Getting Millions Of People Listening To Your Music, With Many Giving You Money Voluntarily, Is Dumb?
from the please-explain dept
Karl writes in to point out that on Fortune/CNN's somewhat bizarre list of 101 Dumbest Moments in Business, number 59 is about Radiohead's decision to offer a name-your-own-price offering for its downloaded music. As CNN notes, "Can't wait for the follow-up album, 'In Debt." Ha ha. It then quotes the disputed Comscore numbers, suggesting that since only 38% of downloaders agreed to pay anything for the album, this is somehow a dumb move. I would argue that the only thing "dumb" here is the inclusion of this move on the list. CNN seems to think that Radiohead expected everyone to pay for the album, when even the band has clearly stated that this was a promotional move. Is CNN "dumb" for putting this article online for free? Of course not -- because they make money through other means, such as advertising. In the same way, Radiohead did quite well even if people downloaded the album for free. After all, even if the Comscore numbers are accurate, Radiohead still pulled in millions, distributed millions of tracks to fans all over the world with no promotional budget, got its name and its music talked about around the globe and found at the top of popular playlists everywhere, and got a tremendous amount of free advertising for its upcoming tour and CD box sets. Can you name a single band in the world that would turn that down? Hell, can you name a single Fortune/CNN editor who would turn that down if he were in Radiohead's shoes? Not unless he was pretty dumb. In fact, if Radiohead did anything dumb it was shutting off the download site.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business, dumb, economics, free, radiohead
Companies: cnn
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Traditional reporter, can't think outside the box.
This is the perfect example of an old media reporter who is not up to date on how business and the world works.
Continued education to stay relevant in the media industry is almost certainly something required - and the good journalists do just that.
Unfortunately many think they already know everything and see no need to get up to speed on business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Traditional reporter, can't think outside the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad Economic Analysis
1. Assumes the 38% number is accurate
2. Assumes every non-paying download represents a lost sale
3. Does not factor in the value of the viral publicity
4. Does not consider the cost/revenue/profit aspect of the business model
5. Does not factor the value increased air-time the band received
6. Does not estimate the affect on ticket sales
7. Does not estimate the affect of later CD box set sales
I wonder if the RIAA helped author this article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible PR move by the RIAA
It's not as crazy as it sounds. After all, before DeBeers' diamond PR campaign of 50 or so years ago is something of a legend....to those who are aware there was one. Before that, nobody gave a crap about diamonds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lowest realistic figures I've seen are about 6 million downloads for a $3 average fee = $18 million, but I'm not sure if the average includes the freeloaders, so it might be as low as $5-6 million gross. Now, even with the considerable bandwidth costs, production costs of the album and fees paid to marketing guys, there's no doubt that there was a good-sized profit left over - possibly in the realm of either hundred of thousands or even millions of dollars. This goes straight to the band, with no middlemen taking a cut. How many albums would need to be sold for Radiohead to get that kind of money from an RIAA label? A hell of a lot more, I'd guess. Not to mention the number of promotional appearances, video shoot, interviews, etc. the band would have to go through to get the same promotional value.
If this guy classes a dumb business move as being one where maximum profit is garnered with a minimum of effort, then he might be right. Otherwise, dumb journalism is all we're seeing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radiohead, those idiots.
From personal experience, I can say that the free download thing works. Why? I had never listened to Radiohead, but when I heard about this, I hastened over to the website and downloaded a free copy. This was my opportunity to give the band a try risk free.
I didn't like a single song.
*delete*
How many people downloaded the album who would NEVER consider buying the new Radiohead because they didn't know about them or never took the time to try them? Thousands. This was virtually free publicity for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I read that the other day...
Radiohead spent almost nothing in distribution since they sold downloads instead of bungling around with those little plastic cds meaning that even if that 38% is accurate most of that went straight to their pockets instead of the lion's share going to some record company. Translation: The RIAA is crying foul because a fairly well known act is trying to figure out a way to be successful without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they're called video news releases where PR firms make phony news segments to promote something and pay news organizations like CNN and fox to run them. it's like an infomercial disguised as news.
PR types call it the video equivalent of a press release, while free media types call it deception. either way it's big money for news organizations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Anon RIAA Troll
Rock On Radiohead! More power to you!
Finally: Seriously dude(ette), stand up and be counted. We don't mind if you participate as long as you state your bias up front. Hiding behind A/C is just lame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Anon RIAA Troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe the author
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-The free download stunt got them an enormous amount of free PR.
This will be more interesting when an unknown band does it and the NY Times/CNN/blogosphere doesn't shoot their collective wads over the innovation. If it makes money for THAT band, then there will be something to talk about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hay everyone, list of your favorite indi bands.
My favorite is Shiny Toy Guns.
Did any one else see that Cartoon Network is #21? What they did wasn't as dumb as what Boston did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plenty of unknown bands have taken similar paths to stardom. Not exactly the same, but using similar means. Here's a recent one:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/nyregion/18singer.html?ref=music
And, yes, you can say that the NY Times wrote her up, but only after she became famous. The point isn't that every band needs to take the exact same path or use the exact same plan, but that there are now tons of ways to use the internet and free promotion to make a name for yourself and make money from other channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And, yes, you can say that the NY Times wrote her up, but only after she became famous. The point isn't that every band needs to take the exact same path or use the exact same plan, but that there are now tons of ways to use the internet and free promotion to make a name for yourself and make money from other channels.
I suppose you and I have different definitions of "Famous".
Anyone with under a million google hits on their name is not famous.
FWIW, what do you think Ingrid nets a year from her music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That band would be the Arctic Monkeys. Their first album was given away for free on MySpace before it was released. It became so popular that when it was released through a record label, it became the fastest-selling debut album of all time in the UK charts, and the second-fastest selling debut indie album in the US.
Face it, this is a new idea so it's going to be talked about. It'll happen again and again, not only with new artists but with the next Nine Inch Nails album, as well as other established artists who have expressed an interest in the same model (Oasis, Jamiroquai, The Charlatans). Whether or not it becomes a regular thing depends on the successes of the next few bands to try it, but like it or not, Radiohead are in profit right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videos
See http://youtube.com/radiohead
EMA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's really simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
better than traditional...
If I assume that they would have received $0.72/disc sold through traditional channels, hell, let's call it a dollar/disc.
38% paid and average of $6, and 62% paid nothing, then the average person paid $2.28 per download.
Of course, I'm sure there were expenses involved in making the download available so its not all profit. I think they did better than they would have, they've just cut out the draconian, money-grubbing middle man.
Talk about liars figuring...CNN is only slightly better than Fox News...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the A/C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I doubt those numbers will ever be published, but I'd love to see them. If they're good, it could drive other bands to try the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Radio Head played it smart
If that surcharge wasn't in there i think they might have actually sold more songs rather than the people taking it for free granted I'm sure a lot of the people who took the songs for free know the band less and by giving it away for free they will increase concert attendance.
Not to mention i'm sure by selling the song this way they keep a higher % of the profits rather than only getting pennies on the CD sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think Radio Head played it smart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think Radio Head played it smart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It only works for radiohead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It only works for radiohead
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It only works for radiohead
Yeah, why trust proof of many other bands making it work when you have a single anecdote of a failed musician?
but for the other tens of thousands of other bands that are not well known it simply doesnt work
No one is saying that the identical model that Radiohead works. Radiohead is in a special position, but plenty of others *have* used similar models to become successful. It's no guarantee of success, but what is?
Indie bands have tried this for years and they will ALL tell you that you make squat.
There are always going to be bands that don't make money. Just like there are always going to be restaurants that fail to make money. Just because most restaurants fail do we assume that there's no business model in being a restaurant?
You will never see a band get to that level again by giving things away for free, or giving them the option to pay for it.
Want to bet? So far, we've seen plenty of bands take this path to stardom and it's only going to grow.
its too bad you will be the ones to suffer in the end
How will they suffer? There's more music than ever before being produced. And it's available and easier to get than ever before. I'm confused how anyone is suffering. Other than those who think they need to sell bits of plastic.
Its a sad time for music.
Other than for all of those who have learned to use the internet to build up a fanbase. And other than for all the fans who have a lot more music. And other than for the existing bands that have embraced the internet to get more fans. Yeah. Except for all those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It only works for radiohead
That's pretty much the strategy you use to persuade people that these strategies work.
Someone doubts you.
You toss out an anecdote.
You extrapolate proof from that story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It only works for radiohead
Not so. First of all, my responses are to people who insist that such things will never work. That's an absolute statement -- and to prove an absolute statement incorrect, you just need a single example to the contrary. So a single point is perfectly reasonable in such cases.
Second, I have always made it clear that no single model works for everyone, but that if you understand the economics, you can create myriad ways of succeeding. The examples I use help to illustrate that it is *possible,* not guaranteed.
Finally, wherever possible, I add in detailed research and data to back up my points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It only works for radiohead
wakeup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Radiohead taking off download?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like
The dead practiced this for years they even set up a section in the sweet spot for recording. the only rule you cant sell it but you can trade/give it with who ever you want. maybe thats why they were the top grossing touring band for over 10 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exceptions
Here's two for starters: Metallica and Kiss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOOK LISTEN TO ALL
.. .. Nov 5, 2008 8:41 PM .. MySpace.Util.
applyWBRToElement($get('ctl00_ctl00_cpMain_UserViewCommentsControl_viewComments_comment Repeater_ctl13_bodyLabel'), {frequency: 20});.. .. .. .. ..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]