Details Released On The Radiohead Experiment Results: A Tremendous Success

from the good-for-them dept

While Trent Reznor has been very open in discussing the results of his various business model experiments, Radiohead has been notoriously quiet about it -- leading some to falsely assume that the experiment was a failure. CNN even called it one of the dumbest moments in business last year. That seemed ridiculous on its face, as it was quite clear that the experiment was a huge success for Radiohead, even if the band was quiet about the numbers. However, Radiohead's publisher has now come out and revealed some of the numbers and debunked the myth that the experiment was a failure (thanks to SteveD for sending this over). Instead, it turns out that Radiohead made much more money from this experiment than from their previous album. The band's music was spread much more widely than previous albums, with over 1.75 million physical albums sold (and that's not counting all of the paid downloads) -- as compared to its previous albums, which all sold in the hundreds of thousands. About the only downside to the experiment was that the band found itself talking about the experiment more than the music.

Now, of course, some will point out that this experiment isn't very representative, because Radiohead got a huge boost by being the first high profile band to do this. And that's absolutely true. But that doesn't mean the business model doesn't work at a more reasonable level. Obviously, Radiohead got a big boost from doing something unique and different, but that just gives other bands reasons to look at not just copying Radiohead, but adding more unique offerings themselves. That's how business models innovate, by trying out new stuff and trying to attract attention. Unfortunately, though, we still have big record labels who think business model innovation is having Congress protect your old business model.

Filed Under: business models, free music, music, publicity stunts, radiohead

Can 'Pay What You Want' Work Outside Of The Music Industry?

from the who's-next dept

Last year, Radiohead garnered incredible attention by offering its album for free and asking fans to pay what they want. Contrary to the guffaws of many, the experiment turned out to be a smart decision which was quickly copied by other musicians. Now, we're starting to see other industries try the "pay what you want" model.

First, Good Magazine began allowing their subscribers to pay any value more than a dollar. Now, the Free Culture 2008 conference, headlined by Stanford's Larry Lessig, John Lilly of Mozilla and Pam Samuelson of Berkeley Law, is using the model. The organizers have implemented a "pay what you want" model for registration and, contrary to the myths of traditional economics, people aren't choosing to pay $0.00. In fact, with more than 200 registered attendees, the average price paid has been more than $20. As more and more examples of this style pop up, it becomes more and more obvious that new, hybrid business models will become widespread and sustainable.

Filed Under: conferences, magazines, name your own price, pay what you want, radiohead

Musicians Realize They Need Their Own Lobbying Group

from the but-will-it-be-more-of-the-same? dept

Many people realized long ago, that contrary to what the RIAA (and the politicians it supports) states, the RIAA is not representing the interests of "the music industry," but rather the interests of a few big record labels. Those interests are often directly at odds with the actual musicians. It's almost amazing it's taken this long, but a bunch of musicians, including Radiohead, are now forming their own lobbying/bargaining group, called the Featured Artists' Coalition. One of the goals, actually, is to put pressure on the record labels to allow the musicians to retain the copyright on their music, rather than handing it over to the labels. At the very least, it ought to be interesting to see the two of them fight this out. Though, my fear is that this new group really just promotes more of the same, and doesn't focus on new business model opportunities, but again looks for ways to "protect" rather than to innovate.

Filed Under: featured artists coalition, lobbying, lobbyists, musicians, radiohead

Less Well Known Musicians Embracing 'Pay What You Want'

from the small-musicians,-big-musicians-alike dept

It still amuses me how often when we talk about specific music business models, defenders of the old system rush in to explain why any particular example is an exception. For years, we showed examples of less well known musicians embracing these kinds of new business models, critics would complain that they might work for unknown musicians who have "nothing to lose" and need attention more than anything else, but it would never ever work for a big star who has too much to lose. Then, of course, we talked about big time musicians like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails embracing these kinds of models, and the critics said "well, sure, it works for them with their well recognized name, but it would never work for unknown artists." Hell, someone said that just yesterday in response to a post here, leading another commenter to jokingly (I hope) coin the phrase "Masnick's Law", which is loosely defined as

"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."

I might expand on that definition a bit to have it go beyond just big/small. People will keep looking for excuses why each example is an exception, (big/small just being an easy such reason) to the point that they'll eventually miss the fact that all of those exceptions are the rule.

Anyway, based on all of this, it will be interesting to see how Girl Talk's new album does. Girl Talk is a one man DJ once mentioned (positively) in Congress as an example of why traditional copyright laws might not make sense anymore. With the release of his latest album, he's decided to use a Radiohead-style model, with a few improvements. That is, rather than just a pure "give it away and pray," he's giving people an additional reason to buy -- though I think he could still put together a better model. His is set up so you can pay what you want (including nothing at all) and get 320 kbps MP3 files, but if you pay over $5, he offers FLAC files as well, and at $10 you'll also get a copy of the physical CD when it comes out. If you pay $0, he does ask that you fill out a little survey explaining why. There still are some problems with this model (it's still a little too much like a give it away and pray model), but overall, it's quite similar to Radiohead's experiment.

Now, of course, all the folks who insisted that Radiohead's model would never work for a relatively obscure musician are supposed to now insist that this model won't work at all for Girl Talk, right? But what happens if Girl Talk is actually happy with the results, whether in direct payment amounts or in the fact that it gets him more publicity? Will they finally admit that the model isn't just an exception?

Filed Under: business models, girl talk, music, pay what you want, radiohead

Now Gene Simmons Is Blaming Radiohead For Killing The Recording Industry

from the while-making-money-for-themselves dept

Last fall, we wrote about Kiss's Gene Simmons explanation for why the RIAA should be suing even more people to stop the evils of file sharing. There were all sorts of problems with it -- and when the interviewer pointed to the success stories of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, Simmons brushed them off as being not worth commenting on because they were "exceptions" rather than business models that work. Of course, if it were just an exception, then it wouldn't be much of a problem, but as a few folks have sent in, it appears that Simmons is increasingly upset with Radiohead, suggesting that its "exception" is helping to destroy the industry. He seems to be skipping over the part where Radiohead made a ton of money from its "exception."

It's difficult to see how an example of a way to make a lot of money could possibly be killing an industry -- unless Simmons is defining the "industry" so narrowly to only include the selling of plastic discs with music. And, of course, after blaming Radiohead, he turns on the real problem: those darn fans: "The record industry is dead. It's six feet underground and unfortunately the fans have done this." Always a winning strategy: blame your biggest fans for your own inability to embrace a business model that makes sense to them.

Filed Under: gene simmons, music industry, radiohead, recording industry

Even Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead Spat

from the wait-a-second... dept

We were just discussing how copyright has been stretched and twisted so many times that it really just isn't designed properly to handle internet communications -- and a good case in point may be the funny little spat we covered a few weeks back between Prince and Radiohead. If you don't recall, Prince performed a cover of a Radiohead song at a concert. Someone in the audience videotaped it and put the video on YouTube. Prince's representatives demanded that the content be taken down under a DMCA request -- raising all sorts of questions. After all, Prince didn't own the copyright on the song. That's owned by Radiohead, whose lead singer wanted the video back online. Prince didn't own the copyright to the video either, since he didn't take it. So how could he use the DMCA to take down the video?

But, it's not that simple, apparently. As Ethan Ackerman details, as lawyers began to think about the situation, the more confused they got, noting that maybe there was a right under anti-bootlegging laws. Only, then things got more confusing, because it turns out that anti-bootlegging laws aren't actually a part of the copyright act (though it does fall under the same "title" just to add to the confusion), and the DMCA (under which the takedown occurred) only applies to copyright law.

However, again, we're left in a situation where the "law" is hardly clear at all, and even those who follow the space were somewhat confused over whether or not Prince had any sort of legal standing here. A law is not useful if the boundaries of that law are not clear, and if someone has no clue if their actions go against the law. In the internet era, copyright certainly falls under that category of laws in which it is no longer clear what is and is not legal -- and that should be seen as a problem.

Filed Under: confusion, copyright, prince, radiohead

Prince And Radiohead Fight Over YouTube Song

from the this-is-what-it's-come-to? dept

For years, Prince was the poster child for "getting" the internet and new media distribution opportunities. He experimented with a variety of different creative business models that suggested he got how the economics of music worked these days. It was working too -- with his efforts to give away his music helping him sell out concert after concert around the world. But then something changed, and Prince went ballistic, suing YouTube, The Pirate Bay and eBay and even threatening fan sites while demanding that even videos with tiny snippets of Prince music in the background get taken offline. The whole thing is quite surprising, and if he keeps this up, he's risking taking all that goodwill he built up for years, and turning himself into another Metallica. Becoming anti-fan is never a good idea.

The latest story, though, has a twist. Prince apparently did a cover of a Radiohead song at a recent concert. Someone filmed it and put the video on YouTube. Given his newfound hatred for YouTube, Prince demanded that the song be taken down. And here's where it gets interesting: Radiohead's Thom Yorke is demanding that it be put back online, noting that he owns the copyright on the song: "Really? He's blocked it?... Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song." Of course, as that LA Times report notes, in true Streisand Effect fashion, the effort to take down the song has only driven much more interest in people trying to find the song. If Prince weren't suing so many people, you might even think he was canny enough to have done this on purpose as a marketing campaign.

Filed Under: copyright, cover songs, prince, radiohead, videos
Companies: youtube

Don't Read Too Much Into Radiohead's Claim That It Won't Offer Music For Free Again

from the just-wait-and-see dept

Radiohead is making some noise again today, with lead singer Thom Yorke basically saying that the band won't do a promotion giving away free music again. Some are using this to suggest the model was a failure or that those of us who recognize the clear economic trends toward free music were somehow wrong. That's not the case at all. Early on Yorke had admitted that there was no large theory behind the decision to do the name your own price offering. One of the band's managers suggested it and the group went with it as a publicity stunt -- which worked. The fact that the band then pulled down the download offering prior to releasing the actual CD confirmed that the band merely viewed the free offering as a stunt, rather than part of a larger strategy. As such, it's not at all surprising that Yorke would say the band won't do it again. Since they only viewed it as a stunt, repeating the stunt doesn't make sense. They'll come up with some other stunt for the next release. That doesn't, however, mean that the idea was wrong or a failure. Just that the band wants its publicity stunts to be new and different each time. The fact that this most recent one tapped into an obvious trend seems to have been more of a lucky guess than the sign of a well-thought out strategy. The good news is that it's made plenty of others start to realize the power of free music -- even if that line of thought hasn't permeated back to Radiohead and Yorke.

Filed Under: business models, free music, music, publicity stunts, radiohead

Radiohead: Pay Us For A Chance To Make Our Songs Better

from the not-that-appealing dept

It's been clear for quite some time that Radiohead more or less stumbled into its position as "embracing" new music distribution models. The band has admitted that the idea of doing a name your own price download offering was suggested by the band's manager just before they put the album online. They didn't really think it through, they just did it. And, since then, it's been clear that the band doesn't quite grasp the wider economics of what it's doing. It never made sense for the band to get rid of the download offering, but it did. And now, the band is getting some publicity for asking its fans to remix a new single from the band, apparently a song the band has struggled to complete for quite a while. However, the details are anything but fan friendly. Fans are asked to buy the five separate tracks (bass, voice, guitar, strings/effects and drums) and only once all five have been bought are they given access to a program to mix the tracks. And, as a bunch of readers have sent in, the terms are not particularly friendly -- basically saying that the fans have no rights whatsoever, Radiohead gets everything and no one should expect any prizes for participating. In other words, this is Radiohead getting fans to pay the band to do its work.

Filed Under: contest, radiohead, remix

Radiohead's Physical Album Selling Well

from the good-for-them dept

Despite what some claim, Radiohead made it abundantly clear from the very beginning that the "name your own price" download offering was part of a promotional campaign to get more people to buy the physical CD. And buy it, they are. Apparently, the physical Radiohead CD is topping the charts in the UK -- and I'd bet that an awful lot of those buyers also downloaded the music first (whether for free or not). While we still don't understand what benefit there was to closing down the download offering, it's hard to see how anyone can still claim that the promotional blitz was a dumb idea. Obviously, Radiohead would have received plenty of attention just for releasing an album. But, in doing it this way, Radiohead got even more publicity, and were able to do it for almost no promotional costs. So, even if Radiohead's lead singer actually is accusing his internet fans of being "sad loners," it appears that Radiohead's internet experiment has been quite a success.

Filed Under: cd sales, music, radiohead