Suggested For You...

Search
Twitter-fy!
This Website Built On...
Powered by Squarespace
Kids Music Worth Airing!
E-mail Me
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    « Austin Kid's Day, A Recap | Main | Video: "I Had a Little Dog" - Key Wilde & Mr. Clarke »
    Tuesday
    Oct022007

    How Do We Make Money?  Volume.

    There was an old Saturday Night Live fake ad about some bank whose sole function was to make change. The spoof had the mixture of trustworthiness and responsiveness that is the hallmark of most ads for financial institutions, right down to the founder who, when asked how he could make money solely making change, responded in an eager tone, "Volume."

    The ad came to mind as I pondered Radiohead's decision to release its new album, In Rainbows, as a digital (DRM-free) download on Tuesday, October 10th, just 10 days after announcing it. (There's a deluxe boxset to be released in December, with a physical version of the regular CD scheduled for sometime in 2008.)

    There are probably countless bands who are giving away music for free, but none with 1% of the popularity of Radiohead. If you go to the site and ask to buy the download, you can indeed enter "0" as your desired price of the digital download of the album. But Radiohead is probably banking on the goodwill of its fans and the interest of other music fans to generate a fair amount of change.

    Other music fans like me. I'm not alone in saying OK Computer is one of the best albums of the past 10 years, but most of the rest of Radiohead's post-OK work has left me cold. So it's safe to say that if In Rainbows was appearing at my local record store in a physical format next week, I would not be picking it up. Nor would I be scouring a bunch of torrent sites looking to download it for free -- it's just not what I do.

    But this morning I went to the site and put down 2 British pounds (about $4 US) plus about a $1 service charge to download it next week. Why? Well, in part it's the musical equivalent of playing the Powerball lottery -- I always viewed $1 I paid when the pot got large and the office collected as entertainment, not as investment. This is much the same, no? It's also part of the giddy glee in helping to make major label executives nervous about whether they can continue business as usual.

    So here are my questions to you:
    1) Was I too cheap? A kids' musician e-mailed me last night saying he'd put down $10 -- a dollar a song. But I think he's a bigger fan than I am. It might be cheap, but $4 is $4 more than Radiohead would have received from me in the absence of this experiment. But if Spoon did something similar with their next album, I guarantee I'd've put down $10. Maybe more.
    2) Is this a model that can at all work in the kids' genre? I've always pooh-poohed the idea of digital downloads because I think kids like the physicality of things, and mp3s don't have a lot of physicality, know what I mean? But if somebody like, say, Dan Zanes did something similar, I think he'd probably make a fair amount of change. (Though I'd certainly miss the album packaging, which has always been top-notch with his work.) Of course, he's already reaping all the profit from his CDs, something that Radiohead, while they were on a label, did not, so perhaps his incentives to do so is less...

    Readers, musicians, thoughts?

    Reader Comments (3)

    I'm not alone in saying OK Computer is one of the best albums of the past 10 years, but most of the rest of Radiohead's post-OK work has left me cold.

    Exactly what I was thinking. I lost interest in Radiohead after Kid A. OK Computer was such perfection, but I just can't enjoy anything they've done since then.

    So, I wasn't at all interested in their new CD until I heard about this offer. They may just regain a fan.
    October 2, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterPhil
    I'm on the exact same page. My husband and I were just discussing this yesterday. We decided that we will pay $5 for the Radiohead album. Like you, I think OK Computer is insanely great, but I haven't been completely in love with their recent stuff. If I walked into a record store and saw their new album for $10-15, I wouldn't pick it up. But it's worth a $5 gamble.

    Again, $5 more than they would have made from me if they went with a normal price scheme. I think "take a chance" customers like you and me could add up. Now the key is that if the new album is *great*, I will consider paying more for the next one. And I might tell my friends & blog readers that they should take a gamble too. If the music is consistently good, I do think this could be a sustainable model.

    And I think it could work in the kids' genre. It could be a chance to grow a bigger audience. And I think there are some people (myself included) who would consider paying *more* than the traditional amount if it was for an artist they really love and want to support.
    October 3, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterJosephine Cameron
    I've been following this with great interest. One thing I haven't been able to find out: does Radiohead get 100% of the sales from the downloads except the $1 service charge? If so, even if people buy it for $4 like you did, they'll make out like bandits when you compare it to their cut from a record company issued CD.

    I also saw where Bob Mould is exploring this. He wants to basically cut the record companies out of the equation and let his fans pay for the recording time. He polled his fans wanting to know if they'd rather pay $20-40 a year for all downloads, $1-$2 per song, or $10-$20 per each CD. The annual fee of $40 is currently leading the pack.

    Now, how all of this relates to kids' music is an interesting question. I think this model will only be successful for artists with decent sales or a built-in fan base. So while I could see Laurie Berkner or Dan Zanes successful in the name-your-own-pricing ring, I doubt many up-and-comers would have success.

    I never got Radiohead.
    October 3, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChag

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Post:
     
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>