What's an album worth online?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007 | 04:11 PM ET
by Jennifer Wilson, CBCNews.ca
What's an album worth when you launch it online? Most fans say nothing.
In October, British alternative rock band Radiohead launched its seventh album online, telling fans the price was "up to you".
Fans were told to decide how much a full download of the album In Rainbows was worth.
The verdict? Not much, as 62 per cent of fans paid nothing for the 42-minute album.
The remaining 38 per cent opted to pay on average $6 US, according to a study by comScore Inc. U.S. fans, of whom about 40 per cent chose to pay, paid on average $8.05. The 36 per cent of fans from other countries who paid for the album gave about $4.64.
According to comScore Inc. more than 1.2 million people visited the website where they could download the album. It did not say how many people actually bought the album. The research firm compiled its data based on a few hundred users out of its database of approximately two million users worldwide.
The band had no comment on the study. A special edition, two-disc, physical version of In Rainbows is slated for release in December. The CD release was scheduled in advance of the online sale.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Tech Bytes »
Recent Posts
- Microsoft opening data centre... in Siberia?
- Monday, November 26, 2007
- What will the mobile internet bring?
- Wednesday, November 21, 2007
- How to navigate the cellphone maze
- Monday, November 19, 2007
- Canadians take responsibility for environment: poll
- Thursday, November 15, 2007
- Wording climate change policy no easy task
- Wednesday, November 14, 2007
- Subscribe to Tech Bytes
Archives
- November 2007 (10)
- October 2007 (17)
- September 2007 (18)
- August 2007 (17)
- July 2007 (27)
- June 2007 (18)
- May 2007 (28)
- April 2007 (25)
- March 2007 (28)
- February 2007 (25)
- January 2007 (35)
- December 2006 (25)
Comments
oliver
montreal
Although the figures are a little disapointing, it's worth noting that a lot of people may have downloaded the songs while intending to purchase the higher quality CD-version in the future. The numbers on that release will be far more relevant.
Posted November 6, 2007 09:53 PM
Garet
Winnipeg
A Radiohead album isn't worth much? I can't say I'm surprised.
But, I think it's disrespectful of "fans" to pay between 0 and 6 dollars.
Posted November 7, 2007 07:57 AM
Monkey
Winnipeg
Is there that stupid DRM crap on these downloads? If so the figures up to date are understandable, seeing as they would be virtually useless.
However if that is not the case then I agree with Garet, that's pretty disrespectful to pay so little.
Posted November 7, 2007 08:59 AM
Ian Barr
Toronto
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they did this CD on their own without the help of a label, no?
If so, that means 100% of the 'sale', as little as it is, would go to the band. Under the traditional label model, how much does the band actually get for the sale of a $20 CD...not much after the label takes its cut.
My point is that they've created tons of publicity and make most of their revenue off of touring. Keeping that in mind, what would be most interesting to learn is how much this tactic exposed Radiohead's music to new listeners...potential people who may then want to attend the live show.
Posted November 7, 2007 10:16 AM
mt
Ottawa
Don't forget that a lot of those 'free' downloads were probably people who otherwise would never have bought a Radiohead album anyway - in which case, Radiohead hasn't lost anything at all since they were never going to get that money from those people. On the other hand, now there is the potential of gaining new fans, many of which will likely go on to buy concert tickets, merchandise and future albums - not to mention influence friends and family to do the same.
Posted November 7, 2007 11:08 AM
Freeman
Edmonton
The album is DRM free, though the files are of a lower quality than on a CD.
I applaud Radiohead for what they have done. "Pay what you like" may be a little much but releasing an album direct to fans without any middlemen taking a cut is a step forward.
Posted November 7, 2007 02:13 PM
Garet
Winnipeg
Ian, I think you forget that a label pays a band to stay with them. The band is well compensated. That, and it's not free to record an album anyways.
Posted November 8, 2007 12:08 PM
Anonymous Creep
Victoria
Why would $6 be "disrespectful"? How much should 42 minutes of music be worth anyway? Life, the universe and everything?
Even if only 8% of those 1.2M people contributed the average $6 payment, the publisher (ie. Radiohead) has already made a half-million dollars by writing, recording, producing and (cheaply) distributing a few songs. Not such a bad return for a band that most people (as opposed to music critics and music download watchers) have barely heard anything by and don't particularly like when they do. Even if I was a band of which I was a "fan", I wouldn't expect any digital album to be worth more than a couple of bucks, and that's all I'd pay. If they can't interest enough listeners to make a living at that rate, well shucks.
There are a lot of other people out there waiting to make music, and it's getting easier and easier for them to do so. Don't assume that a history of monopoly and artificial scarcity has given us a good idea of what an album ought to cost, or will cost in music.
Posted November 9, 2007 02:13 AM
Garet
Winnipeg
It's disrespectful because people have essentially devalued the price of Radioheads music (which I think is worthless, but that's irrelevant). These "fans" think that since Radiohead is essentially turning into a myspace band, they can pay whatever pocket change they want for something they would have paid 20 bucks for anyways.
Posted November 9, 2007 09:43 AM
mt wallet
BC
I would submit that it has long been disrespectful of labels - and by extension bands - to charge people $15-$20 for an album on CD. What you're seeing is the welcome effect of competition in delivery and pricing methods. The outcome of that after the eventual shakeout will be fairer pricing and better accessibility to the market. It's difficult to see what's wrong with that - unless you're a beneficiary of the old guard.
Posted November 9, 2007 02:21 PM
Joshua
To Monkey: no, there is no DRM on the files.
I downloaded the album for $0. I had intended to pay for it, but the website had no reputable company managing the credit card info (as far as I could discern). Security is important online, and I would have paid as much as $6 for the album if the exchange were mediated by PayPal or some equivalent system.
Incidentally, $6 for an album is reasonable, in my opinion. Keep in mind the data is compressed MP3 format (which is not the original audio quality) and that with a downloaded album the purchaser does not get a case, artwork, or a physical disk.
Posted November 12, 2007 10:25 AM
phil
Vancouver
Why anyone would pay anything to download music is beyond me. After all they are not getting anything of substance. If you watched an hour of TV would you send the television network a cheque? If you spent an hour listening to the radio would you feel guilty that you should have paid for it? Beside that, there are lots of other places to download music for free. I think it is amazing that anyone sent them anything.
Posted November 12, 2007 05:03 PM
Garet
Winnipeg
I don't think the mp3 quality is a valid complaint. They're not much off from cds. It's not even a noticable difference. Listen to a record on an expensive tube amp if you're an audiophile, not complin about the difference between a cd and mp3.
Posted November 13, 2007 08:53 AM
Jason
Toronto
Great comment, Garet! I say let's all go back to listening to music on AM radio!
Posted November 26, 2007 03:39 PM
Garet
Winnipeg
A tube amp will always produce better sound than a solid state one. A record will always be able to accurately reproduce s woder spectrum of sound as opposed to a cd. What was wrong with the comment?
Posted November 27, 2007 01:33 PM