Edition:: UK |; Asia

Jobs

Senior Account Planner: to £60k
Digital Account Manager: £25000-£30000
Senior Account Director – Integrated/Direct Response: to £55k + benefits
Junior Publicist: £18000-£22000
Email Marketing Graduate Level: £18000-£22000

Gordon's Republic

The Radiohead download - how much did you pay?

Comments:16 Add your comment

Today is the day when anyone who cares can download the new Radiohead album, 'In Rainbows', and pay as much as they like. I'm coming clean, how much did you pay?

I paid £5. I dithered for a while and then thought I had underpaid. I tried to go back, but although the system allowed every detail to be edited it did not allow you to change the amount you had first opted to pay. Oh well. I was only going to up my payment (donation?) to £7.

I don't feel too bad about "underpaying" as it were. As I understand it, when they were on a label and I splashed £8.99 for an album the band only got a pound with the rest going to EMI. By paying a fiver, I'm at least ensuring everyone in the band gets enough to take a bus ride (as long as they have an Oyster card...).

Come on, own up. How much did you pay?

Published Oct 10 2007, 03:02 PM by Gordon Macmillan

Filed under: MP3, music, Radiohead, social media

save it on Add to Del.icio.us

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Stumble

share on

Facebook

Comments

by Peter Petrelli

October 10, 2007 3:01 PM

was going to pay a tenner but probably £7.36 now

by Mark Bridge

October 10, 2007 5:37 PM

Gordon - if you're still bothered about having underpaid, couldn't you just buy a second copy?

by Gordon Macmillan

October 11, 2007 8:35 AM

You're right, it would make an ideal gift. I need to actually listen to it, I lamely forgot to use my download lastnight. What's the verdict?

by Alex Donohue

October 11, 2007 1:58 PM

According to unofficial stats, Radiohead have shifted 1.2m copies of In Rainbows since Wednesday. Obviously, they're entitled to do whatever they want, but it was EMI's millions (when Radiohead had a record contract) that helped make them one of the biggest and most revered bands in the world. Having had a chance to ask a few signed, albeit relatively unknown, artists this week what they think about Radiohead's strategy, it seems fairly clear this is only the preserve of artists who can afford to do it. The band will recoup costs whatever the artistic merits of the release because they have sold 20m albums. The financial risk to the band is negligible. This isn't really something new artists can do, so if choosing the amount an album should cost become commonplace, a lot of emerging talent will suffer very badly. Ironic considering Radiohead's support for the independent music scene to date.

by Peter Petrelli

October 11, 2007 3:21 PM

there are online financing options for new unsigned artists like http://www.sellaband.com/ where users can buy a stake in the artist but Alex is correct. Radiohead are such a massive band because of the money from the record label for marketing, recording, videos, promotion, merchandising, logistics etc. I dont think they are doing this in a Prince manner of sticking 2 fingers up at Sony, I think they are doing this because it puts music fans in control of the album which is surely a great thing for consumer mentality and the fact that as Alex pointed out, they can afford to. Its not about money (because they have loads and probably will get loads more from this album as Gordon said) but about getting the music out to people. Were bound to see a massive summer tour from Radiohead in 2008 anyway where they will have another shedload of wonga. Plus I overheard someone on the train the other day whos wife was Radioheads chef (sounded genuine at the time) and by the sounds of it Pyramid Stage of Glastonbury 2008 Saturday night slot has already been taken by the group

by Gordon Macmillan

October 11, 2007 3:36 PM

I read a piece in the Times today that said the average person had paid £4. I don't feel so bad. Apparently around one third paid nothing. Although interesting some people said that if there was a post payment system and they really liked it they would be inclined to pay something later. I really like that idea.

by Fran Hazeldine

October 11, 2007 3:40 PM

I completely disagree, Alex. Arctic Monkeys filled the Astoria without ever having sold an album. There's no reason why a new band can't give away their music and then make back the money from touring. Offering your album for download either for free or at an unfixed price is a promotional strategy. Arguably it's the most financially lucrative strategy in the current music industry climate, as it maximises exposure and hence maximises the potential audience for profitable live performances. (In the case of unfixed prcing, It also maximises your cut of the album revenue, potentially multiplying earnings if the average price paid is greater than £1). Obviously if you're an unremarkable band then no one will want your free download and no one will pay to go to your gig. But then, if you're unremarkable, you're not going to make any money going the traditional route, either. The current state of the music industry is partly the result of wikinomics and partly to do with our vibrant experience economy. Those are socio-cultural facts, and the bands that take note of them and adjust their business model accordingly will achieve greater, more sustainable success than those who subscribe to anachronistic practises.

by Colin Appleby

October 11, 2007 4:36 PM

In response to Fran's suggestion that, "if you're unremarkable, you're not going to make any money going the traditional route," I offer just two words of comment. James Last.

by Peter Petrelli

October 11, 2007 4:43 PM

i further that with 'Kaiser Chiefs'

by Alex Donohue

October 12, 2007 9:24 AM

Fran, but surely so many people are downloading In Rainbows because Radiohead have been an established global act for the last 10 years? New bands can't realistically do this. Very few bands make money from touring, only the big ones who have an established marketing base of fans. Radiohead's strategy only maximises exposure if you have an industry profile in the first place. And what of the bands who take a few albums to become commercially or artistically viable? This is not a sustainable business model for most bands, they have to make a living somehow. I have spoken to signed and unsigned bands this week, and they're very worried that touring 365 days a year is the only way they'll keep their heads above water. Peter, I meet your Kaiser Chiefs, and I raise you Keane.

by Bill Britt

October 12, 2007 9:44 AM

Alex, what has been going on in the music industry reflects the marketing industry at large. The fragmentation of the media has benefited older FMCG brands, which built up name recognition in the heyday of TV advertising in the 60s and 70s. Look at Premier Foods, which has acquired household names established in an era when there weren’t hundreds of satellite TV channels and the internet. Aging rockers are similarly living off all the branding done by the big record companies over several decades. Of course MySpace has rocketed young bands like the Arctic Monkeys, but many more bands are living the lives of Medieval Troubadours.

by Philip Smith

October 12, 2007 3:49 PM

I bought Hail to the Thief - I reckon it's Radiohead who owe me cash for over promising and underdelivering on that one.

by Grattan McCoach

October 15, 2007 10:52 AM

PSmith - 'I bought Hail to the Thief - I reckon it's Radiohead who owe me cash for over promising and underdelivering on that one' Haha! Classic! Got to say though, I think their latest album is a beauty - and not at all because I acquired it for free :)

by Phil Hickes

October 15, 2007 1:44 PM

£5

by JOHN DORE

October 15, 2007 4:03 PM

by Alex Donohue

October 17, 2007 3:24 PM

It evens itself out though Phil I reckon, I paid around £10 for OK Computer in 1997. It's worth four times the amount IMHO.

To comment on this post you have to be logged in

Top of Page

Search Community

About this blog