Poll: What is Radiohead's Album Worth?
Being a big Radiohead fan, I was quick to go and buy their new album 'In Rainbows' via their website. As has been reported, there is no set price for the album - you input your own price, or get it for free. I mulled it over in my head what I should pay and in the end I opted for 7.50 pounds, equivalent to US$15. It came through on my credit card as NZ$22, which is almost exactly what I paid recently for the latest Foo Fighters CD (an actual physical CD that I bought from a shop). My reasoning for 7.50 pounds for Radiohead was that I'd pay what I usually pay for CDs - but in the knowledge that the extra profit will go to the artist (Radiohead) instead of the record company and shop. Being a fan of Radiohead - and of artists ability to earn a living independently - I figured this was fair.
However reading Fred Wilson's post today, in which he said he paid 2 pounds for In Rainbows, made me wonder what others think is a fair price. I'm sure some people paid more than me, and others would've paid less. It's chump change whatever way you look at it, for anyone earning a wage, so it's not really about the money from the consumer's perspective. But there is certainly an interesting principle here about what you think an album sold via an artist's website (or their social network page) is worth. So even if you're not a fan of Radiohead, insert your favorite artist in the poll below and let us know what you're prepared to pay if the 'middleman' is cut out.
FOLLOW RWW ON TWITTER
RECENT JOBS
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I remember once seeing a breakdown of who gets the money when a CD is purchased, and only about $1 of an approx $15 CD sale actually makes it to the artist. So if you pay a retail equivalent directly to the artist, for them it's like selling 15 albums through the old distribution channels. Of course they are now handling the distribution channel costs, but on the Internet, if it is more than $1 per sale, they are doing something horribly wrong. I paid about $6US, which I thought was being pretty generous.
Posted by: snide | October 11, 2007 2:39 PM
I paid 2 pounds (I also live in NZ). The way I see it is that at that price if they sold a few hundred thousdand then the return on their investment be pretty good. Also I am not willing to pay CD prices for what is likely to be an inferior quality product.
Posted by: Glen Barnes | October 11, 2007 2:41 PM
I paid U$10 plus the fee (already answered the poll) but it's a tricky question. You say you are a fan, while although I like them, I never bought a Radiohead album before this one. So, I'm a 10 bucks new client... pretty cool how they caught me.
On the other hand, Fred Wilson paid 5 but moved me (and some more I believe) to buy. Because of the post and because of the embedded song witch I loved.
Posted by: Peluka | October 11, 2007 2:45 PM
Well, I'm prepared to pay them $10 and I'll throw in an extra couple of bucks so they can get a better server and design a reasonable music retail/download site.
The fact is, their site sucks. I couldn't access their download page at all.
Graet music, noble concept, poor execution.
Posted by: John | October 11, 2007 2:49 PM
To decide to pay 3.14 UK was as easy as pi.
Richard, I assume that your poll is about the *download*, not the album? There are two ways of buying the album, one of which gets you a physical product and some extra stuff, and has a fixed price of 40 UK.
I ask because I'm wondering whether the people who chose the expensive response to your poll are reporting the price of the discbox, rather than the download only.
To summarize my own recent posts on In Rainbows: it was initially difficult to pay for the thing; once I was able to, all went smoothly; I am enjoying the music very much.
Posted by: Andrew | October 11, 2007 3:38 PM
Good point Andrew, I updated the wording of the poll.
Yes I agree that cutting out the middleman and distributing over the Internet drastically reduces costs, so it seems very fair to pay much less than the cost of a normal CD. I guess I considered that Radiohead's artistry was worth US$15 anyway, so I paid that. But it is interesting times and the best pricing mechanism hasn't yet been found.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | October 11, 2007 3:55 PM
I was going to purchase it for c. $7, but when registering, I was told that a mobile number was required (a landline was not), and I don't have a cellular mobile, so I couldn't buy it.
Posted by: Justin Anthony Knapp | October 11, 2007 4:30 PM
I paid 5 pounds. I believe this is well worth what is in effect a huge turning point in the Music industry. This is history in the making and I think this is one of the most exciting things to happen to music in decades.
First off it takes balls to leave the comfort of a record label where you recording costs are recoupable but not returnable, it not means artist must put their money where their music is.
I think you will see far less crap music and far more music pushing the limits of creativity. Artists will no longer have to bow to record label ideas of what is creatively acceptable. They won't have to churn out the same album time and time again just because the first one was a hit.
Due to the natural order of things on the internet, rubbish music will be buried and the cream will float to the top (I am hoping).
New artists will have to spend less time trying to impress record labels in the hope of getting a deal and focus on perfecting their music. They can then release it online and compete with the likes of Radiohead. If their music stands out people will respond.
All the technical issues and bad shopping carts are irrelevant as they will be sorted out in time.
The music world is changing, this is like watch Les Paul roll out the first Multi Track Recording....WOW!
Posted by: David Finlay | October 11, 2007 4:33 PM
I like the concept of paying based on the quality of the music, so I paid 7 Pounds because I think Radiohead are great and I know I am getting a quality product (not based on bit-rate, I would have preferred FLAC). Imagine if the whole music industry took on this model, it would push the artists to really release great music as it could potentially increase the amount of income per sale. The Britney's of this world on the other hand would find it increasingly difficult to make any money off sales. Quality music may become a viable industry again.
Posted by: Justin Young | October 11, 2007 4:36 PM
Looks like Radiohead pulled a 360 on us.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/cop-out/radiohead-selling-in-rainbows-on-cd-via-one-of-the-big-four-in-january-309948.php
The above article explains how they are now going to release a cd in January. - According to the arcitle:
"through one of the Big Four (all of whom they're in negotiations with right now), and it might contain extra material not found in the digital version. Yeah, it was a cheap marketing ploy, according to their management: "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing."
Oh well marketing and the drive for more money wins again....
Posted by: David Finlay | October 11, 2007 5:26 PM
David, I'm very disappointed to hear that!!! I wouldn't have paid the full CD price if I'd known that! I hope Radiohead re-considers, that is pretty low if true.
Posted by: Richard MacManus | October 11, 2007 5:54 PM
I would consider £2 to be a reasonable price for a digital album; although, I didn't pay anything for it, because i'm not really a fan.
Posted by: Andrew | October 12, 2007 1:01 AM
I'd pay between US 20 or 29 for any album from an artist who's intellectual work I admire. For me it would be an expression of appreciation and not 'well this should cover the costs you made and also buy you a sandwich'.
Mind you, I wouldn't pay it for every artist's album though. For most I would probably pay the costs for making the album and then some.
In Radioheads case; I'd like to pay a little more then the costs (I'm not a huge fan) just for this initiative that i really like.
Posted by: Tess | October 12, 2007 1:13 AM
It sucks that they didn't come right out and say it, but they still allow legal downloading of their album for whatever price you want to pay. That is still a pretty good deal in and of itself.
If, however, you bought the album simply to show your support for this type of direct to customer sales, these guys owe you a huge apology.
Hidden agendas SUCK!
Posted by: Matt | October 12, 2007 1:50 AM
@Matt, that is exactly what I was about to do - not a Radiohead fan, but wanted to contribute to help such a move (and discover some tunes in return). Now I won't, happy enough that I read David's comment first.
Nevertheless, Richard, that's the most interesting poll I've seen in years. You need to come back with one for Madonna or whoever's next to move to a new model.
Posted by: NatC | October 12, 2007 2:51 AM
As someone who has previously worked in the music business, and with an eclectic record collection going back to 1977 punk days, and as someone who prides himself on not owning a Radiohead record, the question for me is: how much would Radiohead be willing to pay ME to own one of their overrated records?
And... nevermind digital downloading, would they send a gang of sumo wrestlers dressed as bunny girls to hand deliver me a vinyl copy?
If so, then it would take up residence in my collection, otherwise 'it' can sit on some server gathering digital dust, where it belongs.
That said, I have some respect for Thom Yorke and crew but I just can't stand their records.
Posted by: Garri | October 12, 2007 5:45 AM
I paid 5 euros, which I figured to be around 7 American dollars. When I checked my bank account online the purchase showed 11 dollars. Maybe the extra fees, whatever they were for, were listed somewhere but it wasn't obvious because I didn't see them during the checkout. I wanted to give the RIAA the finger but feel like a fast one was pulled on me. I suppose it's lesser evil than buying the CD from a label.
Posted by: Justin | October 12, 2007 8:30 AM
I this this is really a good way to sell music. I will be curious if others follow this model, if so I would be willing to support them. I was a big radiohead fan years ago I paid around $8 for the album, that seemed fair for downloadable music.
There does need to be some learning for the artist. For example: Once I purchased and downloaded the album, I noticed that it was encoded with a 160k bitrate (I use VBR or 192k) and the album did not contain cover art (big complaint for me). So if other artist do this I hope they fix those issues.
Posted by: Matthew J | October 12, 2007 9:13 AM
I went from the principle that I'd pay the same amount I would have been charged on the (Canadian) iTunes Music Store for a digital copy. That's CDN$9.99, so I paid 5£ (CDN$9.94 at the time of pre-order).
Posted by: Stephane Daury | October 12, 2007 9:14 AM
First, I am not a fan of Radiohead. At all.
I do think that what they are doing (until I saw the bit about releasing a CD next year) is worthy of being supported. So I bought my first Radiohead album ever today. I paid $5 for it which after a bit of thinking is what I think a fair price is for a digital download full LP by anybody. I can see selling single songs for more than if you buy the entire album. But a digital download with no extras is worth about $5. I think a CD with extras is worth no more than $12.
I agree with most of the points made in other comments, most of all that Radiohead are going to see more of the money this way rather than letting the label take it all. So good for them. If some bands that I really liked a lot started to sell albums this way I might be tempted to pitch in an extra buck or two out of love.
Posted by: Phil J Leitch | October 12, 2007 2:31 PM
$.5M in one week (directly to the band) isn't so bad, huh?!?!
I did some math on your post here:
http://digg.com/music/Selling_Music_Directly_To_The_Fans_But_At_What_Price
Posted by: Marc Krejci | October 15, 2007 1:52 PM
If I'm buying music directly from the artist as a download, then I'd say $5-$7 is fair, not because I'm cheap, but because that's way more than the artist already gets after the record company and distributer takes their cut. And in RadioHead's special case, I'm a bit disappointed in their choice in quality offering only 160kbit MP3 when the entire net has been using 192kbit even back in the dialup days. Also let's not forget you lack tangible media and printed materials, a lesser product gets a lesser price. Paying more than $10usd for a downloaded album is way too much.
Posted by: TravisO | October 16, 2007 2:08 PM