Radiohead's "In Rainbows" Sale Statistics

[idiotec]

Interesting stuff. This could prove to be a HUGE turn in the music industry.


During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the “In Rainbows” site, with a significant percentage of visitors ultimately downloading the album. The study showed that 38 percent of global downloaders of the album willingly paid to do so, with the remaining 62 percent choosing to pay nothing. The percent downloading for free in the U.S. (60 percent) is only marginally lower than in the rest of the world (64 percent).



While freeloaders appear to be as prevalent in the U.S. as in the rest of the world, the U.S. paying customer is willing to pay far more ($8.05 per download) than his international counterpart ($4.64). The difference could be attributed to the fact that U.S. consumers generally have more disposable income, but possibly also to the greater popularity of free file-sharing in other countries.

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1883

[Eastwood]

People are saying that this is proof of failure in having people actually wanting to pay for music. They also say Radiohead is stupid. I say NAY! Let's say that 800000 of the 1.2 mil paid the average $6 that figures are shooting out there. That's still $1,824,000!!! Lets say that they get 60 cents for every $12 album sold, which is roughly 5% and the industry norm. They would have made only a paltry $480000 from their record deal. The only upside to having a record deal nowadays is the signing bonus, which could be around 2 mil per band member.

Other than that, if you are good and independent, go the way they went!

[tf5_bassist]

While this is absolutely genius by Radiohead, and I like them even more for doing this, especially on their own, it's a bit biased...

How many radiohead freaks are there out there? People OBSESSED with Radiohead? They seem to attract a serious number of diehard fans, and usually are much smarter than the average, say, puddle of mudd fan, and are more apt to spend money to support that band, full well knowing what that support means.

Just to check this against the real world, I'd like to see another band, a more "average" band do it... not Nickelback (they're too big, it'd throw it off), but, let's say, a band like Paramore, or Seether, or Taproot. Just to see if the numbers still carry over in similarity.

Now that'd be interesting.

[idiotec]

Well, the "name your own price" part is really only one aspect of all of this, and to me, the less important aspect. I do not see that as something that many other bands will do.

The bigger part of all of this is releasing it without a lable. Lables take the majority of the revenue generated by albumn sales. A band could release an albumn in a similar way, but just charge $5 for it. It may sell a few less copies without the promotion from the lable, but it all goes directly to the band, no middle man.

[Angry_Games]

yep if you minus out all of the "fees" or whatever that the record companies get from each album (usually more than the artists themselves recieve!) then I can easily see $5 being a profitable venture for bands to sell their cd's for (at an average price comparable to this Radiohead thing).

The other thing that a lot of us forget is that bands usually generate more money for their members by touring and playing big shows. Of course it depends on the band, but I don't know of any band that sells say 5 million copies like U2 that can't generate millions more by playing 100+ sold out 50,000 seat stadium shows (not to mention the merchandise like t-shirts and such that get sold at these shows).

This is the best quote from a recording industry exec in like FOREVER haha:

A source at one of the major labels said that allowing fans to pay what they wanted for music would never work, because people would always steal.

"Radiohead tried to spin this is offering a service for fans, but it was nothing more than a marketing ploy to make themselves relevant again and prepare for their next release."

ok, so, no matter what, fans will always steal? That's like saying all Muslims are terrorists, isn't it?

And "marketing ploy to make themselves relevant again" is $#@$#@ awesome...they are only one of the most popular bands on the planet (personally I don't dig them but I'm smart enough to be able to read sales numbers and concert attendance numbers to know they most definitely are already popular and relevant so why would they need a 'ploy' or 'gimmick' to become...popular and relevant that they already are???).

I hate the recording industry. I buy my cd's at the used shop or pawn shops, but heck, I paid $5 for Radiohead's online 'ploy' even though I don't like them just because I most definitely respect them for this (for cutting out the middle man, ie: the recording industry).

I don't believe any artist needs the recording industry anymore. Myspace and the internet in general are so much better and more useful for turning people on to new bands or new albums (and no I'm not talking about piracy either).

I buy my music. I just don't buy it off the shelf at Wal-mart or anything. I buy it direct from the artist or from used music stores/pawn shops. (through used stores and pawn shops I already know the artist and mostly his record company has already received their cut of the purchase, so it's not like they are getting cut out).

Ok that's my rant. I don't like Radiohead's music, but I dig them a LOT now. Now I just wish they made something worth listening to so I could feel even better about giving them $5 haha.

[idiotec]

Great post! Except for the last sentence ;)

[tf5_bassist]

haha...

I still don't see how people could say "This won't work because people will just want to steal" when it's not even stealing in this case. Perhaps a better phrase would be "This won't work because most people are cheap and greedy bastards".

[vtjustinb]

Radiohead commented today that those supposed statistics were wholly inaccurate.