run, you're missing THAT point), they just made over $2 Million with little or no overhead (being they recorded the entire album themselves on gear they already owned).
COMPLETELY PROFIT. Off a publicity stunt for the most part. As artists, they have adapted to the industry, and in essence, it worked. How can you feel bad for them? They saw the way the industry was going, and they found a way to make more money off this digital release than they have probably EVER made on past releases. 'Ok Computer' is their highest selling album at over 2 Million in sales according to the RIAA.. They didnt make $2.2 Million off those sales.
So where lies the tragedy? The fact that only 40% of the people roughly, paid for this? Or that they made more off those stats than they did off a double platinum album? Radiohead wins in this situation. A shit ton of money off no effort (they didn't have to spend a DIME on marketing. they utilized something more powerful.. PUBLICITY.. Which is free.).
The true test of this will be the physical sales. Regardless. They saw a growing trend in the music industry, and they adapted their business model to it, and really, they succeeded. I mean, honestly, did you expect anything less than these results? I saw it coming a mile away. Im surprised it wasnt more like 75/25.
OK... Good points all around. Especially the idea that Radiohead undervalued their own product by setting the base price of the record at zero. Any money on top of that is kind of like a tip - and they were tipped well overall...
Goddammit. Now I have to pull back on the outrage a bit. SHIT!
www.myspace.com/owenonline
www.owensartori.com
I'm late to this discussion (busy work days) but what you just posted, Owen, was exactly what I wanted to get at as I was reading the thread. I'm glad everyone else brought it up.
What Radiohead was doing here wasn't "taking the pulse of the consuming populous" by any means. The way I see it (as someone who's followed every release of a Radiohead album since the Bends), Radiohead lost out on millions of dollars on all of their post-file-sharing-age releases due to unmastered (or even finished) copies of their albums being leaked to the internet prior to the retail release.
So... instead of doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting different results, they went ahead and worked out a way where they can make at least SOMETHING off of the "leaks" by leaking it themselves.
Also, those numbers we're quoting with 60-some percent not paying anything are heinously skewed.
First of all... these are all numbers related to the download from THAT SITE ONLY which don't cover the number of people who downloaded the album via bit-torrent and/or file sharing sites that week in spite of it being available for free on their own website. In fact, In Rainbows is still in the top 50 albums being downloaded on most (if not all) bit torrent sites still to this day. Again, even though at inrainbows.com you can still download the album for free direct from the band. Proof
Secondly... the numbers and dollar amounts we're coming to (as I understand) are all from the 1st week the album was available. Say the number of downloads tapers off by 15% / week and then re-calculate your equasions on the Radiohead gross take-home. That's still a hefty chunk of change for 5 non label-affiliated guys who only have to recoup expenses for tracking, mixing, mastering and web-hosting (for now anyway).
All in all... Radiohead found a brilliant way to make a hefty chunk of change where they historically made nothing thanks to web leaks. I'm convinced that's why they allowed listeners to download the album for free. These listeners were probably going to do it anyway through a different source... so at least they can give them a legitimate web-hit tick to show that they're listening.
Which brings up another fringe benefit: in this file-sharing age, how is one to know how many listeners are actually digging your music anymore if most of them are jacking your product off of an untrackable peer-to-peer network? Well... Radiohead may have found a halfway decent way of finding that out again.
Again, the point of Radiohead's "experiment" was not to see how many deadbeat good-for-nothing "fans" they had. It was to fund a tour, it was to pay the mortgage, it was to get at least a little more compensation for their efforts that they wouldn't have recieved otherwise.
So forget that 60-some percent of criminals and start focusing on what doors this event has opened for you before your follow-up album to "...the Cube" is oh-so-kindly leaked to the internet by a certain "salty character".
KnowwhatI'msayin' G?
In a nutshell. They made more off this in one week than they have probably made off any album release in the past. Off ONE week. With no overhaed.
A fat man never goes to bed hungry.
The bottom line is, is that the actual recorded material is not the money maker for bands anymore. Those days are gone. The way bands REALLY make money is on the road, selling merch, rocking shows.... Shit even selling music to be in fucking commercials.... when did that become cool? That's why labels are tripping out so much. The only thing that they have to hold over a bands head is that little piece of round plastic. Every dollar they spend in promotion is to get you to buy their little trinket. I've seen alot of label people recently freaking. It's hilarious. They can't justify all the money they spend on blow anymore... Motherfuckers are wondering if they are going to have a job next year or if they are going to be the drive thru guy at Del Taco in Huntington Beach.....
If anyone here has actually signed a record contract and interacted with those fucking fools, you know that the people that run in the "industry" (they like to use that word) are complete fucking dipshits.
So what if someone didn't spend anything and took that shit for free. They're gonna get it for free anyway. If they really care they'll get the $80 package or whatever it costs, or they'll spend $50 bucks on a ticket, and buy a t-shirt or fucking can cooler or what ever junk Radiohead happens to sell at a show for a horribly inflated price. Every single motherfucker on this board knows how much it costs to make a T-shirt for your band.
Good for Radiohead.
They're not my cup of tea, but fuck it. Make YOUR money blokes. At least it's not some asshole in LA with a $50,000 expense account collecting money from his fucking desk......
Look. This is not about any of the standard boilerplate arguments that seem to always pop up in a discussion of this sort. It's not about how much radiohead made on this stunt. It's not about shitty music, or low bit rates, or how a band makes money, or how people are going to steal the music anyway, or how labels have mismanaged their role in the industry for years, or how artists tend to get raped by the majors anyway...
Whether or not the figures are truly accurate (my guess is that they really are, but for PR purposes, radiohead's representatives went out to defend their fans from looking like douchebags), it shows a disconnect between consumers of music and the perceived value of that music.
In my opinion, Thom Yorke et. al. owe the success of this stunt to the Major Labels who put them on the map in the first place. We can't forget that. Imagine if one of our bands did the same thing... Come to think of it, the results would probably be the same as if we released it only on CD. A few people would buy it, then it would be online and anyone who actually wanted the music would download it for free. The only reason this model worked for Radiohead is because they were superstars to begin with.
*le sigh*
It's sounds like you're having the classic chicken/egg debate Owen.
Dude.
How many bands are getting big because of myspace alone? More than you think.... At least in metal... Suicide Silence... Job For A Cowboy... Beneath The Massacre... These bands were nothing and now they're headlining decent tours. At least for death metal, or deathcore or whatever it's called now. That shit isn't even popular in the 'main stream'. Artic Monkeys, the flavor of last year, were a "hot" myspace band selling shit tons of records playing on Jay Leno and shit. I'm pretty sure Arcade Fire is doing all of this sans label...
I'm just saying that this is the beginning of the end for labels. I think it's a good thing. They have been shoving trite shit down the consumers throat for too many years. That's why poeple aren't interested in paying for music anymore. Labels have flooded the market in a ocean of shit. Why should the public pay for this crap? Seriously. Too many shitty bands have been thrust into the limelight simply because they are "marketable". Fucking Fall Out Boy and shit like that. Hot Topic turds......
The internet has the ability to create a new kind of 'underground'. Un-signed bands have the potential for mass appeal and exposure. Here's the catch. YOU GOTTA BE GOOD.
Radiohead and NIN have started the ball rolling. It's only a matter of time.
Maybe I'm just a jaded old fart, pining for the days of old.... when music was exciting, dangerous, and fun.
Ok, so where's the future? Other income? Well, publishing has usually been the biggest money maker for artest who make closed compositions anyway. ...but in terms of actually selling copies of music? Is that done?
I mean, obviously, still millions of dollars are spent on CDs each year, just much, much less every year. Call me an idealist, but I have a hard time guessing that in 50 years people will be releasing music for free making money on merch, touring, and publishing. I just don't see it. The music industry fucked up hard core to get here, and, as I see it, consumers are a huge problem now too- but, I'm very much hoping that tangible things will "come back into style." I mean, I love taking digital pictures, and I even like those digital frames, but there's no substitute for stilling down going through a photo album. We still print pictures we like and hang them or put in albums. I like having albums too. I don't think albums are on the way out. I think some labels might push for that, but, in an age where music is worthless, and anyone can make and release things, I think that people will still like to hear albums from artists they like rather than singles. I like getting the better sound quality of a CD, and being able to see the art/pictures/credits. I don't want to look at everything in my life on a fucking computer screen. That mentality blows. ...so does mixing and mastering presuming everything will be listened to on MP3, and cranking the shit out of the volume. dumb.
I mean, I think that the industry will change quite a bit, and continue changing for a while, and I have no clue what things are going to look like in 20 years, but I'm betting and hoping that the album and some tangible medium will still be around.
Buy CDs/vinal, and go see live music. AND- let bands that suck wither and die out of the local scene... I mean, it just gives everyone else a bad name. Support good music. That's my take on things.
How's everyone been?????
David
Memory Lanes, Friday Jan 11th with Mute Era and The Deaf- free, 21+ ...fyi....