There's two numbers to be considered:
1. The average price
2. The total number of downloads

If significantly more people downloaded the cd than would have bought it otherwise, a low average isn't neccessarily bad. In fact, you could argue it's a good thing, since more people will be exposed to the band's music, leading to more potential profit/fans later.

Keep in mind the average musician pulls in something like $1/cd sold in stores and the top albums are only selling 500k or so these days. If a few million people downloaded it, Radiohead could make a larger profit averaging a quarter per user.

crash

The fact of the matter is, even if the average amount paid is a relatively low $2, the band will still be making vastly more money than they would from a label. A band typically only gets about $1-$1.50 per sale depending on their deal and clout. And THAT amount is then reducible by recoupable expenses - the cost to take a radio programmer in Miami to a $400 dinner or the cost for that full page ad in Billboard. It's likely hundreds of thousands of records sold before an artist starts seeing royalties. Many bands sell Platinum and are still in the red with the label. $2 a download on their own site is almost pure profit for Radiohead. Artists like Ani diFranco figured this out years ago - you can sell a tenth of the records and make twice the money. And still the labels and RIAA don't get it. I do, which is why I bailed from the industry a decade ago. My soul has almost completely grown back too!

SirIsaac

I paid $5 for the album, and feel is it both fair and reasonable considering there are no production costs and the artist keeps 100% of the proceeds. I would have paid more for a higher bitrate, so overall I guess I feel that Trent's is a better concept. We'll see how it goes, I'm just glad to see such radical change actually taking effect. If it can work for the record industry, what can we change next? Middlemen & pimps beware, the day of reckoning is upon you!

atomx

OK....

But I think we're just trained to pay for stuff when we get it, and few people will actually go back to the site to pay for it no matter how much they like it. Despite what people say (and despite the fact that if you don't like it you don't have to pay), how many people who like it actually return to the site to pay for the music after-the-fact?

Like the yard sale example: if the guy says pay whatever you want or just take it for free, would you actually come back the next day and say, "you know what, I really love this little ass-lamp to death and so here is $10 which I now feel is how much it's worth." In reality, after you take the guy's ass-lamp, you'll wave at him when you see him on the street but you'll never give him another dime.
If Radiohead wants to give away music for free because some people will pay for it on the spot, great! And maybe a few people, and probably very few, will return to cough up some scratch. But generally, I just don't believe a lot of people are going to return to the site to pay after the transaction.

Generally, I think I prefer Trent Reznor's model where the low-rez version is free, and you have to pay a reasonable amount for a higher-rez better-sounding version.

frigg

Incredible album. I paid roughly 10 bucks. Also, imagine the free advertisement they got from this whole endeavor. I'm willing to bet their fan base has increased dramatically due to the buzz alone. People checking them out just to see what they are all about.

thenson5619

@ruggels: On the Torrent issue, the Radiohead distribution experiment doesn't care about Torrents. They're testing the profit model of "pay what you want" against known channels of traditional online sales (e.g., iTunes) and CD sales. In all those profit models, the music eventually ends up on a torrent.

The key for Radiohead is to figure out how to make the most money for themselves in a world where Torrent is operating.

ndonahue

@frigg What thistle_john and others have done (by not paying for the download) is not dishonest or even misinterpreting the rules. Radiohead offered an album and asked a price. At this point, my price is $0. I do not buy digitally. Period.

When Radiohead offers this in CD format it is worth something to me, and I will pay for it. The same applies for the new Saul Williams album.

Lizard_King

The were low encoding quality files and I bought them for $8 because thats about what they were worth. A slightly higher encoding rate would have got me to pay about $10.

axiomatic

@TheRealChip: Hey look! Yet another person who didn't bother to read enough of the comments to figure out the one they based their aggrieved ranting on was in fact entirely fictional sarcasm. Le sigh.

icelight

@ those who complained about people downloading it for free, then paying after deciding they liked it

If I don't like what I hear, I don't listen to it. Why the fu$% would I pay for something I won't listen to again. This business model keeps the band in check as long as people somehow retained morals after mtv and pay up if they do like it.

reality.check

I bought it for about $5 (I did the conversion ahead of time so I knew how many BPs to send their way). I don't like the album, and assumed I wouldn't beforehand. I paid the $5 just to support the principle behind this album's distribution.

Auhim

Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) said in an interview that he bought the discbox and paid $5,000 for the digital download.

Not surprising considering that he produced Saul Williams' latest album, and they are using a similar pricing scheme. Basically, pay $5 for your choice of drm-free digital download (flac, 192 mp3, 320 mp3) or download a 192 kbps mp3 version for free.

[niggytardust.com]

jm9843

@frigg: It's not dishonest at all. Radiohead made it available for free. If you went to a yard sale, and the person holding the sale said "Just take whatever you want for free, or you can pay me if you want" are you stealing if you take something for free? Absolutely not. If you just happen to fork over some cash then the seller makes out better than he/she expected.

@TheRealChip: It probably wasn't just RadioHead fans... once people heard that it was available for free people downloaded it just to get it for free. People will take anything if it's free.

hagrun

In order to judge the success of the experiment, we have to wait, not for official figures from the band, but rather from ticket sales for concerts which are typically the bread and butter of a smaller band's livelihood.

If Radiohead can sell out venues for substantially more money than before because of greater demand, then the experiment is a success. Albums are advertising for the band. More people get the album - more people go to the shows.

omg-ponies

$.28 average paid? That's just sad. I would have hoped people would have voted with their wallet to make change. NOPE. Their measly contribution has ensured the status quo... paying high prices to record labels and the artists receiving a tiny sliver of the proceeds.

I doubt the 28 cents covers their bandwidth costs.
Congratulations RadioHead fans. You killed this model.

TheRealChip

If this business model works out, expect a lot of not quite so well-known bands to try the same.
Which, incidentally, would work out for them because the contracts these bands are offered are marginally short of exploitative.
I wouldn't mind downloading some good Hard Rock albums and paying the bands directly. Which up until now was only possible by buying overpriced CDs at concerts.

Hvedhrungr

Of course they still made more money quicker than they would have while being screwed over by their distributor. So the only losers here would be the middle men, not the band or the consumers.

Something I personally welcome and hope will set an example for other artists.

Monsterdog

This is pointing towards where things are going as far as music and other ip. Speaking of, the acronym IP is already taken, can you fucking idiots that come up with something else? Like "brain patent" or "creative spooge".
But no really, the current structure of;
publishing entity(owns the songs), packaging entity(CD's & MP3's) , distribution (physically ship units) and retailers/etailers is not only redundant, its sadistic.
Ask any musician who has been "signed".
A large percentage of artists have albums which are shelved by their packaging entity (labels). Quite a bit more are left out in the cold on revenue because the labels and distributors are in line in front of them to "recoup costs".
Now we cant all be radiohead and have thousands flock to download our latest fluff.
Thats why Myspace and snocap are taking over.

Me I give my songs away.
[myspace.com]

I make money unclogging computers

calaverasgrandes

The comScore study and the media reporting on it was moronic. Even if most people didn't pay for it, many of those were likely to be people who would never have paid for the album in conventional form either! They would have pirated it, or aren't really that in to Radiohead in the first place and only downloaded it because they could get it for free. I don't like Radiohead, and I nearly downloaded In Rainbows!

LittleJon

I paid. I love RH. I have no issues for paying for things I love. (uhh. wait...um. yeah.)

I actually paid for the CDs being sent to me in Dec. I hear it's about 80 bucks. That included the download available now. So consider my payment alone paying for a bunch of people that gave them 5 bucks or less.

swervie

@Frigg:
Actually that's pretty much their intent. They want people to pay what they think it is worth. Say you hear it and like it a lot, then you can pay them a lot if you can afford it. Oh and most people usually pay for food after they eat it in restaurants and sometimes that factors into the tip. On a side note, I always bargain with hookers, $50 zj's don't fit into my budget.

milktruckheist

@diabolusunknown: When you say your torrent use is "shaped" are you talking about our wonderful friends at Comcast? Also: Share ratio? Sorry if I don't understand that one. I was always under the impression that when you start downloading a torrented file, it speeds up faster as the file is completing. How would a few tiny MP3's help anyone? If I'm totally wrong, educate me on this.

@ruggels: I had no idea their servers were screwy. I had no problem, but I didn't buy the album for a few weeks. As far as a transaction fee, seems pretty trivial to me.

johnnyrandom

I wouldn't be surprised to hear that comScore is connected to RIAA somehow, the naysayers they are.

Nothing but praise for "In Rainbows" and Radiohead.

chillywilly

@BensAngel: perhaps it went up while you were writing your post, but you might want to look at the one above you. (Don't worry 92BuickLeSabre, some of us could tell you weren't serious.)

I suppose it's still vaguely possible the data came from a leaked source, and this is actually accurate (and Radiohead want to deny it either to give some time for the figures to change, or because they don't want to reveal what they actually were). Even if they were true, the ability to sell direct would mean a great deal higher profit margins for the band.

(Full disclosure: I haven't downloaded the album at all, and don't really care about the band per se either way. But I would hope the project succeeds, if only to see imitation.)

icelight

@frigg: k? "That doesn't sound honest to me." He's doing exactly what Radiohead would like him to do. They don't give a shit if you d/l now and pay later. Perhaps you need to think outside the square a little sir.

@karmaghost: But that would require some level of journalism right? And this is just a blog right?

BensAngel

@karmaghost: to be clear. My post was a poor attempt at sarcasm.

92BuickLeSabre

I can't tell you how much I enjoy this album. It is by far the most accessible Radiohead album to date. And, in my opinion, the most important album release in many years.

As far as the bands distribution method goes, I love it. I was able to give what I thought was worthy price for a hotly anticipated album. I went with six bucks (generous considering nearly all of the money goes directly to the band).

Although some news sources are saying that releasing and album in the manner could only be pulled off by a major band (abc news), I would have to strongly disagree. I like the idea of the music going strait from the band to the fan. Or am I missing something here?

Johnny Chimpo

I don't get it; the headline here is "Maybe Radiohead Fans are Not So Cheap After All." I expected to read some data from the post that proved that those who downloaded the album payed a decent amount for the content. Instead, there's a firm's research data that said a lot of people didn't pay and those who did only paid $.28. The only information that suggests that we (Radiohead fans) are not cheap was the statement from the band who stated that the firms poll numbers were inaccurate, but provided no proof of what the actual results were. Could we change the headline or provide alternate information, plz?

karmaghost

it might be only 38% who paid, but the band kept 100% of the proceeds, instead of the fraction of that they would have kept had they sold this through the usual channels.

I would not be surprised if even with only 38% paying the band made a lot more than they would have otherwise; of course this angle does not make as good copy as the 'hey, lookie, everybody is a pirate!'.

What dreams may come

@Usama: "I usually find other means of getting my music (other than paying for it that is) [...]"

Bra-vo.

someToast

Even if numbers are low, download stats account for more then just Radiohead fans. I imagine a number of downloads came from people who wouldn't normally care about Radiohead, yet want to download the free hyped thing.

aquaosx

38% would be a really great percentage in the long term - particularly for the first band to do this.

NeoPoliticus

Best part, 100% of that is going to....Radiohead!

empreality

@johnnyrandom:

Ugh, people put the album on torrent sites for two reasons

a) MOST CRUCIALLY the tshirt retailer radiohead chose to handle the sales had woefully inept servers which were utter chicken shit on release day preventing everyone from downloading

b) you still had to pay the transaction fee to said retailer.

ruggels

@thistle.john: I couaeldn't get it from their website for 3 days after release. So I torrented it. I bought it on day 4

JKinNYC

Wow! I didn't realize it had gone up that much.

I think the album in worth twice what I paid easily. I wonder how many people gave up on the overloaded website and just downloaded it from newsgroups or something. Which is exactly what I did just so I could listen to it while I waited for their servers to work. :)

bucho54

@bucho54: Actually, at current rates that is over $10.49. Exchange rates have shot up like crazy (as have the oil prices).

wvv

@thistle.john:

i got it free, but i do intend to pay once i have listened, and decided what its worth.

That doesn't sound honest to me. Like, are you really going to do this? And how are you going to decide what it's worth?

If you decide it's worth $100 or $10000, is that what you'll pay?

What about when you go out to eat - do you just pay after you've eaten and decided what it's worth? Or do you barter fees with your concubine after you've completed the sexual act?

Radiohead isn't asking for you to review their music, just pay some reasonable amount to download it. You shouldn't pay so much that if you don't like it you don't wind up feeling ripped off, but you should pay something up front.

frigg

I paid 5 pounds. I forget how much that worked out in USD, but I think it was about 7 bucks. I actually was going to pay more but the site was HORRIBLE. It would timeout constantly. I spent all day trying to give them money... but I don't think they wanted it.

bucho54

I paid $20

SquareBubbles

@johnnyrandom: Alot of them did it just to get their share ratio up. Ive even seen demo downloads which are usually much faster by downloading at the source (since torrent traffic is shaped by my ISP, at least), and the only reason i can think of putting them on there is to get ratio's up, since these people cant find anything torrent sites "want".

Torrents are convenient as well, in that you set it to download, then after a few days, you come back and hope its done (like mail ordering something). Regardless of the fact that the download is available online, torrents just end up being used anyways.

diabolusunknown

and what do they do for those of us who paid the $81 for the box set. technically, i got the download for free.

konstantConsumer

The record industry would obviously love for Radioheads experiment to fail. Even if the average paid is under a dollar per download, Radiohead will still be making more than they would distributing their work through a racket company. Sorry, I meant record company, hrmmmm

gommie1979

@92BuickLeSabre: More like:

"The figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project."

@thistle.john:

People putting the new album on torrent sites doesn't make sense to me either!

johnnyrandom

i dont understand why they would be put on torrent sites, when you can get it free from radioheads site, its far less risky, and (for me atleast) faster

i got it free, but i do intend to pay once i have listened, and decided what its worth.

thistle.john

@brandon: Thank you Brandon, I was just about to say that. I usually find other means of getting my music (other than paying for it that is), but this time I actually bought the album (and paid roughly $5, I forget how many pounds that is). But I'm sure once a few copies were downloaded they've been available on torrents and whatnot...

So although Radiohead's people can provide an accurate figure of what percentage actually paid and what the average payment, those figures will only reflect downloads directly from the source.

Usama

You guys forgot to turn the statement over and read the second page:

"In fact, 17% of those who downloaded the album paid. And the average amount of payment by those who did pay was $0.28."

92BuickLeSabre

"the album could only be downloaded from the band's website, it is impossible for outside organizations to have accurate figures on sales"

or rapidshare.. or a torrent.. or anywhere..

brandon