Radiohead's success with independently-released album

[neylitalo]

This may be old news to some of you, but a few weeks ago, the popular bands Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails dropped their corporate record labels and went independent. Trent Reznor (NIN singer)

at the unnecessarily high price of CDs, and shortly after, they dropped their record label. Radiohead followed suit, and at the same time, announced the release of their own independently released album called 'In Rainbows'. They also introduced a unique business model - you decide how much you pay for a digital download of the album (DRM free!), or you can order a "discbox", which comes with the album on CD and vinyl, along with a pile of other goodies. Now, only a few weeks after the release, it's estimated that they've made anywhere between $6 and $10 million on sales of the album.

 

I suspect that the reason Radiohead and NIN have had such success with their independence is because they both have a cult following of sorts, but I'm hoping that more artists will cut themselves away from their record labels and show the RIAA, CRIA, etc., that they're not needed. It makes better business for the artists, makes the fans happy, and keeps the lawsuits down.

 

If you're interested, you can buy the album, in the form of a digital download or the discbox, here or by following the links on Radiohead's website.

[GingerRobot]

It was certainly quite a brave move to allow people to choose what to pay for their album. However, im not sure that i can see it working in general - apart from anything else, i suspect one the reaons why radiohead did this successfully is that, being the first to attempt this kind of thing, it had a lot of publicity.

[neylitalo]

However, im not sure that i can see it working in general - apart from anything else, i suspect one the reaons why radiohead did this successfully is that, being the first to attempt this kind of thing, it had a lot of publicity.

 

I'm sure that the publicity given to the album was a huge factor, but I also think that people are pleasantly surprised to see this kind of open-mindedness and freedom. If Radiohead had released their album with a price tag of $10, I don't think I would have purchased it - but since they're letting me decide how much to pay, I want to give them something in return for that. I was glad to give them $10 for their album, because they let me choose. I suppose another factor was that I knew that Radiohead was getting my money, not some corporation. I'm more than happy to support artists who create good music, but when my money doesn't even get to the artists, I'm reluctant to pay up.

[redbullmarky]

Radiohead have never been ones to stick to convention, be it their music, attitude or methods. Radiohead interviews are few and far between, so you never quite know what they're up to - just when you think they've disappeared, they re-emerge with a bang.

 

Personally I don't think it'd work for all bands, just the ones (as Neal said) that have a sort of cult following. Many of my work colleagues/friends have already downloaded the album but also "want the disk box or CD when its released next year as something to keep." That's gonna make the band some serious £$£$£$

 

Also - lets be honest here - if you want a song from an artist, or even a whole album, there are many places you can get it for free, albeit illegally. So in this respect, selling an album for £9+ less than the shops gives you more profit than you'll get from the cheapscate that downloads a copy from unoffical sources, plus it makes the REAL fans feel they're been given something back for their loyalty that made them famous in the first place. Or just the fact that many are sick of the chunk of money sliced off the total cost for the fat cats and pen pushers, rather than going to the band.

 

Thumbs up to Radiohead. It's a cracking album, too

[cmgmyr]

I think it's a cool fact that they did that. Being a musician the "digital download" has always been a topic since back when Napster first started. I know that there are a few other musicians here, so I'm sure they will appriciate this. On one hand I like downloading tunes to check something out...or to learn it. With playing in a cover band it's insane to think to go out and buy 30 different CD's to learn all the songs you need to fill a set. BUT on the other hand downloading the mp3 is taking some money out of the bands' hands. I think that it's insane that CD's cost $16+ each and some are a lot more. Who ever figures out the balance between physical CD's and digital downloads are going to make a TON of $$$

[GingerRobot]

I suppose another factor was that I knew that Radiohead was getting my money, not some corporation. I'm more than happy to support artists who create good music, but when my money doesn't even get to the artists, I'm reluctant to pay up.

 

I'd not really considered that; good point.

 

I think it's a cool fact that they did that. Being a musician the "digital download" has always been a topic since back when Napster first started. I know that there are a few other musicians here, so I'm sure they will appriciate this. On one hand I like downloading tunes to check something out...or to learn it. With playing in a cover band it's insane to think to go out and buy 30 different CD's to learn all the songs you need to fill a set. BUT on the other hand downloading the mp3 is taking some money out of the bands' hands. I think that it's insane that CD's cost $16+ each and some are a lot more. Who ever figures out the balance between physical CD's and digital downloads are going to make a TON of $$$

 

You should get something like Napster or Rhapsody! I know there's the issue of the DRM - but i personally dont mind paying a relatively small monthly fee to basically rent as much music as i like.

[cmgmyr]

Well I use some other things out there to download music, I was just saying before there was Napster out and other ones it was pretty hard to learn new music.