« Why aren't there more dating coaches? | Main | The Significance of Changes in the Gender Happiness Gap »
Pay what you want for the new Radiohead album
Here is the story, but no this model won't much change the music industry. Yes you really can download this album and "tip" Radiohead as you feel inclined to. But note that:
1. Radiohead is an indie cult band with extreme loyalties from its partisans and the possibility of attracting more such partisans by seeming "cool."
2. Radiohead peaks high on the charts (#3 for their last release, if I recall...) but I believe they sell the product pretty quickly and don't have a long run at the top. Again, they'd like to widen their fan base.
3. Radiohead's gambit has reaped enormous publicity, but this won't be the case next time.
4. Many donors will give to a highly visible "cause of the month" (remember the outpouring of support for the tsunami victims?) but they won't necessarily give on a regular basis.
5. Radiohead probably has an especially high ratio of touring to CD and iTunes income; see #1. This scheme is a natural for them but not for Kelly Clarkson.
What we will see is lots of lesser bands (and authors) giving their work away for free, but that trend has been underway for some time. And by the way, Radiohead's best album is Kid A.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 2, 2007 at 07:40 AM in Music | Permalink
Comments
Your #1 and #2 are inconsistent. No "indie" band peaks at #3 by any definition of indie I am aware of.
Posted by: GoodneesOfFit at Oct 2, 2007 8:15:20 AM
"Amnesiac", "Hail to the Thief", and Yorke's solo album "The Eraser" are more complex and interesting than Kid A. Give them another spin.
Posted by: Steve R at Oct 2, 2007 8:27:45 AM
"Amnesiac", "Hail to the Thief", and Yorke's solo album "The Eraser" are more complex and interesting than Kid A. Give them another spin.
Posted by: Steve R at Oct 2, 2007 8:28:32 AM
No indie band wins Grammys either.
Posted by: jerry at Oct 2, 2007 8:31:14 AM
#4 is also questionable - Radiohead tours relatively infrequently, especially in North America.
Posted by: Ampersand at Oct 2, 2007 8:42:00 AM
#1 is certainly inconsistent with this quote from Time:
'The final decision was apparently made just a few weeks ago, and, when informed of the news on Sunday, several record executives admitted that, despite the rumors, they were stunned. "This feels like yet another death knell," emailed an A&R executive at a major European label. "If the best band in the world doesn't want a part of us, I'm not sure what's left for this business."'
Maybe what is perceived as an indie band in the US is a rather large mover in the larger market?
Posted by: Micah at Oct 2, 2007 8:45:24 AM
Radiohead's iTunes income is nil - the band refuses to have albums chunked into tracks, which is the only model iTunes has been willing to offer.
Posted by: Seamus McCauley at Oct 2, 2007 8:47:40 AM
#4: they do not sell any of their albums via iTunes. Though Yorke did w/ his solo project.
Posted by: David at Oct 2, 2007 8:47:53 AM
I bought their record online. 7.55 pounds is what I offered. They benefited from the fact that I knew they were getting all the proceeds, that I had full discretion, and that I am a huge fan. And the fact that I feel ripped off every time I buy a record from the record labels did push my bid higher as I would like to see this more often.
Posted by: Richard Pointer at Oct 2, 2007 8:53:05 AM
Stephen King did something similar a few years back, selling a serialized novel for a dollar or two a chunk, but making payment voluntary.
He eventually abandoned the project-- I think because not enough people were paying.
I know there is a restaurant somewhere which is famous for a pay-what-you'd-like policy. Gotta think that works better with people
actually looking you in the eye (and able to remember cheapskates).
Posted by: Different Jeff at Oct 2, 2007 9:07:25 AM
Market forces to determine the price! What is wrong with that?
Nothing except conditioning in individual markets may pre-dispose consumers to 'value' an offering in a certain way.
Richard Pointer offered £7.55. Considering new albums in the UK used to sell for £12.99 or £15.99 in stores, this seems like a good price. Considering record company owned stores started selling them for £5.99 a month after release, especially when people started buying CDs from Amazon or tunes from iTunes, this is not a good price. If as a frequent traveller, you have been buying your CDs in a country where the same labels have been selling them for even cheaper prices than in the US, this is a total rip-off.. But the consumer has the benefit of choosing what to pay.
Price of CD? £7.55
Customer satisfaction? Priceless!
The point about them getting all the proceeds is interesting but I doubt the awareness of the broader music industry model which rips the artist off is that universal.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of this experimental model, so various theories can be junked, re-defined or validated.
Posted by: Shefaly at Oct 2, 2007 9:07:49 AM
I'm no Radiohead fan, but I do suspect Tyler is ascribing more rational motives to this event than it warrants.
I doubt it's a ploy to expand their fan base.
More likely, it's a group of well-set, curious guys who wonder if this would work.
There's an interview with this band in the last Klosterman book, and he describes them as the most intelligent and intellectually
curious band he has ever met--by a wide margin.
I think this might well be an experiment for them.
I remember a more conflicted band manuever: Pearl Jam's battle with Ticketmaster (concurrent with their shunning of MTV).
There I think the band was at some level trying to establish "cred," but also genuinely looking to help their fan base afford
tickets, but it sorta deep 6'd their career as popular artists--though I think they probably do just fine.
Posted by: Different Jeff at Oct 2, 2007 9:17:33 AM
I know all about you people for whom nothing is "indie enough," perhaps short of Sebadoah. The point remains that Radiohead, relative to what else sells, is way to the indie side of the spectrum. The absence of iTunes income of course makes this project more financially feasible, not less so. Radiohead has spent a great deal of time touring, just read the Wikipedia entry on Thom Yorke.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Oct 2, 2007 9:18:28 AM
"And by the way, Radiohead's best album is Kid A."
Yes, a thousand times yes! Almost every time I discuss Radiohead I have this argument, and almost to a man everyone else says it's "OK Computer," a good album but not nearly as good as most people seem to think it is. Also, for sheer intensity there is basically no better song than "National Anthem" live.
Posted by: John Payne at Oct 2, 2007 9:20:55 AM
The first time I listened to an advance leak of "Kid A" in my friend's dorm room I was so confused.
I would say OKC, then Kid A, then maybe the Bends.
Posted by: mk at Oct 2, 2007 9:41:29 AM
Does anyone know what percentage of sales Radiohead could expect to get from a contract with a major label? I really have no idea. 1%? 10%?
Posted by: James at Oct 2, 2007 9:47:39 AM
I like Pablo Honey.
Posted by: Marco at Oct 2, 2007 10:03:58 AM
Seems like the author really doesn't know his music. Stick with economics...
Some more inconsistencies:
#2) OK Computer was on the charts for months in the late 90's
#5) Radtiohead plays shows about half to a quarter the size of what there fan base would dictate without charging higher prices for tickets
Posted by: Brian at Oct 2, 2007 10:06:17 AM
The question that lingers after reading this post is why this business model is good for Radiohead and not for K. Clarkson. What is it about working with a label that musicians cannot do on their own? What is it about the physical distribution of CDs that benefits some musicians more than others?
Unsatisfying explanations:
i. Advertising? It can be done with any distribution model (digital or physical CD). Ok, except advertising in store windows. But that cannot be the whole story.
ii. Store availability raising awareness? This is a key concept in grocery channels of distribution. Because the cookies are in the shelf, customers pick them. But music? Are people this impulsive? How many people get to know either Radiohead or Clarkson by browsing cd covers in music stores?
iii. People actually enjoying the ownership of a physical CD? But then ... why is ITunes so successful?
Tyler or someone else: i want to know more! :)
Posted by: londenio at Oct 2, 2007 10:17:06 AM
Radiohead is indisputably one of the biggest bands in the world. The scale of their shows and touring is not indicative of their fanbase. I know of know other working band where demand for tickets outstrips supply to such a great degree, especially considering the demographics of the fanbase. I sold an extra ticket to a Chicago show last summer for $250 and could have easily sold it for much more...and my buyer was a 23 year-old college student, not a rich baby boomer opening his wallet to see the Rolling Stones out of nostalgia.
They're not doing this to expand their fanbase; they're doing it to challenge the music industry because they know they carry more influence than virtually anyone.
Posted by: Zach Shoup at Oct 2, 2007 10:20:51 AM
Lodenio is getting at the key point. Brian's complaining aside, one key fact here is that Radiohead, relative to its popularity, doesn't have a very wide reach outside of its core demographic. (And reaching broad demographics, and moving across demograhpics, is in general what makes for a long run on the charts, just ask Levitt and Dubner!) To put it bluntly, they are a group that smart people listen to. That's fine, but presumably they sense that traditional record company tactics have not enabled them to broaden their audience base to other groups as much as they would like. So now they are trying something new.
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Oct 2, 2007 10:25:58 AM
My favorite Tyler quote ever: "I know all about you people for whom nothing is "indie enough," perhaps short of Sebadoah."
I was one of these kids in high school haha...
Posted by: bob at Oct 2, 2007 10:29:26 AM
Kid A is their second best, OK Computer is their best album, sorry John.
Posted by: Shaun M. at Oct 2, 2007 10:43:16 AM
i think you need to define "indie"....selling music on your own, sans label, seems fairly independent to me. i think its more of an attitude that the band has rather than facetime in pop media.
Posted by: erin at Oct 2, 2007 10:54:05 AM
I like Radiohead, but would like them more if they sent only bad links to those in the bottom 50th percentile of offers. Can you think of a more upsetting PR move? Oh, I would scream.
The argument that this is an experiment to see how much pirating will still go on... I didn't think of at first. I was not impressed by Eraser, and am a little wary about the loss of quality-insurance linked to 2-year release spreads, promotion costs etc. With a band as famous as Radiohead, it seems the main incentive for higher quality music is wanting to keep the reputation. Junking the label, going electronic, allowing sideprojects (Bodysong = strike 2), already being wealthy...
Posted by: NE1 at Oct 2, 2007 11:13:39 AM
