November 6th, 2007
Free Downloaders (Freeloaders?) of Radiohead Album Number 62%
By Michael Santo
Executive Editor, RealTechNews
When Radiohead announced that the price of downloads of its new album In Rainbows would be “up to you,” I was wondering how many would download for free. Apparently, most people … by a wide margin.
Today comScore released a study of download sales for the album, and it showed that between Oct. 1st and Oct. 29th, only 38% of global downloaders paid for the album. The U.S. was slightly higher, with 40% paying.
Of those who paid, the average price … $6. The U.S. was more generous than the rest of the world, with $8.05 per download vs. $4.64 per download.
So, as I thought, if someone has a chance to get it free … most people will take it, or just give a token payment to the seller.
We Say: This could be a lesson. Last week, rapper Saul Williams released the album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust, with the option of obtaining the music for free or for a $5 donation. Those who paid for the music received their songs at higher bit rates and thus better quality. Perhaps a tiered system could be used in the future.
You can read the full comScore study here.
Lazlo says:
I skimmed through the linked press release looking for some specific information. It wasn’t there in the data but a quote alluded to it. From that it seems that Radiohead has already made more money from album sales on this than they normally do despite lower actual dollar sales and, I suspect, they’ll actually receive that money a whole lot quicker. So I’m not sure where the “lesson” is supposed to come into play. Most bands make little or nothing or even go into debt on album sales (because they have to pay back all the money the label spent on promotion) and only turn a profit (if they’re lucky) on concerts. I don’t have a problem with a tiered system but I think people are kidding themselves if they think those better quality versions aren’t going to be shared out as well. I’m constantly amazed that anyone from western civilization which has had a culture of free entertainment for about sixty years is baffled that people would consider entertainment to be something they don’t have to pay for.
The press release also threw in a scare tactic about how will new musicians who weren’t promoted to super-stardom and a fan-base of millions by a label fare under this type of system and seems to imply that they’ll either starve or not be musicians. Instead I suspect that they’ll do exactly what musicians have done for thousands of years before recorded music allowed millions to hear their work and the same thing that musicians who are not represented by a label do now. They’ll make a more modest living. Society will recover from the historical aberration of entertainers being valued at millions of dollars. There will be exceptions as the very thing doing the correcting, i.e. the internet, will allow them to still be heard by anyone who cares to go looking. Lily Allen is a good example of a musician who made it big on the internet and then was picked up by a label after she had a large fan-base. I also suspect the radio industry will promote some artists for its own benefit.
In short, (I know, too late for that.) the only thing endangered is big business music promotion and distribution. As it dies, the health of the music scene will improve in much the same way that an old tree falling in the forest lets light reach all the smaller plants that were in its shade allowing them to finally flourish.
(I might have gotten a bit to poetic at the end but that was the analogy that came to mind. I’m sorry if anyone has a saccharine allergy.)
November 6th, 2007 at 2:28 am
In Rainbows - One month on | Ugh!!’s Greymatter Honeypot says:
[…] I found that quite interesting. The majority of people aren’t ready to pay anything for their music, but there are also others who are happy to contribute. The bottom line is that there’s a substantial segment after free goods, and this is enormous if someone can find a way to tap into it. […]
November 6th, 2007 at 7:03 am
stephen roberts says:
Tiered is a good plan. I almost collect music. Sifting thru all kinds of bands and records looking for things to put in my regular rotation.
A lower quality release is just fine with me for some music that I may listen to once in a blue moon (if ever again). I don’t even mind paying for a low quality release, so long as the payment is low too (viva allofmp3.com!)
Being able to go back and bump up the quality for a couple bucks works for me. I’m no audiophile, so the bit rate doesn’t bother me too much, I just like being able to pay for stuff I actually listen to more than once.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Mark Coppock says:
The bottom line is, Radiohead had every right to distribute their music the way they did. And, because they offered a choice, people had a right to download it for free. How much money Radiohead made (or, how much any other artists might make) is entirely irrelevant. The fact remains, everyone was acting morally, because the transaction was one that respected everyones’ right.
That does not apply to piracy, which is the involuntary taking of someone else’s property–which, if property is going to mean anything, they have to control–or, in the common vernacular, theft. It may be that the Internet forces entertainers into the poorhouse, but that would be a tragedy, not a natural progression. The fact that entertainers make so much money is simply what happens in a free society, where individuals make choices as to where to spend their money.
I find it amazing that some people are so cavalier in their willingness to determine how someone else shoud live their life, or to let something like piracy determine it for them. I’m in marketing, and I’m very glad that (so far) I’m free to negotiate with my employer for my salary and benefits. I know plenty of places where that’s not possible, and I certainly don’t want to live there.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
62% de los usuarios ha bajado el álbum de Radiohead sin pagar - FayerWayer says:
[…] Link: For Radiohead Fans, Does “Free” + “Download” = “Freeload”? (VĂa Real Tech News) […]
November 7th, 2007 at 1:20 am
John says:
I think most people have forgotten how we were promised the cost of CDs, when they first arrived, would go down. No longer would they be $17 they would be around $10. They are less costly to make than cassettes, yet consumers never saw the price drop; at least not on new releases. Cassettes continued to be sold at a lower cost, including new releases. What were we to do? Then along comes the Internet and the ability to share for free. Major backlash and zero sympathy for record labels. They over charged us for far too long. The only way to ‘correct’ the situation was either by piracy which was now easy, or give up music. I think you know the choices people made. I think the record companies and artists got what they deserved. It’s a breath of fresh air to see how things have changed and will continue to change. The Internet is helping to cut out the middle man and that can only be a good thing.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Mk-News » Blog Archive » 62% de los usuarios ha bajado el álbum de Radiohead sin pagar says:
[…] Link: For Radiohead Fans, Does “Free” + “Download” = “Freeload”? (VĂa Real Tech News) […]
November 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Jimmy says:
Well, that’s almost 3 million dollars, wonder how much they would have made using a record company with a similar number of sales?
November 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pm