You might want to yank or at least qualify the radiohead comments, since the band has pointed out that (at best) those numbers are unrepresentative and (at worst) completely fictional, since no one outside the band has access to the real numbers. Some links here.
Also, most of us actually 'like other people', so live music is a model that works for us. :) (Though I would agree that as we get more and more used to time-shifting, live music will still lose some popularity for that reason. Certainly it stops me from going to as many shows as I'd like.)
eric
· 1 year ago
Whatever the Radiohead numbers are, they can't easily be interpreted.
I already know I don't care that much for Radiohead. But if I was on the fence, I would have downloaded it for free, and if I liked it, bought the CD when it comes out in January. That's not a lost sale. That would be a promotion. For those who think the sound quality of MP3s is adequate, they can (and did) pay an average of $6 or so. Voluntarily. In addition, the downloads, paid or not, will serve as promotion for their touring.
It looks like win-win to me. Call me a glass almost entirely full kind of guy. I don't like Radiohead. But if this had been James Taylor, he might have clinched a sale with this kind of offering.
Tim Lee
· 1 year ago
38% of $6 is a little over 2 bucks per downloader. How does that compare to the royalties an artist gets per CD? I would not be at all surprised if the numbers are comparable.
And of course, that's assuming that the other 62% of downloaders would have otherwise purchased a CD, which strikes me as implausible. At least some of them would not have downloaded the album but for the zero price. So the revenue per lost CD sale is probably more like $3.
Even aside from the considerable value of the publicity the stunt received, and even assuming these figures are accurate, it sure looks to me like it was a success on the financial merits. They appear to have earned an amount in the same ballpark as what they would have if they'd done a traditional label release.
Jim Harper
· 1 year ago
James Taylor?! Ugh.
(Sorry - not very substantive . . .)
eee_eff
· 1 year ago
"Even aside from the considerable value of the publicity the stunt received, and even assuming these figures are accurate, it sure looks to me like it was a success on the financial merits.,"
Looks that way to me, too--another very important consideration is that the band remained in control of the release, without any meddling from or by the label.
Jimi hendrix would have liked this model better, as would almost any artist, I would think, and even like it more if it were somewhat less remuniterive.
Luis
· 1 year ago
Tim: 38% of $6 is a little over 2 bucks per downloader. How does that compare to the royalties an artist gets per CD? I would not be at all surprised if the numbers are comparable.
I assume you saw my post on that, but just in case, check it out. Nutshell: almost exactly $2, assuming a $14 CD price.
All Comments
Also, most of us actually 'like other people', so live music is a model that works for us. :) (Though I would agree that as we get more and more used to time-shifting, live music will still lose some popularity for that reason. Certainly it stops me from going to as many shows as I'd like.)
I already know I don't care that much for Radiohead. But if I was on the fence, I would have downloaded it for free, and if I liked it, bought the CD when it comes out in January. That's not a lost sale. That would be a promotion. For those who think the sound quality of MP3s is adequate, they can (and did) pay an average of $6 or so. Voluntarily. In addition, the downloads, paid or not, will serve as promotion for their touring.
It looks like win-win to me. Call me a glass almost entirely full kind of guy. I don't like Radiohead. But if this had been James Taylor, he might have clinched a sale with this kind of offering.
And of course, that's assuming that the other 62% of downloaders would have otherwise purchased a CD, which strikes me as implausible. At least some of them would not have downloaded the album but for the zero price. So the revenue per lost CD sale is probably more like $3.
Even aside from the considerable value of the publicity the stunt received, and even assuming these figures are accurate, it sure looks to me like it was a success on the financial merits. They appear to have earned an amount in the same ballpark as what they would have if they'd done a traditional label release.
(Sorry - not very substantive . . .)
Looks that way to me, too--another very important consideration is that the band remained in control of the release, without any meddling from or by the label.
Jimi hendrix would have liked this model better, as would almost any artist, I would think, and even like it more if it were somewhat less remuniterive.
Tim: 38% of $6 is a little over 2 bucks per downloader. How does that compare to the royalties an artist gets per CD? I would not be at all surprised if the numbers are comparable.
I assume you saw my post on that, but just in case, check it out. Nutshell: almost exactly $2, assuming a $14 CD price.