http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/most_fans_paid_0_for_radiohead_album.html

Interesting article. I am not a fan enough to dload or buy their stuff. But the 3 people I know who do, all said the same thing to me, on separate occasions. What they said is reflected in this post from the article you posted, Chris.

"To be fair.. a lot of people downloaded the album paying nothing just so they could hear the album before they could decide how much to pay for it... so after they heard it they would go back and pay for it.. both of which count as different downloads.. and putting one tally mark in "not payed" and "payed".. I'm sure that is a big part of the people not paying."
POSTED: 11/07/2007 - 10:33 am

Now I am not naive enough to think that all these hits are honest fans giving the music a try before you buy. But I am encouraged that the figure was as low as 62% to be honest. I thought it would be much higher.

Yeah, can't say I really much care for Radiohead with the exception of the OK Computer album. But this is a VERY interesting experiment.

What I am really curious to know is if the band made more money off of the album by going this route and not having to pay any middlemen.

Personally I think it is the best thing they have done since Ok Computer. In fact I prefer The Bends and this release is as focused as that for me. It shouldn't be because the way it evolved was in dribs and drabs over 10 years but it sits together very well indeed.

I posted about this earlier believing the earlier figures quoted were correct ... 1.2 million downloads @ ~ $9 a shot. even if it is a much smaller proportion of that - the band still benefit immensely. the breakdown of profit to band for a CD sale is pretty sombre reading. A $15 cd gives a band between 10-20% after advances, expenses, legal fees, promotion etc. Radiohead have ensured they get far more profit even selling their music at a price that the consumer wants to pay. I think the band probably made $3-5 million from this venture. They would have had to shilft 1-1.5m cds to get that. The losses incurred are simply the record company overheads that Radiohead never saw a penny from.

Its a bold move and one that should be enbraced. Radiohead seem to have realised that record companies are unable to function effectively in the age of the internet and viral marketing together with mp3 formats. And forget that it is radio head. Apply this model to any band or artist. iTunes is not the future - itunes is damage limitation by the record companies. And as a consumer, why should you pay $10 extra for admin charges when all you care about is the band/music? If the band only want to cover their web presence and recording costs - then the cost of an album is suddenly so much cheaper.

This is a good thing - I respect radiohead for not putting a minimum price on In Rainbows but then again, putting a minimum price may have actually reduced their earnings. Why suggest a price point? Surely it is better to let the individual decide and pay "a fair price."

Originally I got this Album free from the newsgroups (yip .. piracy) but I ended up paying my own fair price and downloaded it legitimately. I truly respect what they have done here.

Either way it seems the guys in radiohead aren't gonna end up in poverty because of this. I think it was a great move. And a great album too.


Originally I got this Album free from the newsgroups (yip .. piracy) but I ended up paying my own fair price and downloaded it legitimately. I truly respect what they have done here.

I did the same thing actually... Haven't paid anything for the album yet tho, but I plan to do so.
I usually download all the music I listen to "free", and then I buy some albums every once in a while from artists and bands that I feel I want to support.