Drowned in Sound

Search



Radiohead info someone just told me

no votes
?
by crablin

The average price paid for 'In Rainbows' has been around £4.72 and the band have made around £1.3m so far.

crablin | 09 Oct '07, 16:56 | Send note | Report this | Reply

Don't tell me to do the math(s)

Over 275'000 downloads. Oooft.


I'm liveblogging the album launch and first listen

I'm not a huge Radiohead fan, so don't expect anything along the lines of LOLZ nor OMGZ!!!

http://nothingbutgreenlights.net

(i'm working on the presumption of a 00:01 launch.)


:@


haha, brilliant


they'll probs make more off this than Kid A

which sold like 10million copies

LOLZ

I paid nowt

I don't feel guilty


I feel guilty

I paid zero. I don't have a credit card. "I promise I'll get a hardcopy!" (but 40# for a boxset ain't gonna happen, sorry.)


^

I don't have a credit card either. I'll buy it when it's out though.


why feel guilty?

I've bought Radiohead CD's and records in
the past, I am more than convinced they are
wedged enough to not need the money, so I
didn't pay for it.


Because it doesn't matter

if Radiohead are billionaires. It doesn't matter that I've bought all their other albums, etc. the fact is, they've created a new artistic statement - that has value to me, obv - and I feel obliged to pay for it. (Erm, even though I didn't... ha!)


I dont agree

If theyre offering it for free they obviously are happy enough with the adulation they hope to receive. If some tramps had made an album but were offering it for free, then i'd be obliged to pay for it.

But what am i saying? I bought the box set :(


Fair enough

I'm not making a value judgement here and I believe there was a 250+ thread which already went thru this... but I love music, and it's really the only fucking thing I buy I never regret, y'know.

Well, except for that Zutons album, obv. ;)


It's not fair enough at all.

They're not offering it for free, they're offering it for as much as you think it's worth.

If you choose to take that as 'I'll pay nothing, then' I'd brand you as a twat. Obviously a lot of people are probably going for free or as close to because they plan to buy a proper CD copy next year.

Others may use the reasoning that since they will probably get it for free from fileshare sites that means they may as well pay nothing. I don't think that stops you being a twat but there you go.

I am too a massive twat because I have albums I haven't paid for. But I plan to buy them all on CD at some stage and I don't do it for new albums where I realise that those unit sales are important.

As OR says, the amount of money Radiohead have is immaterial. I don't pay money to bands for their music because they're poor, I pay because they have given me a service in one form or another.


stop calling me a twat

you twat.


I should make it clear

that if you're going to pay for it in the future then fair enough for putting in zero.

I just object to people claiming it's a free album. You can pay what you want: that's different to a free album.

It would be like calling a gig where you pay what you want on the door as a free gig.


well a free gig

you're obviously allowed to buy the band a pint, non?


I paid £1

- as I will be buying the CD when it comes out...I rarely buy digital music.


good on em

yup.


if it's drm-free

and you have access to google, what's the point in paying? </filesharing advocation>


i'm sorry

but 160kbps bitrate is really shitty quality

should be 320kbps AAC file INNNNIIITTT


wow

they're giving out 160??


there's another thread

about it on this very forum. Seems pretty laaaame

Ha that's funny actually. Make a mint from pre-orders and then offer really crap mp3s!

Genius!


I don't know if this has already been discussed but

what is the average amount that an artist gets out of a CD sale after all the record label, distribution, marketing, retailer etc etc cut has been paid? I think I heard somewhere that it was a couple of quid.

Given that it seems that there were miniscule costs associated with this release, do you think that Radiohead always knew they were likely to turn a very healthy profit...


its too complex

to summarise. it totally depends on what the artist deal is and indeed if they ever break even.


And therefore

no use as a comparison. bollox. that was my one original thought for the day and all.


I think in Radiohead's case their deal will net them more than a couple of quid

Or maybe it could but presumably they can specify the unit cost bracket the album must fall into too.


i would

be surprised if that really could govern that. i'm sure they're voices are heard if they make a peep, but as long as they get their royalty cheques (upon which issue their managers will check and make sure the PPD is okay enough to turn them a decent/reasonable profit) i'm sure they have no say in the mechanics of what money is spent where and how and how that relates (unless very very directly, ie a massive repress and adverising campaign the day before royalties) to their money.

this is in a label scenerio, i mean. whatever they do now is their biz. though i wish they would do deals direct with distributors (I mean, even Clap Your Hands Say Yeah could manage that FOR FUCKS SAKE) instead of saying they need a label infrastructure... it completely belittles the whole of the rest of this and they could happily employ 2 people (or more if needed, but they're not really) in the arts.


excuse the bad

english. bye!


Surely their contract is totally negotiable.

Yes it might be true that all the labels would reject it but as I remember CD albums come in three bands, something like full price, mid price, cheap price?

All I'm saying is that Radiohead could well be determining the amounts they want by asking for a higher cut of the profits (a label would accept that since they will naturally make more sales that with other bands overall) and/or maybe by asking the album be in a lower price band, if they feel standard full price is detrimental to it.

If a label doesn't want to take that on then fair enough. But this is Radiohead, after all.


yah

what you are saying is true. well if they can get a deal that they want - cool. my main beef is quite clear i guess! wasted opportunity, really.


it's 160kpbs?

I can download it for nothing completely guilt free then.


I'm DYING

to hear this album. can't wait till tomorrow.


innit:

THE ALBUM WILL COME AS A 48.4MB ZIP FILE CONTAINING 10 X 160KBPS DRM FREE MP3s.


I paid 2:50

I felt this was fair


I paid £5

just above the average as it turns out. I'd have paid a little more if I wasn't also intending to buy it when it comes out on CD.


to be fair they havent yet come out with a

"this is why we did it" statement.

I think art should be free and available
to as many people as possible.

I also think that artists don't "deserve"
a living from their art, but I happily buy
CD's, tickets, t-shirts if I really like
a band cos I'd like the band to be able
to make a living out of what they do and
not have to do office jobs or whatever to
supplement it.

Though feck this argument again.


I paid a penny (so 46p)

but I will be buying the normal release when it's out.


i paid £0

the plan was to pay about 3 quid, but then my headphones broke so i had to buy some more (financial crisis!). And of course i needed to hear it at the same time as everyone else etc.

To be honest i did feel a little bit scummy beforehand, downloading music for free isn't something i'd normally condone. But now i've found out it's 160kbps - well, consider my conscience clear. In fact, i think they ought to be ashamed to be offering such appalling quality to all the people who did pay top dollar


yeah

but i reckon the majority of people wont notice the quality of the mp3, alot of people seem happy with 128. i paid zero for it but will buy the album when it comes out


shit -

good point
they didnt tell people that it was going to be 160, so loads of people must have paid reasonable prices for fucking 160.

not i. id rather use my debit card on as few sites as possible thanx


unlucky

you get a higher bit rate sent if you payed £40 for the package.

mines 320kbps


not true

i paid for the box. mine are 160. don't lie pooface.


whose lying. Its coz i payed more

I chose the price i payed for my disk box


.

the discbox costs £40 flat rate. you couldn't choose what you pay for it.


This is not true...

...this is an incorrect rumour that's been floating about

Would you believe:

45,000 box sets
170,000 downloads @ £1.49

These are worldwide figures of course
Not looking so good......

Radiohead might actually lose money on this


um

yeh they must be angry with only selling 2.06 million pounds worth of stuff.


Figures

They have to pay their publisher (for they have a standard publishing deal) 49p on every download.

They have a minimum run of 100,000 boxsets to make @ £20 a go, and they have to pay 8.5% to their publisher of each £40.

Do the math(s)......I think you'll find they lose money.......


where are you getting

your info from?


HAHAHAHA

I would love to know your source, being as the person who told me is probably a lot closer to the band than whoever told you that.


I wouldn't

bet on it!


but by that math

they only have to sell 5000 more box sets, and they will cover their costs. No lets not be stupid here, the box set will sell out eventually. Meaning with no more downloads (that they are paid for)they will make 1.8million

before the album is really in the shops


Why

will they sell out those box sets?

Surely everyone who really wants one has got one? I can't imagine a casual fan paying £40 can you?


some people

will be waiting until they get paid this month. like me.


or waiting to hear

the album before ordering


I put a minus figure in

And got a cheque from Thom Yorke this morning....


:-D

hehe


I don't know why anyone would pay anything

they are effectively offering it for free. If you like the download (in shit bitrate) then you can show appreciation and pay at a later point by buying the physical product or just sending a cheque to T.Yorke, Oxford