Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 17 Mar 2011 @ 9:17am
Re:
So, ladies and gentleman, we see that, once again, the government gets involved and totally screws things up. At least, sufferers of Fabry can get 50% of the dose they need. That is up from zero.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 12:58pm
Re:
Wow! Actually there might be a good use for a union to fight against radiation exposure. You would think, collectively, they would want to know why their sperm counts were low and slow...unless that is typical for TSA screeners. But you see, as ChurchHatesTucker pointed out, their leadership didn't think radiation badges were an important safety measure for their members. (Double entendre FTW!)
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 14 Mar 2011 @ 6:53am
Re:
Thanks for telling me! I have been trying to follow you but could never find you. Now I can stop searching. I have always wanted to know what you thought about...anything!
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 8 Mar 2011 @ 9:21am
Idiot?
I wouldn't say Bush is an idiot. He obviously knew how to play the game to make himself and his buddies rich and get elected governor and POTUSA. Maybe he makes up his own words and has poor grammar but have you read 'the internet' lately? Now I could agree that he is a greedy liar, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, but calling him a politician should cover that statement.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 2 Mar 2011 @ 11:10am
Re: Re: Re: Makes Sense...
I would credit a huge drop in death rates to innovative seat belt design and requirements by law in autos that started a bit before they lowered to 55 mph.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 8:01am
Re: Re: Re:
There appears to be little on the new album that would excite a radio programmer, example, and the music doesn't appear to fit into a category very smoothly for online services or the vertical market sat radio channels.
Is relevance set on the low-low standard set by radio programming? Listen to the radio tell me how much of that is quality music. Plus, winning a Grammy for 'In Rainbows' isn't relevance?
The question is simple: if it was such a success, why change? The $9 minimum price is in the range of what the average paying customer gave them last time.
Is it possible that the pay-what-you-want for 'In Rainbows' is part of their long range marketing scheme...which may span many, many years? 'If you got our last album free and liked it, would you consider purchasing this time?'
Basically, when you look at it overall, only 12% of people who paid last time were willing to pay what their current asking price is for their lowest end offering. It would appear they are trying to shut out 88% of their potential downloaders.
From the link you provided paying customers paid on average $6-$8. The rest paid nothing. So they price their album for those willing to buy. 'Freeloaders' can go get the album from a torrent site and use someone else's bandwidth.
It would seem clear that they found little or no benefit in feeding the freeloaders.
As with any marketing there are strategies with metrics you can track...and some you can't track or predict. It may never be clear if 'feeding the freeloaders' benefited Radiohead. I am sure more people went to their shows/purchased merchandise as a result of the experiment building interest from the younger generations that may have never listened to or heard of Radiohead.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 24 Feb 2011 @ 7:00am
Where are the sources?
I am sure there will be some 'local' sources of child porn but what happens when this stuff is created in other countries wherein the EU or the censoring nation has no jurisdiction, which I think is most often the case. Sounds like a good excuse to send in the troops. 'War on Drugs' 'War on Terror' ...coming soon... 'War on Child Porn (for the children)'
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 23 Feb 2011 @ 2:03pm
Re:
Hmmm...they greatly expanded their fan-base with the pay-what-you-want model in 2009. The new music isn't free but comes with lots of options at different pricing levels. Free is still available if someone wanted to torrent the new album. The purchased downloads are drm-free (obviously...I mean what is the point of drm on music anymore) making it quite easy to replicate. And without EMI taking the lions share of music sales, I would say that Radiohead are going to make quite a bit of money.
What if $9 for the new album is the average price paid per song from In Rainbows in the pay-what-you-want experiment? The new album has 8 tracks so perhaps last time people paid $1.13 per track. They figured people would pay for it again. Of course, this is all speculation but just as good as your assumption.
Is it that they aren't "giving it away" anymore that you have a problem with? I recall Mike stating the give it away and pray model is not that great of a business model. But they did that with the last album...now they are doing something else.
So you may want to wait a few months and see how the "give it away" thing worked for Radiohead.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 18 Feb 2011 @ 2:56pm
Re: Normally, I'd support the photographer
He may not profit directly from the money but he will be able to claim the charitable donations on his income tax returns as a deductible which, if he has any smarts, will donate at annual intervals not to exceed allowable deductible amounts.
Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 4 Feb 2011 @ 9:34am
Time waste
So somebody pushes the button to go up one level. The elevator states it's message, the person hits the button again or opens the doors to get out and go find the stairs. Is there really a trade-off of time savings here? For the one level upper, it is a much larger waste of time. For everyone else, wouldn't it have been pretty much the same if the elevator just went up one level, let the guy off, and proceeded?
On the post: Fabry Patients Sue Genzyme Over Drug Shortage; After NIH Refuses To Allow Others To Make Fabrazyme
Re:
On the post: Maintenance Report Shows Radiation Levels On Some TSA Scanners 10 Times Higher Than Promised
Re:
On the post: Twitter Decides To Kill Its Ecosystem: How Not To Run A Modern Company
Re:
On the post: Librarians And Readers Against DRM [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Logo by Nina
On the post: Drug Firms Freaking Out Over Expiring Patents
New formula
On the post: Lady Gaga Claiming Ownership Of 'Gaga'? Threatens Baby Gaga Ice Cream
Re: Re: Does this mean Queen song is on the outs
On the post: Does President Bush Speaking Out Against Julian Assange Prejudice The Case Against Him?
Idiot?
On the post: GAO Suggests It's Time To Ditch Dollar Bills For Coins
Re: Re: Re: Other Mints
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: In other news...
*Margin of error +/- 1%
On the post: New Study: 70% Of People Find 'Piracy' Socially Acceptable [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Makes Sense...
On the post: Texas Governor Blocks Reporters He Doesn't Like From Reading His Tweets
Re: Three Sir
On the post: HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries
Re: Re:
On the post: Case Study: How TED Learned That 'Giving It Away' Increased Both Popularity And Revenue
Re: Re: Re:
Is relevance set on the low-low standard set by radio programming? Listen to the radio tell me how much of that is quality music. Plus, winning a Grammy for 'In Rainbows' isn't relevance?
The question is simple: if it was such a success, why change? The $9 minimum price is in the range of what the average paying customer gave them last time.
Is it possible that the pay-what-you-want for 'In Rainbows' is part of their long range marketing scheme...which may span many, many years? 'If you got our last album free and liked it, would you consider purchasing this time?'
Basically, when you look at it overall, only 12% of people who paid last time were willing to pay what their current asking price is for their lowest end offering. It would appear they are trying to shut out 88% of their potential downloaders.
From the link you provided paying customers paid on average $6-$8. The rest paid nothing. So they price their album for those willing to buy. 'Freeloaders' can go get the album from a torrent site and use someone else's bandwidth.
It would seem clear that they found little or no benefit in feeding the freeloaders.
As with any marketing there are strategies with metrics you can track...and some you can't track or predict. It may never be clear if 'feeding the freeloaders' benefited Radiohead. I am sure more people went to their shows/purchased merchandise as a result of the experiment building interest from the younger generations that may have never listened to or heard of Radiohead.
On the post: EU Realizes That You Fight Child Porn At The Source... Not By Trying To Hide It
Where are the sources?
On the post: Case Study: How TED Learned That 'Giving It Away' Increased Both Popularity And Revenue
Re:
What if $9 for the new album is the average price paid per song from In Rainbows in the pay-what-you-want experiment? The new album has 8 tracks so perhaps last time people paid $1.13 per track. They figured people would pay for it again. Of course, this is all speculation but just as good as your assumption.
Is it that they aren't "giving it away" anymore that you have a problem with? I recall Mike stating the give it away and pray model is not that great of a business model. But they did that with the last album...now they are doing something else.
So you may want to wait a few months and see how the "give it away" thing worked for Radiohead.
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
Re:
On the post: Photographer Who Took Family Portrait Of Girl Shot In Tucson Suing Media For Using The Photo
Re: Normally, I'd support the photographer
On the post: Should Elevators Shame Us Into Taking The Stairs?
Time waste
On the post: Rep. Issa Wants List Of Everyone Who's Filed FOIA Requests; Increasing Transparency Or Chilling Future Requests?
Re: File Download Prompt
On the post: Does Your ISP Care About Protecting Your Privacy?
Re:
Next >>