Audio/Video, Computers, Celebrities
Most People Downloading Radiohead's New Album for Free
We reported earlier on Radiohead's bold new experiment in online music sales, letting fans pay anything they like, or nothing at all, to download the band's new album 'In Rainbows.' Initial statistics indicated that hundreds of thousands still downloaded the music illegally, leading some to believe that the experiment had failed. Now, some new statistics are giving a better look at how fans have reacted to the album's release, and lots of analysts are clamoring to give their interpretation of just what the numbers mean.
First, the facts: According to ComScore, 38% of downloaders have paid for the album, but a majority of 62% have so far opted to pay nothing for the thing but still download it legally through Radiohead's site. Of those who did pay, the worldwide average was $6 for the album, while seemingly more generous Americans paid $8.05 on average. The numbers are courtesy of comScore, which maintains a database of two million people who willingly let the Web-traffic-measuring-agency look over their shoulder and watch their every online move. So, it's worth noting that these are not official numbers released from Radiohead.
That said, these stats do give an interesting look at the results of the album, said to have "sold" 1.2 million copies in its first week. If the ComScore numbers are correct, only about 500,000 people actually paid anything for the album. According to the ComScore report, some analysts are are calling those 62% who paid nothing "freeloaders" who are not willing to pay for downloaded music., and that ultimately the music industry needs to change its model to cater to them or die. Other music industry folk -- also quoted in the ComScore release -- believe that this sort of model will be great for established artists, but will injure record labels, which, in the long run, could hurt new talents. WIthout labels, where will new talent be discovered?
We think what's most important is that the fans are happy. It's unclear just how much money the band has made from 'In Rainbows,' so far, but the members of Radiohead have every reason to be quite pleased with how this is all turning out.
After all; 1.2 million downloads for an album that was virtually unadvertised is an impressive feat.
From comScore
Related Links:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DanGtr said 1:07PM on 11-06-2007
I wouldn't exactly call Radiohead's album unadvertised - This whole thing has been in the mainstream press and all over the internet for about a year. You won't sell a million albums without people knowing when it will be availiable.
Don't believe it - if you've got a CD your releasing (even on your own) make sure everyone in the world knows it's happening! If you don't you'll only sell copies and downloads to your friends and few fans.
Reply
Lisa said 2:04PM on 11-06-2007
I haven't downloaded the album. I heard selections on my public radio station, and was underwhelmed. I'm not saying it's bad, but that it's not to my taste. Others of you doubtless love it, and should pay for it if you download it.
Reply
Chris Langone said 7:41PM on 11-06-2007
Yes -- and if Radiohead is getting $6-8 on 500,000 units then they make 3-4 million versus the 1.2 million they would have made off of royalties if everybody paid the RIAA and anti-trust-law-violating cartel.
Reply
Bobbydacron said 8:34PM on 11-06-2007
I had no problem only paying 10p for the album. While I loved OK Computer I was very disappointed when I bought Amnesiac and Kid A. I needed Radiohead to build back my trust. THey did ok this time, next time I will be willing to shell out a little more.
Reply
Brian Swatek said 1:37AM on 11-07-2007
It strikes me that Radiohead did exactly what they set out to do--mainly, rattle the system a bit to see what would happen. With major labels having trouble competing with inferior quality (but free) illegally traded mp3s, Radiohead sought to offer good quality mp3s for whatever people thought that they were worth. It spawned thought, debate, & discussion, which I'm sure the boys from Oxford enjoyed a good bit.
Reply
lenny said 6:41AM on 11-08-2007
"WIthout labels, where will new talent be discovered?"
Are they kidding??
Reply
TIMOTHY said 5:24AM on 11-28-2007
PLS SIR IT JUST THAT I NEED UR HELP
IT JUST FOR ME TO COMPITELE MY EDUCATION
AM IN THE LAST YEAR OF IT AND AM FINDING IT HARD WITH IT IF U CAN ONLY SEND ME SOME MONEY AM IN NIGERIA
Reply
Gary Boggess said 4:36PM on 12-11-2007
Someone please explain to me:
I am a musician & composer. I also own a recording studio. I’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to record and produce my music over the last 25 years. A record label I was pitching my new CD to said they couldn't assure profitable sales due to file sharing’s impact amd lost sales due to people illegally obtaining (sharing) copies of the labels CD catalog online.
I'm a male… I work as a composer and record my own work. I do not have a band nor do I dance and look pretty on stage. In the piracy market, I cannot sell my music and make a living to support my family.
Someone please explain how you think it’s fair to musicians, composers, songwriters and artists that you essentially STEAL our product, our music, our hard work, and thus render it impossible for us to make a dime from sales? How would you like it if YOU went to work and after two weeks, your boss told you that somebody stole your time cards and work logs etc… and therefore, YOU won't be getting paid???
Reply
Wayne Brooks said 6:16PM on 12-11-2007
I'm an Artist who never had any kind of record company deals, marketing, or development. I've been running my own record company since 2003. I cant believe people will not pay $1.00 for 1 song. Amazing! That's just plain Cheap! You'll buy a snickers bar for a buck then eat it and it's gone but when you purchase a single/mp3 you have it for ever. You don't have to buy the whole record, cd, or even cassette nowadays. You buy what you like and put it on your IPOD or MP3 player. I'm down with letting people listen to my music all day long on myspace. It's basically like a radio station. that's cool but If I made a record for free No cost to me and my company i will give it away for free. But when there's an expense those expenses have to be recouped. When I sell a Million copies you better believe I'll be so happy jumping for joy i'll give away everything. Well not everything..Just the music. lol.
Being the artist and the company you have a closer relationship to your fans and audience than ever before, thats cool. Record companies 10 years well no maybe 5 years from now will just be Banks for Artist where they will invest in different projects, thats cool too.
http://www.waynebakerbrooks.com
http://www.waynebakerbrooks.com/Store.html
http://www.myspace.com/waynebakerbrooksmusic
Reply
saikeimei said 11:07PM on 12-11-2007
1) Record labels keep most the money that artists WOULD make. 2) Except for some rare ones, most albums only have 2 or 3 songs worth listening to - and the rest is filler. 3) You're selling to so many people that even though not everyone is paying for your music, you're still making a lot of money. Radiohead knows that, and so does the guy above calculating how much money they made.
I know how it would be from the artist's perspective. But in my perspective you artists are taking it from behind from record labels, and if I *steal* music, I'm doing more damage to the corporation that takes all the money for things they didn't create, rather than to the artist. Besides,the reason you should be playing music is for music itself. For yourself, for the fans, for the way it connects everyone. Of course you need money, but I'm not into artists who only learn to play music so they can be rich. That's not how good music is made. But... I suppose it's better than being a rapper... they all get rich and they're the most untalented group of people you'll find.
Reply