bit-tech.net | Radiohead allows you to pick album price

BioSniper 3rd October 2007, 17:03

Well, I'd rather do it this way, direct support for the artist and all that. My personal ideal price for a digital download of a full album is about £3.
There are of course people out there that will just do it for 1p.. but ya know

::EDIT:: it's possible to put in 0.00 and have it work. Unless of course they just don't send codes to people who put less than 1p

iwog 3rd October 2007, 17:11

its not EXACTLY any price you want as:

Quote:

YOUR PURCHASE MAY BE SUBJECT TO A TRANSACTION FEE.
THIS WILL BE SHOWN AT THE CHECKOUT.

the cynic in me says that people who try and buy or 1p will be charge something to make the price "reasonable" to from the bands perspective.

E.E.L. Ambiense 3rd October 2007, 17:14

Yeah, Nedsbeds put up a post about this a couple days ago or so. I'd love to see how the industry responds to this, and it may be a turning point in all this BS regarding record companies versus it's customers.

I keep thinking of a quote from Princess Leia, "The more you tighten your grip Tarken, the more star-systems will slip through your fingers." :)

steveo_mcg 3rd October 2007, 17:18

I think i'd be inclined to do what i always do, download it listen then choose how much i want to pay. Currently this involves p2p or nicking it from my mate then waiting for it come down in price till it hits the level i think is fair for the quality of the album. This time it'll just be legal.

E.E.L. Ambiense 3rd October 2007, 17:27

I really wish they'd just release what the format/bitrate is for these files beforehand.

mclean007 3rd October 2007, 17:59

Can someone post up the format / bitrate when they download this please? It makes a big difference - e.g. I will pay maybe £5 for FLAC, £4 for high quality MP3 (VBR using lame --alt-preset standard or better) or OGG Vorbis, £3 for adequate quality MP3, AAC etc. (192 kbps MP3 or equivalent), and zero for anything lower. Also, what is the transaction fee, if any?

pendragon 3rd October 2007, 18:01

this is also being discussed here as well .. I tossed a TIMES story link in there that I feel is also a good read on the subject. This is neat stuff.

mclean007 3rd October 2007, 18:01

Actually on second thoughts I may go with zero for the download (if no transaction fee), evaluate and decide whether the album is worth having, then pay a suitable amount to download or wait for the non special edition CD (if such a thing ever materialises) - much as I like Radiohead, I'm not paying £40 for an album.

chiper136 3rd October 2007, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by mclean007
Actually on second thoughts I may go with zero for the download (if no transaction fee), evaluate and decide whether the album is worth having, then pay a suitable amount to download or wait for the non special edition CD (if such a thing ever materialises) - much as I like Radiohead, I'm not paying £40 for an album.

If you read the press releases the CD will be around on its own nothing fancy at a normal buy in the shops CD price, just it wont be around for some time (Few months).

I for one love Radiohead and am getting the £40 deal because i feel that with the nice hard back book and an extra CD is more than worth it. Also I do believe that everyone should get it as cheep as possible even if to see what its like. Record company do need to take scope on the power of the consumer, specially when it comes to down-loadable purchases.

Breach 3rd October 2007, 20:24

Even if for some small fee and the rest is variable, this is a really cool concept I hope other big bands embrace and cut out the middle men who are ruining music one download at a time. With the power of the internet today I really dont believe for a second bands need a label. Why not just record and sell the songs yourself digitally? Not easier done than said of course.

Granted some people like having hard copies.

Radiohead gets some major respect from me for sticking it to the man and letting their customer dictate the price.

DeX 3rd October 2007, 20:43

This won't make music labels won't go away. There's not a chance that 95% of artists could get their music listened to or produced the way they want using only the internet as their source of promotion. A label's main job is to spot potential success and then market and promote them so people hear about them. That's what you're paying for when you spend £15 on an album. Radiohead have the luxury of already being international stars so they can easily ditch their label and offer music via the net.

The biggest problem of labels at the moment is that artists are locked into 3-5 album deals so they can't shop around for a better deal once they get more famous. This obviously harms competition and keeps album prices higher than they should be. Hopefully this will gradually change though if labels keep losing their big artists to the freedom of the net.

completemadness 3rd October 2007, 23:40

Quote:

Are there any additional costs?

A 45 pence bank charge may be incurred. This will be shown at the checkout.

GuitarBizarre 4th October 2007, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeX
This won't make music labels won't go away. There's not a chance that 95% of artists could get their music listened to or produced the way they want using only the internet as their source of promotion. A label's main job is to spot potential success and then market and promote them so people hear about them. That's what you're paying for when you spend £15 on an album. Radiohead have the luxury of already being international stars so they can easily ditch their label and offer music via the net.

The biggest problem of labels at the moment is that artists are locked into 3-5 album deals so they can't shop around for a better deal once they get more famous. This obviously harms competition and keeps album prices higher than they should be. Hopefully this will gradually change though if labels keep losing their big artists to the freedom of the net.

Trent Reznor had a discussion about how the industry rapes consumers, lemme find it...

Ok found it:

Quote:

It must be an odd time then to have a new album, Year Zero, out?

It's a very odd time to be a musician on a major label, because there's so much resentment towards the record industry that it's hard to position yourself in a place with the fans where you don't look like a greedy *******. But at the same time, when our record came out I was disappointed at the number of people that actually bought it. If this had been 10 years ago

I would think "Well, not that many people are into it. OK, that kinda sucks. Yeah I could point fingers but the blame would be with me, maybe I'm not relevant". But on this record, I know people have it and I know it's on everybody's iPods, but the climate is such that people don't buy it because it's easier to steal it.

You're a bit of a computer geek. You must have been there, too?

Oh, I understand that -- I steal music too, I'm not gonna say I don't. But it's tough not to resent people for doing it when you're the guy making the music, that would like to reap a benefit from that. On the other hand, you got record labels that are doing everything they can to piss people off and rip them off. I created a little issue down here because the first thing I did when I got to Sydney is I walk into HMV, the week the record's out, and I see it on the rack with a bunch of other releases. And every release I see: $21.99, $22.99, $24.99. And ours doesn't have a sticker on it. I look close and 'Oh, it's $34.99'. So I walk over to see our live DVD Beside You in Time, and I see that it's also priced six, seven, eight dollars more than every other disc on there. And I can't figure out why that would be.

Did you have a word to anyone?

Well, in Brisbane I end up meeting and greeting some record label people, who are pleasant enough, and one of them is a sales guy, so I say "Why is this the case?" He goes "Because your packaging is a lot more expensive". I know how much the packaging costs -- it costs me, not them, it costs me 83 cents more to have a CD with the colour-changing ink on it. I'm taking the hit on that, not them. So I said "Well, it doesn't cost $10 more". "Ah, well, you're right, it doesn't. Basically it's because we know you've got a core audience that's gonna buy whatever we put out, so we can charge more for that. It's the pop stuff we have to discount to get people to buy it. True fans will pay whatever". And I just said "That's the most insulting thing I've heard. I've garnered a core audience that you feel it's OK to rip off? F--- you'. That's also why you don't see any label people here, 'cos I said 'F--- you people. Stay out of my f---ing show. If you wanna come, pay the ticket like anyone else. F--- you guys". They're thieves. I don't blame people for stealing music if this is the kind of s--- that they pull off.

Where does that extra $10 on your album go?

That money's not going into my pocket, I can promise you that. It's just these guys who have f---ed themselves out of a job essentially, that now take it out on ripping off the public. I've got a battle where I'm trying to put out quality material that matters and I've got fans that feel it's their right to steal it and I've got a company that's so bureaucratic and clumsy and ignorant and behind the times they don't know what to do, so they rip the people off.

Given all that, do you have any idea how to approach the release of your next album?

I've have one record left that I owe a major label, then I will never be seen in a situation like this again. If I could do what I want right now, I would put out my next album, you could download it from my site at as high a bit-rate as you want, pay $4 through PayPal. Come see the show and buy a T-shirt if you like it. I would put out a nicely packaged merchandise piece, if you want to own a physical thing. And it would come out the day that it's done in the studio, not this "Let's wait three months" bulls---.

E.E.L. Ambiense 4th October 2007, 01:39

Gotta respect Mr. Reznor for maintaining that position. He's seen the best and worst of it.

pendragon 4th October 2007, 03:43

heh.. count on Trent to tell it like he sees it :)

Teyber 4th October 2007, 05:30

i love radiohead. Radiohead/tom yorke are my favorite band/s. I will definatly be puting in a solid hunk of money to support them...

BioSniper 4th October 2007, 08:11

Thanks GuitarBizarre for that read, it really was a good one.
Glad to see respected artists attempting to give record companies a slap round the face but as DeX says, this kind of thing is hard for the small artist, they need the record companies to market them really so that people can find out. However having said that, with the rise of things like Myspace, last.fm, pandora etc it's easier to find new music that's similar to what you listen to, all we need is some smaller artists to start using those methods of getting found out.

ralph.pickering 4th October 2007, 11:00

Well, I have a fairly extensive music collection, of which a large percentage is on "extended evaluation". I'm also not Radiohead's biggest fan but I sure as hell will be buying this download at a decent price (I'd say £7.50 is fair for a good album). Doesn't matter whether I like it or not - it's worth the price just to send the message to the record industry that their business model sucks. And if Radiohead makes a good profit out of ditching their label and going it alone, then maybe artists who I really like will do the same and I'll be able to afford to pay for all the music I regularly listen to.

Somebody just needs to use a bit of imagination when it comes to DRM. My ipod already syncs the music I've listened to with iTunes. Why not have a subscription service where you can download whatever you want without limit, and you pay a monthly fee (say about £15). The software tracks what you listen to during a month and divides up the subscription between the relevant artists / copyright holders. If you are depressed one month and mostly listen to The Cure, then they get the biggest chunk and so on. If you stop paying then the music disables itself. BMG, give me a job - I done got Ideas, y'all.

impar 4th October 2007, 11:38

Greetings!

Finally someone thinks about the subject instead of just hoping in the band wagon:

Quote:

...
The issue isn't whether or not Radiohead will do well by this, for a number of reasons, they probably will do well from this.

The problem is what does this do to all the other musicians if this catches on. Where does this put those bands that don't have millions of dollars of promotional support over the years to piggyback, nevermind the free publicity from this tactic? What happens to bands that haven't had a couple dozen million album sales if "pay what you want" becomes the norm?

Radiohead can well afford to self-finance and publicize this album (especially with that $80 option). What about everyone else?

To quote a couple people who can see past the tips of their noses (posts 193 and 195):
...

fini 4th October 2007, 12:24

It has to be said though, that as a form of advertising this has been spotless. Imagine how much it would have cost them to get this much tv coverage via paid adverts? In addition to that they get a nice sheen of 'we love our fans and hate the record industry' cool to help propel their sales.

I know a lot of people who are not fans (me included) have checked out the site off the back of tv reports so I can see this going very well for them. Even if people download it for 1p, if it increases the chances of them going to a concert then it'll be worth it - because there are ridiculous levels of profit in tours.

E.E.L. Ambiense 4th October 2007, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralph.pickering
Why not have a subscription service where you can download whatever you want without limit, and you pay a monthly fee (say about £15).

The only one I can think of off the top of my head that's similar to this is perhaps eMusic.com.

completemadness 4th October 2007, 16:36

I do agree with impar record companies have their place, however GuitarBizarre's quote says it all, the record industry guys are greedy b*******
It costs them 83c more to change the album cover, and they charge $10 for that .... that's over 10x markup on cost - its insanity

If i liked radiohead, i think £4-7 is pretty reasonable, however they have shot themselves in the foot imo, buy not not telling you the actual cost
IE, if there is 43p added on, fine, but i want to pay £4-7 not £4-7 + 43p

P.s. as to record companies weeding out crappy bands, bu******* - look at all the cr** we have been subjected to

impar 4th October 2007, 17:25

Greetings!

Quote:

Originally Posted by completemadness
P.s. as to record companies weeding out crappy bands, bu******* - look at all the cr** we have been subjected to

If the band sells the companies will keep it, if not they will dismiss it.

knowyourenemy 4th October 2007, 18:09

90$ USD going in. <3 Radiohead.

devdevil85 4th October 2007, 20:48

If the album is something I would really like, I would be willing to spend $5 on the album. Why not drop the price to $5 and grab twice as many people than if you had it at $10, y'know what I mean? Word-of-mouth is the best/fastest form of advertising......and it works almost 100% of the time.....F**k the middle-man!

ReelFiles 5th October 2007, 00:46

I'd drop $5 on an album, just not that one, hehe.

knowyourenemy 8th October 2007, 15:52

You know what I'm more stoked about? Tour date announcements for the US.

Log in

Radiohead allows you to pick album price

Related articles on bit-tech.net