Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Two Out of Three Didn't Pay for Radiohead

By BetaNews Staff, BetaNews

November 6, 2007, 3:55 PM

A survey by research firm comScore indicates that nearly two out of every three downloaders of Radiohead's release In Rainbows did not pay for it, while the rest only forked over an average of $6 per download. The band released its album in October without digital rights management, and let fans decide how much they were willing to pay for the release, if at all. In total, some 1.2 million people visited the website set up for the album download between October 1 and 29, comScore said.

The study also showed a disparity in how much was paid for the album inside the US and overseas. Here in the US, about 40 percent chose to pay for the album, and the average selling price was $8.05. However, overseas 36 percent paid, and only were giving an average of $4.64 per download. Radiohead plans to release the album in CD format next year. The band had no comment on the study.

Add a Comment (34 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By deda

posted Nov 8, 2007 - 7:30 AM

I'm not English native!
Try to listen mp3 with DFX, after you mormalize them with mp3gain. You'll change your mind about "mp3 quality". DFX works with harmonics, a parameter of quality, Distortion Harmonic Total, on amplifiers.

http://www.fxsound.com
http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/

Score: 0

By bradingram

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 11:07 AM

Who the **** are radiohead - and do i really care ?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 9:25 PM

Not really.

I'd much prefer it if They Might Be Giants were to do something like this.

PC_"Triangle Man"_Tool.

Score: 0

By philosopher_dog

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 8:25 AM

How does that compare to what they might have earned on it had the record company taken the lion's share? That needs to be included in the article. Also, it would be interesting to know what the normal rate of copying and file sharing is as a comparison. I'll bet they did better with this model than the traditional record company takes the most.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 8:54 AM

With the record company, they would have received about $1.00 per CD. Since the minimum you could pay was a $1.00 transaction fee, they probably break even when someone opts to pay nothing. This, of course, depends on how much it costs them to distribute the music. There is also a much higher priced offer, with extras, that very likely drives up the profit margin.

There's a lot of articles right now that are saying that they didn't make money using this model, or trying to portray everyone as thieves. It's not hard to guess who is promoting those articles. I wouldn't give any of this much credence until we actually hear from Radiohead.

The model actually seems like a good idea, but a minimum price may have to be set in the future to insure costs are covered. Still, bypassing the record company would significantly lower the cost to the consumer and increase the profit realized by the band. Of course, some idiots still found it necessary to download the music from P2P, even though it was offered at nearly no charge.

Score: 0

By OneStepAhead

edited Nov 7, 2007 - 11:41 AM

"With the record company, they would have received about $1.00 per CD. Since the minimum you could pay was a $1.00 transaction fee, they probably break even when someone opts to pay nothing"

not true the minimium you could pay was $0, I downloaded it twice and there was no transaction fee for me.. maybe there is only a fee for european downloads perhaps?

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Nov 8, 2007 - 2:05 PM

The impression I got was that there was a $1.00 transaction fee for everyone.

I just heard that Billboard is estimating that Radiohead made 4.5 million dollars on this distribution.

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Nov 7, 2007 - 7:00 AM

Didn't download 1 track But I fully supported and applaud the concept... If you want it now here it is. Donate if you want to and support it, or not and enjoy... The files are low quality 128 kbps mp3s. Great. Fantastic... Want a higher quality?? Wait for the CD to be released and get it that way.

I think this a great way for bands to both market and produce music and CDs without the studios involvement at all. Meaning they see every dime of profit there is to be made from their Intellectual Property.

The ones that got the lower quality files for free, Well hey thats just free advertising isn't it? If they are fans they will more then likely get the CD from their web page when its available for the higher quality. If they are not fans, well no problem, At least they sampled their product...

If the low quality files are all they want and they gave them a donation, All the better for them...

Any way you cut it. Its a win win scenario for them.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 10:57 AM

No, they are 192kbps. Thom Yorke commented that he wanted them to be higher quality than iTunes.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 9:25 PM

192 is damn near indistinguishable on most speakers out there from anything else. you need a decent set to be able to hear the higher and lower parts chopped @192.

But then again, if you're concerned about quality, you aren't listening to MP3s anyway. :)

Score: 0

By ingram091

edited Nov 8, 2007 - 3:02 AM

I have to admit I am surprised they offered 192kbps for that download... Kinda defeats the purpose of the concept I thought at least. but its theirs to do what they want with it... If they are smart the CD will have lots of extras on it to get their fans to buy that... Live some live cuts, or maybe some multimedia extras, like music videos or something...

Either way even if only 1/3 of the people paid anything for it, Thats still more then they would see from Online royalties anyway from the RIAA... So That's got to be good for them in the end either way...

Score: 0

By mdotwills

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 4:04 AM

I think they just wanted to get there name out there a bit more...

Clever advertising.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 7:35 PM

Good. They shafted everyone with low quality MP3s (with easily noticeable flaws), and there is (more than) rumour that they are to release the album on CD (not the box set) in a proper quality.

Coincidence? I think not.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 7, 2007 - 9:23 PM

They shafted everyone

Nah...only the fools who buy online digital music. :)

Score: 0

By canabass

edited Nov 6, 2007 - 7:31 PM

Bad BetaNews, no passing stats for you!

It's pretty important to note that the data in this study was admittedly so flawed that even comScore refused to GUESS at a margin of error for the study. To all your readers: Read comScore's press release if you actually want the story.

There's nothing I hate more than when "journalists" feel the need to report on "stats" but then only tell the tiny part of the story that their itty-bitty brains understand.....

Score: 0

By fernz33

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 8:19 PM

WHAT! Is this true? Come on Beta"News". I thought for sure since this wasn't about the "hot" topics on this site that I can count on it. It's getting harder and harder to trust this site.

"There's nothing I hate more than when "journalists" feel the need to report on "stats" but then only tell the tiny part of the story that their itty-bitty brains understand....."

I could not have said it better myself.

Score: 0

By dougau

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 6:17 PM

They are making a lot more than they would have if one of the glorious record companys represented by the RIAA were distributing the album, talk about ripping off the artist.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 6:42 PM

Yeah....poor RadioHead. They got screwed...

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By fernz33

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 5:42 PM

I'll admit I did not pay for it.... But, once I listen to it more, I will pay what I think it deserves.

1$ per rating point on a 1-10 scale.

Score: 0

By debonair

edited Nov 6, 2007 - 5:31 PM

If you like it, buy it! C'mon ppl. Don't just download because you can.

On the other hand, maybe this album was crap ... ?

Download and delete happens quite often.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 8:55 AM

Depends on your musical tastes, but I think it's some of their best work in years.

Score: 0

By KRome

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 5:30 PM

1.2 million people, divided by 3 = 400,000

based on the average pay of $4.64 which I'm lowballing based on the euro average, they made atleast a million dollars.

Thats not bad for a few months work.

Infact its quite good. Theres no reason an artist should be a multi millionaire.

Musicians are no more important than teachers or janitors or doctors.

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 7:16 PM

No they shouldn't but it's quite cool for my doctor to sit on a stool for 30 mins and check up on me and tell me what I already know. Telling me to take some pills, go back next week and charge me $300 for this visit, then more likely, give him another $100 for the visit next week...its fantastic!

Score: 0

By kprovance

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 6:25 PM

Well, importance may not be a factor, but have you ever written, recorded and produced a song? It's tedious work that does require some talent. There should be compensation. Folks deserved to be paid for the work they do, whatever that work may be.

I am a software developer who writes shareware. I deal with people b****ing all the time that software should be free and all updates should be free...forever. Forget the fact that I work a regular day like everyone else...only I should not be compensated for a product that folks use regularly.

I released a "freeware" program a few years back and asks folks to donate if they find the program useful. I added a little "phone home" subroutine just so I could see how many people regularly use the program. A simple ping...no data transmitted. Out of an approximate 11,000 downloads with 7000 or so using the program regularly. You know how many folks made a donation? 12. Even with donation benefits (extra features, owners area, etc) no one felt the need to compensate me in some small way even if they use the program on a regular basis. Consequently I don't produce or the support the program anymore (with the exception of those 12 folks who get all the support they want) because it wasn't worth my time or effort. Folks want everything for free and obviously don't understand the those who produce goods should be compensated. It shouldn't matter if you are a janitor, a fast food worked, a programmer, a musician or an athlete...folks deserved to be compensated for the work they do as we all have bills to pay.

Folks who complain to me about paying for software they like get told the same thing over and over: Put yourself in my shoes. Would you work 10 hours a day writing code and supporting the program for free? Would you do the job you are doing now for no pay simply because your boss feels you should do his bidding for free? Of course not! So why should I be any different just because I write software? Clearly the software is liked well enough that you want to keep it...don't you feel that's worth a few bucks to keep the software available?

No one seems to have a good reply for that argument and usually end up registering.

Give them a choice and they won't. It's sad. I've paid for every piece of software I liked and used even if it was free. If someone worked hard to produce a tool I like or made my life more productive then that author should be compensated for his or her effort and I'm glad to do it...every time. You'd be surprised how good it feels to do the right thing by other people instead of constantly being selfish.

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 7:04 PM

Well, my friend...I must agree with everything you have said and I'm gonna have to preach a little bit here here's my opinion, simply because I have something to do with music but anyway, the thing is that YOU also have a choice. Before you do something for people, you must ask yourself this...do you want to release your work for free? or do you want people to pay for it? Which ever you choose, you must make sure with YOURSELF, that is what you want. Yes...Doing any work in music or programming or whatever, not only requires some talent and yes it is tedious as hell and time consuming and I respect your opinion that people should get paid for it. I, for example, have worked on music but it was only as a hobby, only because I liked it, never for the money, in fact I wasn't that good...but people seemed to like it. Anyway, back to my questions and the reason I say YOU must ask yourself that is because you must remain true to your work!

When I worked on my music (as an Indie) I chose to release my music for free and I never expected anyone to pay me for it, it is the reason why I released all of my songs for free and with that, I never wanted people to feel like they were obligated to "donate" anything for it, I think there shouldn't be any kind of obligation behind the word "free". It is good to be on the side of doing the right thing and if you do wish to compensate someone, then that is the good part and beauty about yourself and YOU should be PROUD of it with yourself...trust me, don't expect much from people but always remain true to yourself and feel good about WHAT you're doing. Remain to your truth about your work...and I speak for myself, since I have worked on music before, I never did it for money, I did it because I liked and because people used to like it, I have "retired" now...I no longer work on music but it will always be something that I can remember for all the good things it did for me and those who accepted it, no money involved...I just felt that my work was true and free as I wanted it to be =)

Score: 0

By kprovance

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 10:17 PM

I see you points. When I released the free program, I didn't really expect it to do well, in all fairness. I thought it would do better than it did as I was foolish enough to believe that my loyal customer base for my other programs would be more honest than they really were. It was kind of an experiment and I indeed got the results I was seeking, even if they were not the results I wanted. I'm one of those naive folks who insists on believing that folks are really good at heart and would do the right thing if given a choice...so I am constantly being disappointed in that area, yet still won't change my optimistic view. I can't as I would probably get depressed to the point of suicide. ;-)

Most of my disappointment in the free program stemmed from the fact that unconditional support for the program was expected by those who felt the need not to donate. I posted an FAQ page and even set up a forum where users could exchange questions and answers...but it turned into a flame fest against me for not dropping everything I was doing with the income generating programs to support the program no one wanted to pay for. In other words, folks wanted it both ways. I basically said "hey, you get what you pay for". Consequently, if the folks who download the Radiohead tracks (I have not, I don't care for them musically) feel the need to complain that the work sucks, they have no right. They didn't pay for it. If someone forked out 20 bucks for the CD and hated it, then their complaints would be valid. Same with that free program. My position was "you only have the right to complain about the level of service you get (or don't get as the case may be) if you support the program by making a contribution to it" and yet somehow I ended up the bad guy for not updating it regularly. Well, lesson learned I suppose. No more freeware. But you are right on track tho with your comments as my other programs, especially my flagship one I have put my heart and soul into because I love it, for lack of a better term. It was a hobby that turned into a job and for all my superficial complaining, I love what I do and wouldn't trade it for anything. :-)

And I'm no good at producing music either. I fair myself as a pretty good composer...but getting what you hear in your head to sound the same on disk is a task in and of itself. Plus I never had access to a full orchestra. ;-)

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 11:53 PM

Lol, true, true, very true...see, people always want more and they expect even better out of the free stuff, free music, I love freeware! there are lots of great programmers out there that I know for sure have spent countless hours in their work and people are always bashing them simply because certain program doesn't work for them. I guess people always expect the best of the best even in the freeware arena, but hey! you're right, you get what you pay for and you shouldn't complain at all and if something doesn't work out to your advantage then move along but I don't think there is a need to make the author feel like crap about certain things in their work after all, this is their work and people should respect that no matter what. On the contrary, hats off to any programmer that does freeware or any kind of programming! I wish I could do that, its a fantastic thing to do in my opinion but I can never deal with all that coding =). Music? well...that's a whole different thing but yeah...I hope Radiohead didn't have any expectations to make money out of their free music, when we see something with the "free" tag on it, we just assume is free, so I don't think much people would have compensated any money for it. Even I wouldn't, if I had downloaded it, BUT when I download music and I like what I hear and get interested in the artist I definitely buy the actual CD!

Score: 0

By kprovance

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 10:59 AM

If one of my favourite bands or artist did something like this (for example Jeff Lynne) I would give him the full album price. I could never "steal" from guys (or gals) whose music has inspired me in my own work over the years. When ELO's first album in fifteen years was announced, I managed to find all the tracks on Napster (when it was popular) because I could not wait to hear them. Even with the tracks on my box, I ended up buying the US version, the Import with bonus tracks (UK version) and the first single (more bonus tracks). I couldn't in good conscience take something from Lynne that I loved and listened to daily without giving him his just due.

Unfortunately, being an "old schooler" in terms of music, most of the crap produced these days is just horrible and not even worth listening to (anyone who doesn't play their own instruments or write their own music just is *not* a musician, because any hot shot producer can make the worst singer sound pitch correct). When you take into account that only one or two tracks, the release tracks are any good while the filler sucks, most CDs are not even worth their production cost, much less the markup. I'm sure there must be a bunch of folks who feel the same about Radiohead...clearly.

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 11:17 AM

Lol! yeah...Napster was the sh!t back in the day. Many of the artists that I know of today and CDs I have bought over the years are from discoveries in the good ol' days from napster.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 6:40 PM

There should be compensation.

And there was. not only that, but they will continue to be compensated for that work for 75+ years from all sales, concerts, merch, you name it.

Don't even *try* to use RadioHead as a posterboy for the "poor musician".

Score: 0

By n8

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 6:01 PM

"...Theres no reason an artist should be a multi millionaire.

Musicians are no more important than teachers or janitors or doctors..."

That's great, but I don't want to listen to a teacher, janitor or doctor when I'm making sweet love to your mom. I'll gladly pay $10-15 for some "OK Computer" in the background.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 5:27 PM

Yeah, look at them - money for nothing and chicks for free! ;-)
But seriously, the most important is that this way of sell is pretty far more profitable for the band that the usual way.

Score: 0

By Joco

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 5:12 PM

A positive way of seeing this: 1/3 paying customers is better than zero. At the very least it is courageous of the band to pioneer the new way of marketing.

Score: 0

By bbfc

edited Nov 6, 2007 - 5:04 PM

People always want something for nothing!

They should of set it up so they would have to pay something - didn't realise they were offering it for free - that was just asking for trouble!

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal

Sep 5 - 2:06 PM ET An ad about nothing: First Seinfeld + Gates ad omitted Vista