In Rainbows Download Stats Revealed
Much has been made of "The Radiohead Model," the pay-what-you-want pricetag attached to last year's In Rainbows download. It was a success by most accounts, but not necessarily replicable by a band that's not as established or beloved by the press. Now, on the one-yearish anniversary of your favorite album of 2007, Radiohead publishers Warner Chappell are releasing details of the experiment. So ... how well did it sell?
According to Musically.com this question was (sort of) answered at today's "You Are in Control" conference in Iceland.
There were 3 million albums sold across all formats, including 100,000 copies of the fancy box set. But while BitTorrent downloads outnumbered downloads from the official site, the band made more money even before the physical release than they did on 2003's Hail To The Thief altogether. Average download price, however, was not revealed.
According to Warner Chappell's Jane Dyball, the band and its management tracked the amount fans were choosing to pay with the intention of canceling the download option if the price dropped too low. Warner also revealed that licensing the digital rights directly, and not through the standard collection agencies, was a key revenue generator.
More details here so check it out if you planning your own high-profile digital release. Overall, pretty impressive for an album that's not very good.
Posted at 10:18 AM by Scott
Tags: Radiohead
Here's hoping people get that last joke...
Score = 4
The only joke I see on the page is where it says "Elvis Costello Sings On New Fall Out Boy Single"
Score = 7
I blew $80 on the disc box only to be disappointed by the album itself. The plus side: the records that come with the disc box are 45's and I discovered that I enjoy the album much more when slowed down to 33. Try it, it's awesome.
Score = -15
Bit torrent downloads had already outnumbered legitament downloads, so what did they think they were going to accomplish had they been forced to remove the free download portion off the website if the price dropped too low?
I wish they had just waited and released In Rainbows this year. Last year was too good of a year for music, and I could hardly get excited about it.
Score = -11
The "Radiohead Model" works only if you have a rabid fanbase that will pay anything for your music. For young bands, I think the best model for music distribution is to offer your music for free.... Piracy is not the problem, Obscurity is.
NewRockstarPhilosophy.com
Score = 6
Yes. We have already spent countless hours on here discussing how well the Radiohead Model would work for indie bands. Let's not do this again.
Score = 9
No one cares about Radiohead. The album's mastering is horrible. It's been compressed into a distorted turd. If Radiohead new anything about music, they would've been there during the mastering phase. Amateurs.
Score = -56
Your write. Radiohed must knot now aneetheeng about musik.
Score = 19
take it from me, you really do need to be there while your album's being mastered.
Score = 2
Joke or no joke, man, the Hold Steady blow righeously hard. makes it clear once again how transparent and impressionable you scummers can be
Score = -5
I seem to recall that this question was already answered in issue 16.01 of Wired, back in January. In the article "The Radiohead Revolution" by David Byrne, it was stated that, "in the first month, according to comScore, more than a million fans downloaded In Rainbows. Roughly 40 percent of them paid for it, at an average of $6 each, netting the band nearly $3 million."
And on page 123, Thom Yorke says, "In terms of digital income, we've made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever- in terms of anything on the Net."
Score = 1
I saw the singer from the hold steady yesterday when i was riding my bike home and i wanted to yell at him that he sucks.
Score = 1
"...3 million albums sold across all formats, including 100,000 copies of the fancy box set."
Man, if I was thier accountant, I'd be really relieved to be dealing with such simple round numbers.
Score = 18
yea seriously. its also good that the congressional bailout plan cost exactly $700 billion.
Score = 3
"Overall, pretty impressive for an album that's not very good."
thank you, thank you, thank you. i really felt like i was alone and now i know there are other people out there with actual working ears.
Score = -23
oh wait....now i get it.
i guess i am alone in thinking this album sucks.
keep clinging to your washed up musicians!
Score = -24
Yes, Radiohead is totally washed up!
Releasing probably the most profitable album of their career, that's received significant critical (and fan) praise, and influenced the entire music industry as we know it.
Bunch of losers.
AND THEYRE SO DEPRESSING.
Score = 3
I hate hyperbole. Even when I use it.
Score = 6
anyone who would say radiohead is washed up is basically saying i am a brainless wanker.
Score = -4
No, I didn't like it much either. There's nothing special about it. It's just a boring distillation of everything they've done previously plus strings. Too much effort, not enough genuine inspiration. I also find it really cocky where I find the rest of their stuff rather earnest. They sounded better when they were constantly pissed off at themselves.
Score = -1
Here we go again with the Hold Steady stuff. Can you never post a link to that again. Why do we have to hear peoples opinion's about THS everytime we read about Radiohead. Who effing cares if you don't like them or you saw them or whatever...
Get a life.
Score = 4
i agree. the hold steady rule. radiohead rules. i dont give a shit what one band thinks of the other
Score = 2
Whistle, so you got the new Mitch Hedberg CD too huh?! I really liked his Real World/round numbers joke as well...
Score = 0
Is that a Hedberg bit? I loved Hedberg (RIP), but haven't heard his new CD, unless I heard it and logged that joke somewhere way back in my subconscious. I'm sure he had a lot better delivery than I could ever come up with. I was merely making an observation, but thanks for calling me out anyways - hope it made your day a little better.
Score = 0
I thought In Rainbows was great if you gave it time, and more than half of the songs on the bonus disc were pretty amazing and should have been on the album. Wasn't part of Radiohead's success w/ that particular model and strategy is that no significant rock band had ever done it before. So therefore you got business types like Wall Street Journal, typical mags Rolling Stone and of course blogging about it, so all that free media just added to its success. I don't think that kind of thing could be repeated w/ any expectation of the same result--unless it's Britney Spears or something really shite. Direct your loathing at "artists" who really made shitty music. I mean if you don't like Radiohead, I can understand. But understand there are millions of us that thought In Rainbows was pretty amazing. Diff'rent strokes rule the world, but quit hating on Radiohead
Score = 1
there's no difference in Radiohead and Britney Spears. Thom Yorke said it himself. They are both mainstream artists. The McDonald's of music.
Score = 0
and here i was hoping that last line wasn't just tongue in cheek sarcasm.
i thought the album sucked. hard. and i was a huge radiohead fan.
you win some, you lose some.
Score = -1
I laugh at you music elitists.
Score = -1
Shut up.
Score = 1