Radiohead Says: Pay What You Want

[skinsfan999]

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1666973,00.html?cnn=yes


Roughly 12,000 albums are released in an average year, so the announcement late Sunday night that the new Radiohead record, In Rainbows, will be out Oct. 10 is not itself big news. Sure, Radiohead is on a sustained run as the most interesting and innovative band in rock, but what makes In Rainbows important — easily the most important release in the recent history of the music business — are its record label and its retail price: there is none, and there is none.

In Rainbows will be released as a digital download available only via the band's web site, Radiohead.com. There's no label or distribution partner to cut into the band's profits — but then there may not be any profits. Drop In Rainbows' 15 songs into the online checkout basket and a question mark pops up where the price would normally be. Click it, and the prompt "It's Up To You" appears. Click again and it refreshes with the words "It's Really Up To You" — and really, it is. It's the first major album whose price is determined by what individual consumers want to pay for it. And it's perfectly acceptable to pay nothing at all.

What does everyone think of this idea? This could revolutionize the way music is distributed if it's successful, IMO.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Now why would I pay for something that I don't have to pay for? Of course you'll get the stupid idealist sucker who drops 100 bucks, which more then compensates for the big fat 0 I'm dropping.

[Heidenreich]

I don't care for Radiohead, but this is a neat idea.

Neat enough that I'll "buy" it for nothing & actually give it a listen. Which is better than if it was released normally.

[TheREALJBird]

Interesting idea, I don't pay for now of that stuff regardless though

[Prosperity]

radiohead is better than your favorite musical artist(s)

i'll probably dish out the $80 for the special set though, i'm a fanboy like that

[OrangeSkin]

Maybe this is because Radiohead has sucked since OK Computer and they know no one would buy it for full price so they're using this to drum up some fake publicity? :whoknows:

[jnhay]

Maybe this is because Radiohead has sucked since OK Computer and they know no one would buy it for full price so they're using this to drum up some fake publicity? :whoknows:
They've sold a ridiculous amount of cds since OK Computer. Let me guess, your favorite songs are "Karma Police" and "Creep." :laugh:

Since they aren't under a record label, and are still incredibly popular, they still stand to make a huge amount of cash.

[redwoody86]

I like it. Although I feel like they should have some suggestions, like $1, $5, $10, $20, etc... just to give people ideas. If I just see an empty box I am more likely to put $0 than if I see an option for 1 or 5.

Probably better having people download it here with at least some percent of people paying some percent of the price then everyone just stealing it anyways.

But, I don't think it will catch on, because I just don't think enough people will give money.

[Corcaigh]

A very interesting idea.

The music business has been badly broken in the view of the major artists for a long time. Radiohead has the muscle to bypass the traditional distribution channels. Given that only a small fraction of an albums revenue goes to the band, cutting out the middleman is a great way to go. It's an assumption but I'd guess that Radiohead aren't relying on the CD racks at Wal-Mart or Best Buy to get to their customers any longer.

[RonJeremy]

I will give them a 5 spot for their music. If it sucks I am only out a six pack.

[dockeryfan]

I don't care for Radiohead, .
BLASPHEMY!

[OrangeSkin]

They've sold a ridiculous amount of cds since OK Computer. Let me guess, your favorite songs are "Karma Police" and "Creep." :laugh:

Since they aren't under a record label, and are still incredibly popular, they still stand to make a huge amount of cash.
No, OK Computer is a classic, but they've moved too far towards electronica and it sucks. I don't care how much they've sold, they've gone seriously downhill since they abandoned guitars.

[dockeryfan]

Maybe this is because Radiohead has sucked since OK Computer
Wow. Just wow.

You need to give Kid A another listen.

And that was 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstDdzedgcE (off Hail to the Thief)
This is just a fan made video, I think, but it's pretty cool.


I like it all except for Pablo Honey, and I'll get the new album on the 10th without a doubt.

[OrangeSkin]

Wow. Just wow.

You need to give Kid A another listen.

And that was 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lstDdzedgcE (off Hail to the Thief)
This is just a fan made video, I think, but it's pretty cool.


I like it all except for Pablo Honey, and I'll get the new album on the 10th without a doubt.
I've given Kid A many listens, I really wanted to like it, but The National Anthem and Idioteque are the only songs I can get into.

[DCsportsfan53]

I love their old stuff but I haven't gotten into the stuff since OK Computer. That album was the only release in recent memory that was a full on album, rather than a collection of singles, imo. I don't like to listen to it unless I'm going to play it begining to end.


Interesting idea, I'll probably throw them $5 for it, I'm curious to see how it is.

[IONTOP]

Does anyone know if you have to "pay" when you get the songs, or can you come back and pay if you like it?

I think that this strategy will work for a few albums at the beginning, but after awhile people will start thinking "Someone else will pay for me, I paid for the last 5 albums I D/L'ed" and overall revenues of these albums will go down with the number that are put out...

It WILL work in the short run, but the long run, it will not...

[China]

Radiohead's warm glow (http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071015/OPINION03/710150323/1039/OPINION03)

October 15, 2007

I didn't pay anything to download Radiohead's "In Rainbows" last Wednesday. When the checkout page on the band's Web site allowed me to type in whatever price I wanted, I put 0.00, the lowest I could go. My economist friends say this makes me a rational being.

Apparently not everybody is this lucid, at least not in matters related to their favorite British rock band. After Radiohead announced it would allow fans to download its album for whatever price they chose, about a third of the first million or so downloads paid nothing, according to a British survey. But many paid more than $20. The average price was about $8. That is, people paid for something they could get for free.

This phenomenon is not new. It's called tipping. We do it when we go to the restaurant or the barber, or when we ride in a taxi. Though one could argue there are real tangible reasons for this payment — like not losing an ear the next time we get a haircut — the practice of paying more money than we are legally bound to do is still mystifying in an economic sense. For instance, why tip a cabdriver you will probably never see again?

"Since we economists don't understand tipping, we can't really say whether this new scheme will work," Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor of economics, said in an entry on his blog. He is not the only economist who is fascinated by the phenomenon. His Harvard colleague, Dani Rodrik, asked his blog readers, "Has Radiohead gone bonkers?" He concluded, "Not at all." Radiohead will make money. But those who are paying for the download may truly be nuts.

One could argue that rationality isn't everything. Radiohead fans might just be altruistic beings who out of the goodness of their hearts would like to give some money to a spectacularly successful and probably stinking-rich rock band. But somehow, that doesn't work as an explanation.

Or does it? Some economists suspect that what is going on is that people get a kick from the act of giving the band money for the album rather than taking it for free. It could take many forms, like pleasure at being able to bypass the record labels, which many see as only slightly worse than the military-industrial complex. It could come from the notion that the $8 helps keep Radiohead in business. Or it could make fans feel that they are helping create a new art form — or a new economy. People who study philanthropy call it the "warm glow" that comes from doing something that we, and others, believe to be good.

Click on the link for the full article

[Enter Apotheosis]

I like the concept... rely on radio play and free albums to trump up band support. Your most loyal fans will donate to keep you going, you likely won't lose any profit due to your exclusion of a record label, and you could conceivably make an even bigger killing at live performances now that people can give you a listen without having to drop cash and without having to worry about legal consequences.

Will it work long term? I'm skeptical... but its worth a shot.

[EersSkins05]

Radiohead's warm glow (http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071015/OPINION03/710150323/1039/OPINION03)

October 15, 2007

This is a very interesting article on a very interesting idea for Radiohead. I guessed all along that they'd probably make more money just on the basis that they aren't spending ANYTHING on the production of CD's to distribute this record, and they also aren't sharing anything from the profits with a label. (I think I read where most artists make less than 50 cents per $15 CD sold.)

So even if they made a dollar per album download, they'd probably be making more money than if they'd gone the traditional route.

And judging by threads on this site as well as others, there's a significant percentage of music downloaders out there that feel an ethical obligation to pay for the music they download.

And none of this even goes towards the issue of the sheer marketing genius which was the decision to let buyers decide the price. The newsworthy aspect of the album's release more than paid for any marketing the band would have done.

When the release of your album is news, you've got the media doing your marketing for you- which is the goal of any marketing campaign.

(We should keep in mind, though, that only a handful of bands could have pulled this off, and Radiohead is one of them.)

[SUNSTONE]

I think it will make more money this way just because it will have all this free advertisement.
But the # of people who actually will pay for this album will be very small compared to those who don't.

[heyholetsgogrant]

A very interesting idea.

The music business has been badly broken in the view of the major artists for a long time. Radiohead has the muscle to bypass the traditional distribution channels. Given that only a small fraction of an albums revenue goes to the band, cutting out the middleman is a great way to go. It's an assumption but I'd guess that Radiohead aren't relying on the CD racks at Wal-Mart or Best Buy to get to their customers any longer.


I agree completely with this, I can see artists forming their own labels and distribution channels to get their music out (not that it has not been done, but I mean more of a larger scale). The biggest problem is very little of the money a band makes on CD's actually goes to the band. They pretty much make all their money on tours.

-Grant