December 11, 2007 3:12 PM PST

Radiohead criticized as band shuts down 'In Rainbows' promotion

One of the recording industry's most daring experiments ended on Monday. Three months after Radiohead stunned the music industry by allowing fans to pay whatever they wanted for the album, In Rainbows, the band has now opted for a more traditional sales approach.

That was fast.

Just weeks ago, the group was being congratulated for laying the groundwork for a new business model that pundits said could one day save the music industry. But as Radiohead prepares to distribute songs the old-fashion way--selling CDs out of retail stores--not everybody is cheering.

Nicky Wire, a member of the Manic Street Preachers, a rock band whose hits include "Send Away The Tigers," told a news publication last week that Radiohead's offer "demeans music."

"Fair play to Radiohead for doing something different," Wire told the United Kingdom's Daily Star. "It's certainly great publicity, but I think it kind of demeans music. Music used to be a market; now it's all gone digital. It's worrying (that) cinema is doing well, video games are doing well, but music isn't. The free-download phenomenon is ruining the industry."

Such statements are heresy to the "free" culture, but Wire may be right to question whether Radiohead's experiment was a success.

Nobody other than Radiohead and its handlers know how much money the groundbreaking promotion generated, and they aren't sharing figures with the public. Nonetheless, there are signs that the revenue was less than spectacular.

Last month, ComScore, a traffic-tracking company, stirred controversy when it estimated that 62 percent of those who downloaded In Rainbows did so without paying a cent for the music.

The band called ComScore's figures, which were calculated by tracking a sample group, "wholly inaccurate."

Why would Radiohead kill the promotion and go back to a traditional sales model, if the cash were rolling in?

The obvious question now is why would Radiohead kill the promotion and go back to a traditional sales model if the cash were rolling in?

The album is still in its infancy, say music industry executives. The economic life span of an album can last as long as two years. It starts when an act releases a record and is extended when the performer goes on a concert tour.

"For those of you who wish to buy In Rainbows in the usual way," said a message at Radiohead's site on Tuesday, "it will be available on CD/vinyl and download from traditional outlets from the 31st December 2007."

Several publications have also reported that Radiohead is negotiating to make In Rainbows available on iTunes.

You can argue that the reason to pull the plug on the offering is to give the band a chance to tap into the shrinking but lucrative CD market. Discs are still the way most people listen to music.

But if the pay-what-you-want promotion was a cash cow, why not keep it going at the same time that you sell CDs? If the digital and CD markets are separate then there's no fear of undercutting disc sales. If they are not, then hasn't the high-profile online promotion already doomed physical sales?

And then there are the statements made this weekend by the group's manager, Chris Hufford, in an interview with the The New York Times. He indicated that the In Rainbows strategy was a one-off.

"This was a solution to a series of issues," Hufford told the Times. "I doubt it would work the same way ever again."

He's not saying the promotion was a bust, but neither is he hollering, "Eureka, we've discovered the new paradigm!"

There's no doubt that Radiohead's gutsy move scored points with fans. Another benefit is that other performers who follow Radiohead's experiment, such as rapper Saul Williams, are sure to learn much from their experiences. They might even improve on the idea.

Last month, Williams launched an offering similar to Radiohead's but tweaked it so people would have more motivation to plunk down money. At the same time he gave away a digital version of his album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardus, Williams offered a higher quality download that could only be obtained with a $5 donation.

At this point, it looks like Radiohead began a discussion. There's plenty still to be debated.

Recent posts from News Blog
YouTube ads for viral videos: 'buzz targeting'
EA tops expectations, looks ahead
Hackers going after restaurants, supermarkets
GIS exec works to unlock hidden geo data
New Office 2007 add-on makes commands easier to find
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 33 comments (Page 1 of 2)
you guys are idiots
by kwarren84 December 11, 2007 5:02 PM PST
How could you question a band as smart as Radiohead? They knew that all the tech savvy people were going to get their hands on a leaked pre-release for free anyway, so they made a big publicity stunt out of it. And now that all the downloaders have their copy, they're discontinuing the free downloads and putting out the official physical disc for everyone else who isn't a free download ***** (all guilty here). What are we going to do to save the music industry? Hopefully that whole thing about bands barely making any money of album sales will hold true, and artists will be able to make money off of live performances and the other whorish crap we have to do. Maybe people don't deserve good music anymore.
Reply to this comment View reply
Misguided...
by 800lb December 11, 2007 5:25 PM PST
I think you're going after the wrong targets in this piece. Radiohead released a low bit rate version of their own record in place of the unauthorized leaks that they've experienced with their last three records. They hoped it would drum up interest... it did. Even if it didn't fundamentally change the distribution of music, it's still a proof of concept with regards to limited free access. It's expensive to run their servers, and if they're not making that much cash off of them then they might as well shut them down and let the trading go peer to peer from here on out. I think the Manic Street Preachers, who have been desperate for a hit for quite a while, don't necessarily have the best standing when it comes to the degradation of music as an enterprise. Video games have created new content management paradigms that have yet to be realized by the music world, and movies have been in free fall since the mid nineties. Music was degraded by an industry that sold fifteen dollar CDs with one good song that scratched up and got lost, not by internet file sharing. Further, I think it's the music industries fault for exploiting content in the way it has for the last fifty years. Music used to be an artificial market, artificially inflated in price because of the unavailability of the means of production. Now the big five (or is it the big three these days) don't have their sandbox, and they're not smart enough to figure out a new way to make it. Radiohead never said they would make money on this. They enjoyed messing with people, and they know that the festival dates their going to play next summer will payout at about a million a piece, so they're not worrying. I think it's way too soon to be calling their coup a success or failure though. It's a different paradigm, let it all play out.
Reply to this comment
DRM and Pricing are seperate issues
by dhavleak December 11, 2007 7:28 PM PST
I've been yelling myself silly on this point on /. to all the "DRM is teh sux" people for years now. Experiments like Radiohead's, and stores like AllOfMp3.com etc. really argue the price point. People would actually spend more on music if they could buy it by the track (insted of by the album), and for about 10c to 20c per song. $1 per song is an unreasonably high price. This is a question of pricing however. DRM issues are related to *interoperability* and *fair use*. No matter what pricing structure you use, there will always be people who will get their music for free if they can. Just like pricing any common goods doesn't prevent theft at a grocery store, pricing songs correctly won't prevent piracy. And the problem extends to other media as well -- songs might reach 10c/track at some point -- but this will never happen for movies, for example. And at even say $10/movie, people will still be using bittorrent. So DRM is really an inevitable reality. Enter interoperability (and hopefully the government or courts). We need someone to really nail down and define what rights we have as consumers, and regulations that ensure that all DRM systems protect those rights. i.e. I *should* be able to buy a track from iTunes and use it on a Zune if I so choose. I *should* be able to rip music from a CD and use it in my iPod or Zen or both. I *should* be able to buy one single copy of a song, and distribute it within all members of my family, and all devices we own, irrecpective of manufacturer, but no further distribution than that. So we really need the government to step in and nail these rights and enact legislation that says that any DRM system must adhere to the interoperability guidelines above, and must be at least modelled around this abstract unit called a household.
Reply to this comment View reply
They learned an important lesson...
by WJeansonne December 11, 2007 7:49 PM PST
Their music is worthless, lol! Radio who?? Never heard of them and chances are they are no Led Zepplin or the Beatles, that's for sure. Flash in the pan. Pure and simple.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Let's get this straight...
by aemarques December 12, 2007 12:42 AM PST
I downloaded this album without paying for it. And I have three good reasons for that: 1. I could do it - legally! 2. I did not hear the album first (and I could do that if I was to my local record store) 3. IT IS IN MP3 LOW QUALITY (160 kbps) FORMAT! I mean, this is not CD quality! So, for me, what I got was a product sample, not a *real* album. In my home stereo, you CAN hear the difference between any lossy format (WMA, MP3, AAC...) and a *real* CD. So, the real question should be: WHY WOULD I PAY FOR THIS? Now that I have the album, if I like it and I want a full quality CD, I should buy one in the record shop.
Reply to this comment
Change Your Mind
by Pooleside December 12, 2007 2:08 AM PST
Regardless of how it's priced, or delivered, or what its quality, the underlying problem with music in the digital age is the unit pricing model. Complain about the high cost of a download? Until sales are in the millions, the unit price for music is far too low to support anyone. And why should the only music that can survive be the music that appeals to the broadest base? It drives the business in interesting but bad directions. But hey- we're used to it. It's the only way we talk about paying for music. I had a problem with the Radiohead thing for the same reasons as mentioned- can't hear it first, low quality. But my main gripe was that even with the pay what you like model, they are still focussed on paying by the unit. My suggestion is to drop the pay by the song/CD model and use the low quality song files as advertising for the real payment scheme- signing up fans as sponsors. A sponsor might have access to exclusive material, or first dibs on tickets, or any number of perks. A fan base of a few thousands could support a mid to low level act much much better than record sales. Every one of my sponsors is special to me- we are doing something together, rather than me being the manufacturer and they being the consumer. Interesting way to be about it. www.somewhereoutwest.com
Reply to this comment View reply
Did no one pay attention?
by SeizeCTRL December 12, 2007 5:33 AM PST
Maybe I missed something here, but I could have swore that Radiohead said that they would release In Rainbows on CD in the traditional sense for every one who didn't want to spend the $88 for the big box set. I never considered the possibility that the digital download would be available forever. I figured it would eventually go away once the actual CD was released. I love Radiohead for the way they change things up. To me, they are the best band of the last 15 years. Even if they didn't leave this pay what you want thing up for a very long time, it rattled a lot of cages, it brought about a tremendous amount of dialog and made many people question the music industry, so in that aspect, I think they succeeded in what they set out to do.
Reply to this comment View reply
CNET and large media companies
by Ilgaz December 12, 2007 7:09 AM PST
I think Radiohead did a great thing by showing true face of Big media even if it is dotcom big media. People purchased the music directly from artist and it DOESN'T matter how much they paid for it or how they got it. This fact seems to raise eyebrows on a dotcom who paid millions of dollars for mp3.com and couldn't even sell a single mp3. People, artists and cheap bandwidth or P2P. It is the sad fact, people started to hate "big" everything. Big record companies, big software vendors, big MEDIA, big NEWS SITES who thinks everyone is stupid but they are clever. Thanks to Radiohead for showing who is actually against independent market.
Reply to this comment
You can get it off BitTorrent for Free (Im Sure)
by zincmann December 12, 2007 7:13 AM PST
This is a moot arguement, who cares if they pulled it off as we all agree it was a stunt and an experiment. Moreso just like every other album I am sure its available for free if you still want it, so have at it.
Reply to this comment View reply
It is not "low bitrate" actually
by Ilgaz December 12, 2007 7:15 AM PST
I have listened to the new radiohead album mp3s on high end equipment, high end DSP software enabled Mac and also low end stuff like mobile phone without any tweak. It is standard 160Kbps VBR mp3. That is what I would use if I purchased the audio CD and ripped it. I think some people doesn't understand the fact that it is a concept rock album of 2000s. These guys and similar ones distort the sound, tweak the sounds, use lo-fi drum machines ON PURPOSE. It doesn't change the fact that mp3 is possibly done from studio 24bit/36 bit masters. If people look up "lo fi", "drum and bass", "distortion", "vintage guitar equipment" , they will understand that the music sounds low end on purpose.
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

advertisement
On GameSpot: Download game demos, patches, and more!
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: