Radiohead results are in 6-10 mil USD in first month?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/estimates-radio.html

Thom Yorke's representative told me that the band have "decided not to give out any figures" for sales of Radiohead's In Rainbows album, but that isn't stopping people from making their best guesses based on what little information is available.

The Seminal estimates that Radiohead sold about $10 million-worth of albums as of 10/12, assuming that their source was correct that approximately 1.2 million people downloaded the album from the site, and that the average price paid per album was $8 (we heard that number too, but also heard that a later, more accurate average was $5, which would result in $6 million revenue instead).

if this is correct... not bad at all I would say and that is despite of about 500k confirmed "free" bitorrent downloads which were not even through the site itself...

and despite of the site servers not being strong enough to fully support all the downloading...

of course there is another slant on the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_hi_te/radiohead_download_study

Most fans paid $0 for Radiohead album

AP , must be the left wing media bias,

first it is not only fans who visited
and second is: most pay nothing??? I wander how would it sound to the record industry if the title of this article: Radiohead earn millions during the first month of their internet album release.

AP only speak of 1.2 mil visitors as well, and not people buying the album or downloading at all. But why would you visit (if you have been there) without the intention of downloading it for free (as you could)... anyhow... will be interesting to see how will this plays out, but I think it's not bad for the start, and well done Radiohead for offering us this opportunity

Hope it's sign of the times to come.

slashdot have their take on the story as well

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/06/2035244

and the main source for the data

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

with most interesting comments to boot...

Additional Perspective

“While the band, its fans and artists alike are celebrating what looks like a success for Radiohead's bold move in releasing their new album using the ‘pay what you'd like’ model, I think everybody has overlooked one very important aspect of this, and it doesn't bode well for the future of the music industry,” says Michael Laskow, CEO of TAXI, the world's leading independent A&R (Artist and Repertoire) company.

off course dude, obsolete industries should not be encouraged either by people, artists themselves, and especially by the law.

For the rest of his comment there, I have only one point for him: Arctic Monkeys

[DinoDoc]

Is it wrong that I stopped reading when the best source of info said that they wouldn't give any out?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

yes.

The numbers are based on survey conducted by Comscore, so make your own mind up, but if that's not factual enough for you... fair enough

Though it was enough for AP to say
"Most fans paid $0 for Radiohead album"

[SlowwHand]

That's correct. The majority paid zip.

[kittenOFchaos]

The system they used was rubbish.

To get it from their crashing site I had to sign up 3 times. Wouldn't pay for it three times!

Also, you had to pay for it before playing, which kinda defeated the point. If you try it, think it sucked, why would you pay?

[Asher]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That's correct. The majority paid zip.

Yes. That was my reaction as well.

I don't see how it's bias, if the majority does not pay and this is what the headline says.

[BeBMan]

They should have taken the sum in Euro

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Asher


Yes. That was my reaction as well.

I don't see how it's bias, if the majority does not pay and this is what the headline says.

are all the people downloading fans? or did many come just for the media advertized free ride? Given that this got a fair amount of attention I can bet many just downloaded because they could, and not because they were Radiohead "fans" as per the title, so they paid zilch as well.

How many people downloaded who would not have bought it in a shop later on anyhow? Were there some who paid who would not have bought it in a shop otherwise? Surely for those questions above we will not know the answer, but if you look again at the bottom line... on $$$ most likely made. How many album releases net so much in the first month? Not many, (I guess those which sell 1mil albums plus in the first month, from a "mature" artist who is not ripped off by the industry anymore).

Would they have sold so many if they released it in the shops first? Hard to imagine, as they are not so mainstream right now, esp not in the first month alone. IIRC their last album sold 2-3 mil in total.

So instead of sending single mothers to court and make them pony up 200k in damages for few albums via the record industry legal arm, they made a few million with an album in a month... no control, no overhead either... I'd say, not bad for something really available "for free", on a click of a button, without a legal threat behind.

but off course, the titles running through the media are "most fans paid nothing"

Wall Street is spooked though

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9812275-7.html?tag=nefd.lede

"No matter how many people the RIAA sues, no matter how many times music executives point to the growth of digital music, we believe an increasing majority of worldwide consumers simply view recorded music as free," Greenfield wrote.

Proof of this was provided last month by Radiohead fans. The British supergroup offered the digital version of In Rainbows, the band's latest album, for whatever fans wanted to pay. According to research firm ComScore, which conducted a study of the groundbreaking promotion, 62 percent of those who downloaded the album paid nothing.

To Greenfield, what's more disturbing is that Radiohead and a growing number of top acts perceive the Internet as an attractive alternative to record labels. (despite of "more fans chose to pay nothing" mantra, I wander why )Nine Inch Nails front man Trent Reznor has indicated that he plans to distribute his music online. Madonna announced last month that she was leaving Warner Music for Live Nation, a music promotion company.

"The paradigm in the music business has shifted," Madonna said in a statement announcing the switch. "For the first time in my career, the way that my music can reach my fans is unlimited."

Well done Madonna

[Kataphraktoi]

“While the band, its fans and artists alike are celebrating what looks like a success for Radiohead's bold move in releasing their new album using the ‘pay what you'd like’ model, I think everybody has overlooked one very important aspect of this, and it doesn't bode well for the future of the music industry,” says Michael Laskow, CEO of TAXI, the world's leading independent A&R (Artist and Repertoire) company.

Haha, shake in your boots music industry
The establishment of extortionists and muddleheads always lose in the end to innovating extortionists and muddleheads


I highly doubt 'most' fans did not pay for the music. I am a pessimist, and the the clearly optimistic route would be to assume they most did not pay-as the music industry is very much interested in this project failing

[Impaler[WrG]]

The 'pay what thoust will' model remains viable at pay rates far lower then whats being reported here, I'd say so long as 10% choose to pay the Bands can still make a desent return.

[aneeshm]

One oft-overlooked factor is the convenience of payment. In things like this, it affects the payment rates tremendously.

If it were possible to embed payment data in media files, so that you had an option of paying a small amount (you decide) whenever you wanted to (say, an unobtrusive button on your player), artists would make even more.

And 6M$ earned through distribution like this goes almost entirely to the artists, whereas otherwise, only something like 20% trickles down to them, if even that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Also, you had to pay for it before paying, which kinda defeated the point. If you try it, think it sucked, why would you pay?

Well, it's a nice try before you buy system. I just DLed it, and paid nothing. But I quite like it, so will probably go back to their site and pay $5 or so.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well, it's a nice try before you buy system. I just DLed it, and paid nothing. But I quite like it, so will probably go back to their site and pay $5 or so.

that's the spirit

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I want to applaud them for their effort at using this system and reward them for a good album, that's I'm enjoying.

If I didn't like it, I'd have deleted it and thought of the download as simply a trial. Since I decided to keep it, regardless of how many times I listen to it, I want to pay the artist for it (and this way the vast majority of the money is going to the artist and not the record companies).

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That's correct. The majority paid zip.

I wonder if there are any numbers out to see if how many people who "acquired" an album that was sold at Sam Goody for $20 actually went to the store and paid $20.

So without that comparison, the statement is true but misleading.