Radiohead New Album- Interesting Pricing Scheme
 

Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet. Radiohead has officially put out a release date for their new album (In Rainbows) and it's the 10th of October. They also are currently not with a label and will be releasing it themselves, but the interesting part is the pricing scheme is...up to you. You fill in the amount for the download of the CD, totally up to your judgment.

There's a boxed version you can buy also with a set price, not sure exactly what it contains.

I'd be interested to see what the average amount they pull in is. I haven't read much, have they been having a lot of issues with labels, is this a sort of screw you to the CD industry in general or just something else all together?

I tried preordering last night but I think their server was being hammered or something, I'll try again later.

I read that the deluxe edition has the following and will be rather pricey at £40 ($81):

Enhanced CD with extra features.
Second CD of offcuts from the record.
Heavyweight vinyl copy of the record.
Artwork and photographs
Hardback book

Didn't Prince do something similar recently?

Once a band reaches Radiohead's level, do you really need a label? I think it's a smart move, and maybe we'll start seeing more of the big bands doing the same.

I think what Prince did was have a copy of his CD in every copy of some British newspaper.

I'm all for seeing more of it.

Just preordered and paid $4 for it. Smart idea I think. I haven't paid for music save for anything I get from Rhapsody or Zune in ages. I'm intrigued enough to get it on time that I'll pay something.

Hey big spender! :p

Well I wouldn't have paid for it at all otherwise.

Yeah I spent a couple of bucks on it, too, in case I don't like it.

Even if I just pay a pound for it, isn't that basically as much, if not more, than they would have cleared from a record company deal?

FYI


Cool...looks like I'll have something new to listen to on the way to work tomorrow morning.

I am really, really interested to hear how this does. Is it asking too much to hope they'll release the figures, including average price per sale?

Got the same e-mail, I'm looking forward to hearing the album, I haven't been keeping up with new songs that have debuted on tour or anything.

I'm traveling this week and don't want to do online shopping from the hotel so I put in 0 and it accepted it without needing a CC#. I got the confirmation email already. I'll re-buy it when i get back home... probably $8 or so. They've earned it.

I've settled on $7.

If Pink Floyd were to make a new album I would give at least $50

160KBPS? Isn't that pretty bad quality?

There are honestly some bands I would pay $50 for a new album from. A really good album from a good band is worth at least as much as a video game.

I'd love to know a.) how much people paid for this album, and b.) whether this made any impact on the number of free downloads.

128 kbit/s is the most common, but I tend to rip my CDs at 192 kbit/s. 160 kbit/s is above average.

So the options are to pay x amount for average quality mp3s (isn't 320 cd quality?) or 50 for the actual CD (plus some other goodies)? I don't like either option.

So the options are to pay x amount for average quality mp3s (isn't 320 cd quality?) or $50 for the actual CD (plus some other goodies)? I don't like either option.

I read elsewhere that the album is going to get a standard release (normal price, none of the extra stuff in the deluxe version) in a few months. So you could get the mp3s for free tomorrow and buy the CD later on when it's available if you wanted to.

Cool.

Actually, CD audio is 1,411 kbps. But I'd still bet anyone here $100 that they can't tell the difference in a double-blind test.

edit: also, I'm pretty sure that the 128 is standard for mp3 stores.

I can tell the difference with songs that I've heard many, many times, and could perfectly, in time, sing the whole song word-for-word without the actual song playing in the background.

But....no it probably won't make much of a difference for songs that I haven't heard. You crank that shit up high enough, it doesn't really matter.

Unless you have great headphones (costing hundreds) or home audio equipment (costing thousands) I don't think very many, if any, people here could honestly tell the difference in a double blind test...

Downloaded and listening now...

I paid 3.50 pounds for it.

I'm giving it my first listen now as well...

Anybody ever get Thom Yorke's solo album? I downloaded it off emusic the other day. It seems pretty decent, it's more of an electronic album.

This new radiohead album seems to be fairly similar to the usual Radiohead stuff they've been doing lately, which is a good thing imo.

But then again, if it's Radiohead, I'm going to love it.

As much as I like Radiohead I didn't like Thom Yorke's solo effort very much.

I'm a few tracks into this album and I like it okay so far which is a good sign I think. More than probably any other band I think their music benefits greatly from repeated listening.

Paid about $7 for it. Not bad so far.

Agreed on all counts.

Can you listen to it before deciding how much you want to pay?

I really like Thom Yorke's solo album.

The Eraser was hit or miss for me, some tracks I really enjoyed while others were skippable. I have In Rainbows downloaded, I'll be able to give it my first listen in a few hours.

You can pay $0 for it and download it and then if you like it just go back and re-buy it for what you think its worth.

Pretty close, standard is about 20%, which is 3-4 Dollars to the Artist depending on the price. So for somebody paying 4-5 bucks they are making more than the record company would pay them per unit sold, pretty ingenius idea.

I think a lot of Artists will be watching this closely to see how it goes, If this catches on it could potentially be the death knell for most of the record industry.

With Yorke's solo album and now the new album being new to me right now, I'd definitely say I like In Rainbows more than Yorke's solo effort but I don't think the solo effort is bad, either.

But I don't think either capture the magic that OK Computer has had for me. OK Computer and Kid A are definitely my favorites, but trying to compete with either of them is unfair based on the high regard I have for both albums.

Overall, going through my third listen, I'd say In Rainbows is a fairly solid album. Once I get it onto a CD and get it into my car, I'll probably like it more. I appreciate music more when I'm driving.

Same here. I'm going through it a second time and it seems to be solid. Bodysnatchers is an early favorite. I'll probably pick it up again when they release it in CD format (next year I think.)

I'm really loving this album...Jigsaw Falling Into Place kicks all sorts of ass.

I have to laugh when I read all of the articles proclaiming this to be some sort of revolutionary distribution method that's going to change the music world. It is revolutionary - not to mention brilliant - but only from a business/marketing standpoint, not a distribution standpoint. As someone mentioned above, but everyone (not just here, but all over the net) is ignoring or missing, this album is going to be released on physical CD by way of the usual distribution methods early next year.

What they have done - and again, I think it's brilliant - is turn 2 alternative distribution methods into mega-money-making opportunities. They have seized control of the leak process and are turning it into a profit-making, marketing, and positive PR event. This album was not released on October 10th - the individual tracks were leaked by the band on October 10th, in poor bitrate format, without artwork. The actual release was always planned for early 2008. This is the leak of the album that would have occurred had they contracted with EMI or whomever to do the release. Instead, they now control the leak and are making some money off of what would otherwise be a free-for-all until you can buy the physical CD at Best Buy (or the download at itunes, etc.) next year. This isn't even them making X more profit than they would if they had let iTunes do the release, because this isn't the release! This is the leak, so every penny they make is pure profit (minus whatever expenses they have in setting it up).

The other distribution method they are using here is what I would call the "fanclub exclusive release" format. Again, this is brilliant, because usually when a band releases a bunch of goodies that only the biggest fans buy, it typically happens after the regular release. Here, they are leveraging the lack of physical CD into offering a premium package (at $80 freaking dollars!) that includes the CD, a bonus CD, and vinyl versions of both. Not only are they going to hook the mega-fans with this, but since you can't get the real thing for a couple more months after the exclusives are released, they're going to get a ton more people to part ways with $80 who probably otherwise would not have bought this.

Again, this whole thing is a coup of marketing savvy, but hardly revolutionary. This album will end up at BB and on iTunes. And instead of people freely trading inferior versions of their album for months until that day (or possibly never buying it), they've offered people the privilege of paying for poor quality versions of songs that will be on their new album, or buying a fanatic-only release at over 5 times what the CD would cost. I mean really, I know vinyl has its fans, but how many people are really going to get use out of the vinyl other than as some sort of collector's item?

Kudos to the band and/or whoever came up with this idea. Too bad I don't like them. Still interesting to follow from afar, though.

And BTW, there is absolutely a discernible difference between 128/160 kbps and 320 and cetainly CD-quality. I listen to my music loud enough in confined spaces that it is easily noticeable, which is one of the several reasons why I refuse to buy downloads unless there is no physical CD available.

I'm not surprised at all by this idea. If you listen to interviews with Radiohead, they say the same thing over and over again: "if bands/labels wouldn't put out such rubbish records, then people wouldn't be so quick to pirate them." I know that I feel I owe Radiohead some money at this point -- I've actually paid for only The Bends (used) and Amnesiac, the rest were copied or, um, borrowed from friends on the Internet. And they're really my favorite band.
This is not a death knell for the industry, however, since only a few bands can get away with this sort of thing. Would anyone you know who is internet/download savvy really pay for the new Jet CD? This is merely one superhuman band pulling a stunt, like the Beetles playing a concert on the top of a building.
By the way, I like Eraser, and I don't think in terms of "is it as good as Hail to the Thief. I'm grateful for every song I get out Yorke. He's a rare musical genius and I'm thankful he hasn't managed to kill himself somehow. God bless Radiohead.

In terms of magnitude of event, I agree that only a few bands could be as successful with this as RH is probably going to be. But if they tightly control the leak process, and instead of the usual leak during the 3-4 month marketing run-up to the actual release make the same kind of offer to fans that RH has, I bet any number of bands would do well. And the point, really, is that anything they get from offering the leaked version themselves is more than they would get otherwise. I bet there is a segment of Jet fans who would pay a few dollars for a leaked version of a new album that isn't coming out for another 3 months. And with some indie bands, the bond with their fans is so tight, they might even have a higher attachment rate because their fans are looking for reasons to give them money.

Another thing about the genius of RH offering this at 160kbps is that it's probably decent enough that most people won't care, but it's just inferior enough to probably force some people to buy the physical CD.

Oh, and while you wait for the actual release, here's some alternative artwork that you can use:

I just bought and downloaded, 2.95 pounds total... so about 6 bucks american.

Once you're huge, you can pretty easily move off a label. The problem is if you aren't huge no one cares that you're releasing album through some quirky method. The other problem there is no vested interest in playing your song on the radio. No label is pushing the stations to play it / no station is playing it as a favor to a label.

It's not necessarily sustainable for a big band, but if they're fine with admitting they'r esentially playing to their existing fanbase, they will probably make much more money selling even way less albums.

I'm hearing lots of segments that really sound like they exhumed Jeff Buckley -- I know Thom's voice is in the same neck of the woods, but I have never heard echoes as strong as those on this album. Anyone else hearing that as an influence?

their server is showing me its insides

Looks like some other bands may be following Radiohead's plan:

http://www.zmemusic.com/other/band-i...ins-the-fight/

moron, if you could hear the difference between 160 and 192 kbs you'd be an engineer or record producer. if you liked a song and wanted to download it for free you'd grow a beard before you found a 320 kbs version on limewire or kazaa or whatever you use.