NationStates Jolt Archive

I really, really, really hope this will be a success. Radiohead are offering their latest album for download on their website, and here's the funny part. Its up to the buyer/downloader how much to pay. Yeah, that's the cool part, if you don't wanna pay a cent, that's cool and if you want to support the band, you can enter pretty much any amount to pay for the record. They have effectivly cut out the middle hand when it comes to consuming music. Do you think this will work out for the band?

It's been tried before and it's worked (in a restaurant system, I believe). It'll probably work again.

It's been tried before and it's worked (in a restaurant system, I believe). It'll probably work again.

Really? I wish I knew about it then... Has it been done by a big band before? I hope this will inspire others to try this aswell :-)

From what I hear, it's already been deemed "successful." Now what that actually entails? I'm not sure. But, really, since the money goes to the band aside from the web hosting (I think), they're sure to make more money overall than if a big label had printed and sold the thing in stores. I'm guessing that, on average, buyers are paying more than a couple of cents for the album.

I don't even like Radiohead but that makes me want to buy their music.

I don't even like Radiohead and this makes me want to continue not downloading their music.

Of course they will make profit, even if someone downloads it for a few cent they make more money than when he or she downloaded it illegally for free. Plus it gives them a lot of free publicity (not that they need it) and sympathy, which is also good for more people going to their gigs etc. So yeah, definably profit.

If this was a good band, I'd care.

Radiohead are one of my favourite bands. Easily.

I paid nothing, but if the album turns out to be as good as they can do, I will gladly redownload for a tenner.

I like this idea :)

They'll probably turn a profit since they're not contracted to anyone. But artists don't make an awful lot of money from record sales anyway(as I understand it) so the real pay off will be the publicity.

They'll probably turn a profit since they're not contracted to anyone. But artists don't make an awful lot of money from record sales anyway(as I understand it) so the real pay off will be the publicity.

That has a lot to do with how little money they see for each record sold, though. Considering that all the money they make from this goes right into their pocket, minus web hosting, I'm sure they'll make a good bit.

This actually isn't a half bad idea, as I strongly support bands utilizing direct distribution to get their music delivered to the consumer. I suspect, though, it wouldn't hurt much to set a minimum price, say around a dollar for the album. The profit margin, even at that amount, would be enormous.

This actually isn't a half bad idea, as I strongly support bands utilizing direct distribution to get their music delivered to the consumer. I suspect, though, it wouldn't hurt much to set a minimum price, say around a dollar for the album. The profit margin, even at that amount, would be enormous.

setting a minimum might be counterproductive though. because those who might have paid less than the minimum may well decide not to bother paying at all and so download it illegally, and those who might have paid more will think "well if they can get by on that, why bother paying more?". i am a big fan of this direct distribution thing though.

bloody great album it is too, some really amazing tracks on it.

You can't just put in 0. It has a 1 pound surcharge I think.

You can't just put in 0. It has a 1 pound surcharge I think.

Nope. There's only a surcharge if you put in an amount; if you put in £0.00 then there's no transaction for them to process, and no surcharge.