On Demand
Scratching Your Radiohead
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
New York Times editorial board member Eduardo Porter explains why Radiohead is dumbfounding the economists.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
It seems way to early to be declaring the new distribution method a success. All we have is one album that from a band that's already famous and respected. We don't even know if they'll do this for their future albums.
There are a lot of questions that can only be answered after many other albums are released this way:
- How many fans are going with it for the novelty?
- How many are going with it to "stick it to the man"?
- With the band getting all the money will fans see the band as the man next time and not pay?
- How many will pay next time knowing that other people paid nothing and got the same album?
- Will bands claim huge sales to increase curiosity and sales?
let's be honest. its not a great album, definetly not one of their classics. it does not stand up to OK computer or Kid A. so why does it matter how much i paid for it? (1 pound by the way).
i could have gotten it for free and been just as disappointed.
novelty rises to the top, as alaways, and quality keeps sinking
first of all i love, love the new album. i paid 3 pounds for it.
radiohead had years of marketing boost from emi, so the model will not work for new artists.
i'm curious about the sales figures though.
I paid 2.45 pounds... haven't listened to it yet
I paid nothing for it, didn't think twice, and I feel no guilt about it. I hope we see more of this in the future.
Radiohead rules! I paid $3 for In Rainbows; enough to cover the transaction and a little for the band. Radiohead is distributing their album directly, thus they keep all the profit.
Check out my post, How Real Artists Will Save Music From The Music Industry:
http://www.sourban.net/The-Future-Of-Music-How-Real-Artists-Will-Save-Music-From-The-Music-Industry
I downloaded it for free.
This is the first time I "obtained" music by Radiohead.
A byproduct of offering it for free is that now, people like me will go out and purchase something else by Radiohead.
Like the professor who says students can pick their own grade (because everyone--or at least a majority-- will choose an 'A'), there's something larger behind this stunt.
There are newspapers handed out for free at every subway stop. Why?
Promotion.
I'm happy to be given the opportunity to pay the band directly.
I downloaded the album for free (gnutella). If I end up loving it, I'll go to their site and pay $1/song.
I'm not a huge radiohead fan. But i dont see how this modle is that far off that of the Dead or Phish or any other band with an active and acknolwedged bootleg community.
Its no secret that the music industry exploits artists. If they hijack their music form the companys then more power to them.
Viva la revolucion.
is their a connect between people who steal radiohead and people who steal from wnyc, by not becoming members?
As a professor of microeconomics, Radiohead has been a great way to demonstrate to my students the concept of utility and marginal utility. Put simply: A product is worth to you exactly how much you pay for it. For some R'head fans, that's upward of $20 bucks; for others, it's less. And that is pretty rational.
I couldn't get onto Radiohead's website last week because of the high volume of traffic, so I was forced to download it illegally.
I paid 7 pounds for it. I love the album. It's totally worth it. Plus, I can afford it... won't miss those $15 bucks at all.
I don't really care about the music industry. I don't really care if Radiohead makes music or not. But, I do care about my own conscience. And I do value the music, so I paid what it's worth to me.
Those who think that they don't pay for free downloads do. All the free (or stolen) music consumed on the front end leads to the non-existence of music that would have otherwise been available. Any wonder why pop music is so terrible after Napster?
I think their efforts are laudable, but their music doesn't sound any better to me.
I would pay something, but I'm not sure how much. Does anyone know how much a band gets through normal distribution? I would pay that plus a little more, for good karma! BTW: JT makes some really good points about the current state of Radioheads distribution. Lots of unanswered questions, but I think it's a groundbreaking iniation on Radioheads part.
How much of this is a way for Radiohead to get free marketing as a "free" album, but really just a gimmick?
I have yet to download it, but from what I understand, there is a 43 or 45p processing fee. I also understand that normally a band will receive $2 or 1 pound per album sale when sold by traditional methods (on a label). So Radiohead is guaranteeing at least 50% of what they would normally get when an album is not "free" while on a label.
The variable I'm unsure of is: by not being on a label, does that mean Radiohead had to spend more of their own money to actually produce the album (studio time, mastering, etc?). Or is all the money people volunteer to pay considered straight profit for the band?
With 50% of their income guaranteed through the processing fee, and with all the FREE marketing this free album is getting, and almost all the extra people willing to pay going right in their pockets, this seems like a very, very small risk for Radiohead.
I also do not think this phenomenon can be repeated. It'll work once, maybe twice, then it'll just become old. Think about all the free music we can hear on myspace of unsigned bands already....
i adore radiohead and i did download the album for free. there will be a retail product in the stores in time for the holidays, so not to worry, they'll get paid!
I think the Times's reporter's not paying anything is ethically offensive. I'm usually a big defender of the Times, but Eduardo's refusal to even acknowledge his refusal to be a responsible community member is troubling. He even refuses to explain why it's ok for him to get it for free -- for example, if he wouldn't otherwise have gotten it, and it costs Radiohead nothing, and he in good faith might choose to pay for a future album they provide in the same way if he likes this album.
I paid 4 pounds for it but I still feel like I stole it. Something about the whole process felt dirty to me. I guess I've been conditioned to feel okay only when I'm either buying the record in a store or stealing it totally anonymously.
Check out my Radiohead posts:
http://www.sourban.net/search/node/radiohead
Does Mr. Porter listen to WNYC without being a member or contributing? Is that any different?
John Haggerty
If you don't pay - RadioHead will go back to the Big Bad record company. If you pay nothing - you are saying that their music is worth nothing to you.
There's something anti-American by not paying for something. I understand that they are artiists, but they need to pay the bills and be rewarded for their efforts.
I have a problem with the idea that the "rational" choice is not to pay for someone else's product.
Ethically offensive? Please. Paying for the album for good karma? Come on!
Am I not a responsible member of the community if I happen not to tip some subway busker? Did I "steal" his music?
Either way, Thom Yorke is still richer than me.
Music is not a commodity.
i believe the 45p processing fee goes to the credit card company. if you put 0.00 pound you don't pay 45p.
I would love to see if there is a correlation between people who contribute to public radio and those who paid for the Radiohead album.
Prince has been on the cutting edge of this kind of music distribution! But unless it is done by a European or European American Band it does not count!!
While I'm not a big Radiohead fan, in general I would be willing to pay about $8-$10 for a downloaded CD's worth of music. I arrive at that price based on the cost of a CD reduced to allow for the savings realized by reduced distribution costs and shrinkage, and the fact that I get no line notes.
It does not matter how wealthy the artist is. Quid pro quo. They are entitled to be paid for their work.
The analogy I'd make is a museum with a pay-what-you-want policy - although there can be a level of shame attached to the broke or stingy person that wants to hand over $.25 for a $20 ticket at the admissions window of MOMA . . .
The guest came off as a jerk to me -- a representative jerk, but still -- of someone who would never pay for anything that they had the possibility of getting for free. Funny topic in the middle of a voluntarily funded radio station's fund drive!
The more Mr Porter repeated his rationale for not paying, the more smug he sounded. One point I haven't heard discussed much is that Radiohead's pay-what-you-want download system is a gesture of their Art---and how you respond to it says more about you than it does about them.
Guido - your comment is very well put!
I am a senior at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. I paid one Euro for the new album, and I know of lots of students who are doing the same. I have grown up listening and loving Radioheads music and I think even though I do not have very much money, being a student and all, a few dollars for music is definitely worth it. I love the new album and I love Radiohead, and I'm not going to be selfish about something that I value highly.
Thanks Anne!
I'd say the same about David's comment -- how you respond says more about you than about the band.
The pair of guys calling in said it well from a fan's point of view -- someone that has bought other albums/tickets can feel good about getting a free present from the band, while someone that has downloaded for free in the past has a chance to pay what they want because they want. It's a brilliant set-up by Radiohead.
And yes, Prince did it first.
i give to wnyc, pbs (2 stations actually), street musicians, and i support many musicians by seeing lots of live music.
i bought(at full retail price) every radiohead album, sometimes multiple times.
i downloaded the music for free.
and i'm ok with that.
It would be interesting to determine if there is a connection between culture, religion or lack thereof, and if someone pays for the music or the amount they pay for it.
As a classical musician I was pretty horrified by the caller who says he NEVER pays for music, but always downloads it for free.
On the other hand, I am encouraged by comments that say the proliferation of downloading supports more live performances.
I tried to pay nothing, but it wouldn't go through. I put in one pence and with the 45 pence charge for the credit card, it's almost a dollar.
I am a member of WNYC, PBS channel 13 & I also give money to KCRW since I listen to a lot of their programs via podcast.
This thread is closed.
Back to Episode