On Demand
Radiohead Passes the Tip Jar
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ever since they completed their EMI record deal with 2003's "Hail to the Thief," Radiohead has been the world's biggest unsigned band. Now, singer Thom Yorke and his bandmates are releasing a new album, "In Rainbows," on the Internet and letting fans decide how much to pay for it. We ask Gerd Leonhard, author of The Future of Music, and New York Times music critic Nate Chinen and Bob Lefsetz, former record executive, if the "tip jar" model can work for other artists.
Weigh in: How much would you pay for the new Radiohead album?
Radiohead web site
Download site for 'In Rainbows'
The Lefsetz Letter
- About this program
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Latest Episode
- Internship
- Tapes and Transcripts
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
Comments
Refresh
I paid $8 for it yesterday. Seems like a fair price given that's more than an artist would normally take away on a given album that sells at Wal-Mart for $17.
I also paid 4 pounds for this album. At first I felt that I came up with that number randomly...but I bet that will be the usual for their "true" fans. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails may be in that elite group that actually might do well with this system. I applaud the decision of this experiment by such an experimental band.
Here's something odd: currently, there are 1423 users sharing and 1337 users downloading the new Radiohead album on bit torrent tracking site isohunt.com. People are illegally downloading something that can be free.
Just because someone is using BitTorrent doesn't mean they are "illegally downloading" the album. They are simply using a different means, which in some ways is more reliable than trying to download from a website that may be overwhelmed with traffic.
Holy cow! What is Lefsetz smoking? Nobody will care about Radiohead in 20 years? I seriously beg to differ.
I paid 40 pounds for the box-set....For me there was no pay what you want---there was only one price , the box-set price...For 8 additional songs, no doubt it was worth it.
Yeah, but it's not totally free to download, you have to pay 45 cents or something for the service... that might be an incentive to dl illegally.
By what I heard from the radio just now, I would pay $0. Everyone doesn't have to be freeloader but the modern pop (inculding hip-hop) musicians today don't seem to deserve their name value they used to have back in "golden ages." Simply, it all sound the same.
I have just purchased it online, but their site is being hammered by traffic. It is MUCH faster for me to download it via bittorrent, so I am doing so.
They've hit on a new revenue model, but they still need to work on their distribution model.
I think this is very bad for the new artist who cannot afford to use this model. We are not millionaires like Radiohead. What is worse is in this environment of congratulating those who "stick it to the man", they have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
The album is sadly only available in an inferior 160 kb/s bitrate mp3 format. Most audiophiles will only deal with files 192 kb/s or higher. We're forced either to compromise or shell out for the physical copy.
Keep in mind that this download is not considered a high quality music file. Anyone who cares about sound quality will want the CD when it's released anyway if they haven't already purchased the disc box. I'd be willing to bet that many will buy both the download today ad the CD after the new year...
Will some people not pay because it is simpler not to pay?
I would try paying negative $5 and see what happens!
Radiohead's new pricing scheme recalls someone else's. That being: If you like it and think it's worthy you find a way to donate something.
WNYC, perhaps?
[For the record, I paid $11 for the Radiohead album and am an ongoing wnyc member]
The NY Board of trade should start futures contracts for album releases. Record labels can trade speculatively to save their financial butts; meanwhile, we let the free-market price the cost of a cd. !
I paid 3 pounds, which ended up being a $7.03 total charge on my card. I agree that this is probably more money than they would earn from a single CD sale at retail.
I wouldn't mind paying for a hard copy of this, but the 40 pounds for the "Discbox" set was a bit too much... I'll also be trying to download a higher bitrate copy of this later on, when the CD gets into people's hands.
A lot of the discussion assumes that the buzz is essential to the success of this approach and that "pay what you wish" is necessarily specific to a set of songs or a single song.
But maybe Radiohead is onto something different, a distributed patronage, which might work very well for new bands. Do people want to do this? I think so. If the perception that you money is going to the work a band does rather than a supporting infrastructure, I may think of my purchase in a different light. It is a contribution, an aid, a benefit, an encouragement, less than it is a business exchange.
What if pay-what-you-will is more about giving the band time to work less than it is about the exchange per song?
i plan to pay $10 (US) when I get home from work. i love this band and i love this concept. what's great about the honor system is that most people won't cheat the system by underpaying. they will pay/play fair. i'm interested to see if they disclose their revenues from this and possibly compare them with their past album sales under the traditional sales model.
Nasty guest. What a dismissive jerk.
I'll pay $10.00 minimum:)
I'll pay $10.00 maybe more.
I haven't bought a Radiohead album since 2001's Amnesiac. I never stopped liking them, but found other bands to spend what little extra money I have on instead. This "marketing scheme" definitely appeals to a poor sod like me so I'll buy it at a price I can afford! (probably $5-8)
Just downloaded it for 3 GBP. sounds great!
For Radiohead, I would pay $10, plus tax.
I paid $10
I paid $10 for it and was happy to do so. It's a wonderful album and I'm quite glad that my money actually went into the hands of those responsible for creating it, rather than the individuals who profit from taking advantage of both the consumer and the artist, or the organizations responsible for decimating consumer's rights and fair use. As a music enthusiast and amateur musician myself, I look forward to what this business model might do for the music industry.
God Bless RADIOHEAD & Music/Film sharing websites.
I will BUY the hard copy of this album beside downloading it. I'm willing to pay U$10.00 but there is no Credit Card system here!!!!!!!!!!!!
RADIOHEAD are smart. Usually human mind works better when one lets it to have freedom of choice in this case paying for a music album which nowadays is really a hard task to participate in. That goes for movies too.
The era of Vinyl & CDz are doomed. I onced owned 3000CDz & more than 1000 Vinyls & I remember they were all well taken care of BUT now I ripped them all to my PC & Laptops& sold the hard copies to my Audiophile friends but keeping some very speciall ones. NOW I download, listen for a period of time then share it with friends & I ShiftDelete the file!
RADIOHEAD are smart because with this strategy they're going to make more money & increase the fans.
Thi$ formula work$!
Cheers.
Hamid.
www.videopix.co.uk
www.pbase.com/videopix
http://videopix.zenfolio.com
I paid $20 for the album. I look at this cost as retroactive since I have several of their albums that I downloaded for free in the past. With the money going directly to the artist and not some bloated obsolete machine that is clinging to survival with its sharp claws (see $250K lawsuit award) I feel quite good dishing out the cash to a great band.
I'd pay $5 -- no cover art, and compressed audio? Oy.
By releasing the album solely online, the band may stand to make more money than it would from conventional distribution. If the CD sold in stores, they would pocket $1-3 per copy sold -- this way, they make more. I'd be curious to hear the first week's sales figures, if/when they're released.
The last phone call of this episode was interesting -- the caller said that he has too much music to listen to, and wasn't sure if he liked it or not. When John asked whether he would be more keen to support the music if it had a "REFUND" button on it, the caller was very excited.
Maybe that's what we need -- a refund button, a money-back guarantee. In fact, I vaguely remember returning CDs I didn't enjoy to Tower Records about 10 years ago, and in general, I feel more comfortable shopping at stores which let me return merchandise hassle-free.
But if the "REFUND" button were to exist - would the caller be content with DRM, which would disable playback after the refund was processed?
Best,
Ljova
Jean Michel Jarre started the war on record labels in 1983. The following is an extract from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Michel_Jarre
"In 1983, he created the album Musique pour Supermarché (Music for Supermarkets), which had a print run of one single copy. The album was made expressly to voice Jarre's distaste and disregard for the music business. Jarre destroyed all the master records from his studio work, allowed a radio station (Radio Luxembourg) to broadcast the album once and auctioned it, raising £10,000 for French artists. People recorded the album using their tape recorders while it was broadcast on the radio, so they can listen to that album, at a very poor quality though (the radio station was an AM station). Songs from this album were later reworked into future albums."
Cheers.
Hamid.
www.videopix.co.uk
www.pbase.com/videopix
http://videopix.zenfolio.com
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.