The Results Are In - RADIOHEAD FANS SPEAK

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SOC7200&show_article=1

And given the opportunity to pay whatever they thought was fair, 62% paid NOTHING.

The other 38% paid, on average, $6 for the record.  Less than HALF what they would have paid via iTunes.

 

 

 

Un.  Fucking.  Real.

Well, they did get a lot more publicity than they would have just releasing another CD. I heard more coverage and excitement over this record than most other one's to come out recently. It does say something that so many people took it for free. Maybe that most CDs are priced way above what the actual market price would be. Then again, what the hell do I know? It kind of pisses me off that there seems to be a consensus in web society that laws don't apply there. Like the royalties battles for internet radio -- why should they play by different rules? Because it's the internet?

 doesn't really shock me. I didn't pay anything for it. I've listened to it once and wasn't that moved. They have never been my cup of tea and since the band allowed for people like me to try it first, I accepted that privelage. 

 

I'll be interested to see the sales of the $82 release.  

Don't worry, they'll sell plenty of copies of the physical cd that includes all of the bonus tracks when it hits the shelves. Still think this was a brilliant idea on their part. Cut down on the pirated copies, get the album in their fans hands quicker, and generated buzz.

Has anyone downloaded the Saul Williams/Trent Reznor collaboration? It was only $5 for flac download, or free lo res mp3s. I'm digging the album so far.

While I understand the brilliance of the marketing plan, I feel like that wasn't the point at all...

 

It was a great experiment.  They offered a hotly anticipated record for whatever you thought it was worth.  This is a great example of what people REALLY think of the value of music.  Almost 2/3 of these downloaders sent the message that they felt Radiohead (and the powers that be who make the recording and distribution of these works possible) deserved absolutely nothing for their efforts.

Imagine going to a restaurant where not only the tipping was arbitrary, but what you paid for the food was as well.  I know that in order for me to get my porterhouse, a farmer had to feed and raise the cow, then the slaughterhouse had to kill and cut up the cow, then the butcher had to carve up the cuts of the cow, then the restaurant manager had to buy the steak and have it shipped to the restaurant, then they had to pay a chef (who probably went to culinary school) to cook the steak the way you wanted it, then the server had to bring it to you for your consumption.  Let's forget about the dishwashers and busboys who ensure you have clean utensils and the cost of the gas to prepare your meal in the first place.

You then say, "I have decided that I will pay nothing for this steak, or the service which has been provided to me" before you even get your food.

This is not an indictment of the industry, it's an indictment of the CONSUMER.

It is guestimated that they made $6-$10 million off of this stunt. I wonder if they made that collectively off of their previous releases.

Interesting side note: my band has been trying this download and pay what you want for a few weeks. Here are the current stats:

15% of downloaders are donating
Average donation is $6
Largest donation was $12
Smallest donation was $2

I think that people probably stopped paying after they reported how much money they made, I think that people quit paying because they were told in editorials that they were getting inferior product. I don't think that the enitre 62% downloaded the album with the unmotivated intention of paying nothing for it. Aside from that, they made quite a big chunk of cash, more than enough for 10 people if you ask me. By the way, I didn't download the album. I decided that I didn't want the quality that they were giving. Knowing radio head's previous history I had made the decision that it wasn't a high enough quality .mp3 to enjoy it. Charles

O-Town:

Imagine going to a restaurant where not only the tipping was arbitrary, but what you paid for the food was as well.  I know that in order for me to get my porterhouse, a farmer had to feed and raise the cow, then the slaughterhouse had to kill and cut up the cow, then the butcher had to carve up the cuts of the cow, then the restaurant manager had to buy the steak and have it shipped to the restaurant, then they had to pay a chef (who probably went to culinary school) to cook the steak the way you wanted it, then the server had to bring it to you for your consumption.  Let's forget about the dishwashers and busboys who ensure you have clean utensils and the cost of the gas to prepare your meal in the first place.

You then say, "I have decided that I will pay nothing for this steak, or the service which has been provided to me" before you even get your food.

This is not an indictment of the industry, it's an indictment of the CONSUMER.

 

 

If an eating establishment was to offer this scenario, wouldn't you think they would have prepared for the possibility that NOBODY would pay for their meal? And, if the eating establishment were to offer this, I would be the first to line up and TRY a free meal . If it was good, I would go back and pay cause that's what I do. You are missing my point. I don't like Radiohead that much. They allowed me to try their restaurant. I had a meal and thought to myself 'eh, kinda tasted like The Sizzler. I don't think I will be eating here again. However, if I hear from friends that they change their menu, I will try to eat here in the future.'

 

By the way, I'm a bigger Rush fan. I pirated their last album...BOUGHT the normal release and BOUGHT the deluxe version. I spent $40 on a product I could have got for free because I thought it was good. I didn't feel the same way about Radiohead Just me. Just my personal opinion.

It's like you are pissed that I didn't pay anything for it. You don't hate me, do you?  

 

Almost 2/3 of these downloaders sent the message that they felt Radiohead (and the powers that be who make the recording and distribution of these works possible) deserved absolutely nothing for their efforts.

 you don't work in the music business do you

 

Rest assured that the 'powers' got paid. The only people who didn't are the band or investors in the project. (I'd bet you a shitty steak dinner on that one)

 

 

O-Town:

Almost 2/3 of these downloaders sent the message that they felt Radiohead (and the powers that be who make the recording and distribution of these works possible) deserved absolutely nothing for their efforts.

 

I see what you are saying, but I'm becoming more of a subscriber to Yorke's quoted belief that downloading and filesharing is functionally akin to listening to the radio. I'm not saying I condone illegal filesharing, but I'm am saying I believe it is serving the same end purpose for "kids these days". It just slowly seems to be the emerging reality we are dealing with. 

daryllh:

 

Almost 2/3 of these downloaders sent the message that they felt Radiohead (and the powers that be who make the recording and distribution of these works possible) deserved absolutely nothing for their efforts.

 you don't work in the music business do you

Rest assured that the 'powers' got paid. The only people who didn't are the band or investors in the project. (I'd bet you a shitty steak dinner on that one)

Actually, I sorta do.

And if you re-read what I said, you'd see that I said that these consumers "felt that [they] deserved nothing."  I didn't say that the powers didn't get paid.  Quite the contrary.  They got paid, alright.  The problem is, this sort of expense is usually recoupable, assuming the band members themselves didn't pay for the recording and promotion out of their own pockets.  Which means (assuming you're familiar with the music industry) that 2/3 of these consumers did nothing to help the band repay the label for their incurred costs, which they will, ultimately, have to pay back anyway.

That's how a record label tends to work.

 

 

Now, addressing the idea that Radiohead made somewhere between 6-10 Mil for this stunt, I think your numbers are crossed...

1.2 million people downloaded it, but only 456,000 paid for it at an average of $6 a pop.  That comes to about $2.7 million.  Still good money, and I'm sure the deal with the label involved first recouping all recording and promotional costs.  Let's call it an even half mil for both.  At $2.2 Mil, there is likely a split with the labels, and if they're lucky, the fine folks in Radiohead negotiated a share of around 25%.  That's $550,000 divided between the five guys, so $110,000 a piece.  After taxes (which in England are not cheap), they're each lucky to see $70k.

I'm not saying this is shitty.  I'm saying that we have to be realistic about these sorts of things and not assume that these people are getting filthy rich here.

O-Town:

At $2.2 Mil, there is likely a split with the labels, and if they're lucky, the fine folks in Radiohead negotiated a share of around 25%.  That's $550,000 divided between the five guys, so $110,000 a piece.  After taxes (which in England are not cheap), they're each lucky to see $70k.

They had no label, therefore nobody was taking anything from them so I'm confused why you'd think they only see 25% of the digital sales revenue. I'm sure they had to pay the digital distro outfit that handled this, but I'll guarantee Radiohead wasn't only getting 25% of the sales. They have since signed a distribution deal for the physical CD, but that's another story altogether. I wouldn't be surprised if they made more money off of this album's digital release than they did from their previous albums digital sales combined.

daryllh:

If an eating establishment was to offer this scenario, wouldn't you think they would have prepared for the possibility that NOBODY would pay for their meal? And, if the eating establishment were to offer this, I would be the first to line up and TRY a free meal . If it was good, I would go back and pay cause that's what I do. You are missing my point. I don't like Radiohead that much. They allowed me to try their restaurant. I had a meal and thought to myself 'eh, kinda tasted like The Sizzler. I don't think I will be eating here again. However, if I hear from friends that they change their menu, I will try to eat here in the future.'

By the way, I'm a bigger Rush fan. I pirated their last album...BOUGHT the normal release and BOUGHT the deluxe version. I spent $40 on a product I could have got for free because I thought it was good. I didn't feel the same way about Radiohead Just me. Just my personal opinion.

It's like you are pissed that I didn't pay anything for it. You don't hate me, do you?  

Good for you that you actually paid for a consumer product which was for sale.

You see how silly that sounds?

Look, Radiohead must have been prepared for the worst and hoped for the best.  That's a given, and we certainly agree on this point.

The point that I believe YOU are missing, is that they were not "allowing you to try their music for free."  They were giving you an opportunity to "pay what you think it's worth."  There is an ENORMOUS difference.

The guy on the corner selling coffee (and they WERE selling it, not giving it away - there's no sign up that says "free coffee here") holds out a cup of coffee and says "if you want this coffee, just pay what you think it's worth."  So, assuming you want that coffee, what's the going rate for a cup of coffee?  2 bucks? A buck?  50 Cents?  What did it cost for that guy to make the coffee and serve it to you?  Maybe a quarter?  So are you going to be the guy who says "I'm not giving you shit" and walks off?  You're not "test driving" a cup of coffee, you're consuming it.  You can't give it back after you drank it.  In essence, you just cost the guy money for providing you with a product and a service.

What I'm trying to get at here, is that when someone says "pay me what you think it's worth," they're really saying, "if you want what I have to offer, pay me what you think my hard work and this product, and the ability to choose your price are worth."  Your decision, at that point, is an ethical one.

Tyler:

O-Town:

At $2.2 Mil, there is likely a split with the labels, and if they're lucky, the fine folks in Radiohead negotiated a share of around 25%.  That's $550,000 divided between the five guys, so $110,000 a piece.  After taxes (which in England are not cheap), they're each lucky to see $70k.

 

They had no label, therefore nobody was taking anything from them so I'm confused why you'd think they only see 25% of the digital sales revenue. I'm sure they had to pay the digital distro outfit that handled this, but I'll guarantee Radiohead wasn't only getting 25% of the sales. They have since signed a distribution deal for the physical CD, but that's another story altogether. I wouldn't be surprised if they made more money off of this album's digital release than they did from their previous albums digital sales combined.

 

That's a good point, Tyler.  I guess I didn't realize that they had no label affiliation.  I thought they were signed to XL Recordings.  Can someone clarify?  I also remember something about them working with ATO for the American release.  Again, not sure what that's all about.

That said, fine, they made a quarter mil a piece.  That's fantastic.  It does nothing to change my previous argument...

I've retyped this a couple of times, as it's difficult for me to articulate this concept somewhat.  The 62% that didn't pay for the cd were likely grouped into a couple distinct categories

A - "Those who were anticipating the new Radiohead release and were thrilled to receive it at no charge by refusing to donate"

B - "Those who were anticipating the new Radiohead and were planning to donate if the record was quality, but didn't like it, therefore, didn't donate."

C - "Those who never would have paid money for a new Radiohead release to begin with, but downloaded it, liked it, and didn't donate."

D - "Those who never would have paid money for a new Radiohead release to begin with, but downloaded it, and remembered why they didn't like Radiohead."

 

Obviously category A is the music consumer you go after with some vitriol.  When you take a product without compensating the producer and derive enjoyment/utility, you're stealing in most cases.  

You can go after category B, but after years of music industry tactics of releasing just completely shit trash albums with one or two good tracks, I think the music industry is reaping what they sowed.   The thing with a cup of coffee is you kind of know what you're getting into when you drink one for the most part.  I had no idea that "Soundtrack to Your Escape" by In Flames would be such a crappy album, and had I known ahead of time, I never would have bought it.  In essence, I was a ripped off consumer.  Though I suppose technically they are, I don't tend to think of Radiohead or the label as the "victim" in category B.

You can go after category C to an extent, since they're deriving enjoyment from the album without donating, but this customer never would have bought a CD to begin with, so the actual amount of money this customer costed Radiohead and the label was zippo.  While you can wag your finger at this category on a moral level, from a business perspective, it has negligible impact on their bottom line.

You can go after category D, but only from the same moral perspective for the reasons given for Category C, and even less so in that the end user only downloaded it because it was free, didn't expect to receive, and didn't receive any enjoyment.  Say you hand someone a CD at a show and tell them if they don't like it after listening to it, they don't have to give you any money later.  If they don't enjoy it, are you morally obligated to money?  Probably not. 

 

If we're going to morally damn the consumer, we have to know how many of the 62% fell into these various categories. If they're all in A, then yeah, the consumer's an asshole. 

Fact is, from a business perspective, I would think Radiohead would come ahead of this because without a slave master record label hoarding the vast majority of the profits, they kept more money for themselves.  Some of a lot can be greater than less of more, plus they were probably able to wield more leverage in negotiating for physical distribution.  

I just got to work and didn't bring my computer home last night. I was eager to read and respond. I plan on replying to most of the things written here. In the meantime... 

 

 

What I'm trying to get at here, is that when someone says "pay me what you think it's worth," they're really saying, "if you want what I have to offer, pay me what you think my hard work and this product, and the ability to choose your price are worth."  Your decision, at that point, is an ethical one.

 

I paid what I thought the album was worth. I didn't really think it was that great (in my initial listen). If a coffee vendor offered the same deal, I'd drink the coffee and if it tasted like ass, I wouldn't pay anything. I probably wouldn't finish the coffee either. Similar to not listening to the album again.

 

If I go back and listen to the album, and I end up liking it, I can 'repent' by paying for another download or waiting til the album comes out to get a hard copy.

I guess I'd fall into Neil's D category.

 

I paid what I thought the album was worth. I didn't really think it was that great (in my initial listen).

Wait a minute.  Did you LISTEN to the record before buying it?  Unless I'm mistaken, that was not even an option.  That means that you had made up your mind before downloading it that you thought it was worth nothing, and the idea that you didn't think it was all that great doesn't even enter into the equation!  Whether after the fact you thought "In Rainbows" was a pile of dogshit or the Mona Lisa, you had already paid NOTHING.

If a coffee vendor offered the same deal, I'd drink the coffee and if it tasted like ass, I wouldn't pay anything. I probably wouldn't finish the coffee either. Similar to not listening to the album again.

The question then is, if you didn't pay for it and you don't like it, IS IT STILL ON YOUR HARD DRIVE?  If you don't like it, throw out the coffee.

You guys just aren't going to win this kind of disingenuous argument with me.  This wasn't a "download/listen/pay" program.  It was a "pay/download/listen" program.  To cite the quality of the music/songs as a reason for your payment amount is simply ridiculous.

 I did listen to the album before 'buying'. That was an option. I entered '0' in the dollar amount. It ALLOWED me to download it by doing that. I never initialled an EULA, never broke any rules. The album WAS offered as a download/listen/pay program. That's the way the web store was set up (along with pay/download/listen). 

EDIT: Let it be known that I didn't send the file I downloaded to anybody else to listen to or put on their hard drive. Everybody that I know, who likes the band, went and downloaded it for themselves and paid whatever they thought it was worth.

And just for the record...to get an idea of where you are coming from: Have you, yourself, ever given anybody a CD to copy or rip? If so, then we're both in the same ethical/pseudo criminal camp. 

I had made up my mind that as a less than casual fan of the band, I would download it, listen and if I thought it was as good as OK Computer (the only album of theirs I liked) I would throw some money their way.

It is still on my hard drive. It will stay there until I feel the urge to listen to it again. I'm not breaking any rules or violating any laws by having it there. If it does something for me musically, I will be more than happy to pay for it. I'm not a person who thinks that I OWE the band something for allowing me to download it for free. The band clearly knew that there would be people like me and yet, they chose this business model.

We totally disagree on all stances of this argument. That's fine. Your passion for your stance is FAR more fierce than mine is.