AWmusic

The Radiohead Model and Why People Love It and Hate It

9 June 2009, Allan @ 7:43 pm “The Radiohead Model” involved the pay-what-you-will/can for the critically acclaimed album In Rainbows by influential band Radiohead. This isn’t a perfect model; it almost requires a perfect storm and is a model successfully implemented by Trent Reznor and Nine Inch Nails (as well as a slew of others but lesser known). – Though to be fair NIN’s model is a bit different, it was completely free and really didn’t ask for a price on The Slip and Ghosts I.

First let’s go through what you need to be successful under said model:
1. You need to be popular
In order to make a dent anywhere in this world it seems, you need to have people who care. No matter how good you are an artist, this model might not be so successful if nobody cares that you’re giving album for free.
2. Whatever you’re giving away for “free” needs to be good
Basically, people want value. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean it’s good. You have to make people get off their asses to go get it. If I advertised “Free punches to the face”, I’m not sure how many people I’ll get to actually punch in the face (you know you want it). Check out the reviews for In Rainbows .
3. Not everyone needs to pay…but someone has to.
The point of pay-what-you-can especially on the internet is that the majority of people won’t pay a cent which is perfectly fine but you need an incentive for paying more. E.g. more money = higher quality + extra goodies. For me personally, I don’t really care about extra quality or extra goodies but I’m also not the one to pay money either so I’m not a targeted demographic. Trent Reznor did a great job here, offering a ton of bonuses for paying for some limited material.

Everything In its Right Place by Radiohead

Why it works:
100% of 5 million is greater then 8-10% of 45 million in sales. Doing the math seems pretty logical in this case. It’s usually rare to see a record amass 50 million in sales or more but the majority of the money doesn’t go directly to the artist. Many other people and myself could probably agree, it feels better when you buy a record and you know the artist is benefitting from it. They did after all create the product that you are after.

Radiohead probably pulled in a number greater then 8 million and rumoured to pull in more money then records like the famed Ok Computer and Kid A (combined?).

If Radiohead wasn’t popular, didn’t release one of the best albums of the year (arguable – I didn’t like but I should probably give it a chance), and didn’t make a boatload of money while at it – it wouldn’t be a model that people care about. This model works. In theory while Radiohead independently released it, because they were doing something “different” (sort of) they had all the publicity they needed. It does make you wonder though if this model is repeated to death – will it continue to work?

Why people love it?
The consumer loves it and the consumer is the most important aspect to ANY business model. So Allan, how many people are reading this? No one – what did I do to piss them off? I’d definitely would be concerned if no one was reading this though. I care for my readers and with artists releasing on PWYC scales, it gives an underlying appreciation to their fans.

It gives the consumer ultimate control of where their money goes and can judge for themselves the intrinsic value of something. They can choose to keep it but they could also happily give it away if they like what they are getting at a discount anyway.

Another important point, it also POINTS A MIDDLE FINGER at the RIAA (which most people who consume music should hate with a passion). Whether or not there is PWYC, people will get their freak on with the likes of ThePirateBay just because they refuse to pay for it. While the “Radiohead Model” advocates free albums, the consumer has proven just because there is something that is free does not mean it will hurt your album sales. The numbers that the RIAA throws out is completely arbitrary and they probably aren’t hurt by album downloads as they’d like you to believe (probably signing better artists is their real problem).

What Its All About by Girl Talk

Why do people hate it?
This group is a small minority because it’s other musicians (and I guess major labels too but they’re greedy so who cares about why they hate it). Basically “The Radiohead Model” is just not very applicable to other artists. You can probably think of a handful that could successfully do it but it may not work well in the future as well. Independent artists release their material free of charge all the time…but it doesn’t seem to be working in terms of the massive success that Radiohead or Nine Inch Nails has achieved.

Let’s draw an example from music blogs. “The Stereogum Model” is after duh, the legal mp3 blog, Stereogum. It’s a great model, they don’t really piss anyone off and they can’t be held for liberally giving away tracks without the artist’s consent (which we do). Would AWmusic.ca have any success posting just legal mp3s? Absolutely not. Everyone else is doing it and while we do stay away from leaked material – blogs like Pretty Much Amazing is thriving on the post everything while it’s hot model.

While I won’t complain about Stereogum (it’d just sound like me crying for attention that I don’t have enough readers). Artists like Kim Gordon do have a point even it’s painstakingly obvious and hardly counts as news. I don’t think it’s just Radiohead they should be criticizing, it’ll take some understanding from the consumers who are enjoying a pretty good benefit that it doesn’t apply to everyone.

Artists shouldn’t feel the pressure to release their music for free. They probably won’t get much out of it. Artists usually put more money into it then they get back, and taking more away from their revenue may influence artirts just to do less or see them struggling to do more of what they love. If an artist wants to charge money, they have every right to – it’s their work and you can always not buy their product if you deem it unworthy (or illegal download it….).

No matter what the model is, bands and artists like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are successful with or without The Radiohead Model. It does make us feel better as consumers and the only message I have is that – help your independent artists as much as you can because conversely indie artists that haven’t “made it” yet are bound to struggle under any circumstance and no model will make it any easier.

Survivalism by Nine Inch Nails

(Apologies for the spelling and grammar – I’d get to them after I get home from the hospital on Thursday)

Share and Enjoy:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: opinion

14 Comments

1. ack — June 10, 2009 @ 10:29 am
   
   

   My personal opinion is that for 99% of the blogs, the goal of “helping your independent artists as much as you can” is more accurately, help your blog get traffic as much as you can.

   You say so yourself – “It’s a great model, they don’t really piss anyone off and they can’t be held for liberally giving away tracks without the artist’s consent (which we do).”

   Why not just help them by writing thoughtful pieces and giving away the content they have made available for free? If your opinion/taste/writing is strong enough you don’t have to give away illegal content to get visitors and if they are coming for the free songs, it doesn’t help anyone.




2. Allan — June 13, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
   
   

   Hey Ack, I’ll definitely respond when I’m not that out of it.

   Just found this in my spam filter. – No idea why.




3. Allan — June 15, 2009 @ 2:03 am
   
   

   Here’s what I think.

   I think blogs have to balance between wanting traffic and helping out your independent artists. Who doesn’t want to have a successful blog?

   I’ve made it clear, I’d like to have all the traffic in the world . I just put myself on standards that some blogs don’t follow such as: albums leaking.

   One of my main questions: Getting permission can take a lot more work. Why should we depend on the labels to get the greenlight? I just find this process slow and you’re more then likely not going to get a response anyway. The Stereogum model just doesn’t work for most blogs…and most become annoying press releasey fodder. I’d much rather work on improving my content then asking for permission a few hours a day.

   I’d much rather post them and let them tell me to remove (which we 100% oblige) mp3s. I don’t mind the Web Sheriff in this case. I’m still given the traffic and the artist still gets to do what they like with the content. Sure a few people get it but it’s halted from there.




4. ack — June 15, 2009 @ 6:33 am
   
   

   Probably ended up in spam.. well, because it reads like it is

   But, I’m not sure that getting more traffic for bands that have nothing to do with the bands you like – ie, is putting up Three Black Eyed Peas songs – is going to be good for the people that normally visit this blog (ie, the people looking at those Passion Pit tickets?)

   I agree we’d all love to have 5000 hits a day, but I think I’d rather have hits be real and not just the people looking for free songs. If you take the time to write something more than a copied press release, you’d like to think people are reading it.

   Who knows? But I guess it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the day, it’s their art and only our words… so they get the final say.




5. Allan — June 15, 2009 @ 11:57 am
   
   

   I can’t really give an answer about the Black Eyed Peas, other then I expect a takedown notice.

   I think Coko is making a statement though, where critics would easily detest the record immediately, she does give the album a chance and gives her opinion on it. So in some way, the content will end up being different. At least, I wouldn’t care about a BEP record.

   I guess it’s always nice to appeal to a niche audience, but who are the Passion Pit fans anyway?




6. Humpday News (late edition) – 6/17 « My list of Coolness Blog — June 17, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
   
   

   [...] has an article about why people loved and hated Radiohead’s model of selling its last [...]




7. sean — June 21, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
   
   

   I think what’s most interesting is that Radiohead’s experiment pissed off people on every side. You have Kim Gordon complaining that they somehow wronged their musical brethren, and then you have Trent Reznor complaining that they didn’t go far enough.

   A friend’s dad once said something along the lines of ‘If you no longer piss anyone off, you no longer matter’. I take that with a grain of salt, but I do think there’s a kernel of truth to it. Radiohead did what they did because it created excitement. They were between labels, sick of EMI and eager to do something new. They chose to act on that impulse, whether it was perfectly executed or full of flaws. That it sparked such a wide range of reactions tells me they did something worth talking about, and I think that’s what matters most.

   Honestly, it’s a bit silly for Kim Gordon to expect Radiohead to think about anyone but Radiohead. They worked hard to get where they are, and they had the power to do what they did. Why begrudge them for it? It’s not as though file-sharing suddenly increased just because Radiohead gave an album away. It was massive before, and it was massive after. To behave as though Radiohead somehow ruined it for everyone else is pretty daft. And deliberately giving away your music for free certainly hasn’t hurt smaller artists like Girl Talk. I think the key for most of these folks following The Radiohead Model™ is to add back the value lost by years of record company mismanagement.

   After all, isn’t a big part of the free music issue – besides being a simple matter of the ‘free is better than not free’ mentality – about years and years of record companies bleeding their customers dry? Once CD burning technology became widespread, it became apparent just how out of wack the whole pricing scheme was. Plus, the loss of consumer confidence over pay-for-play scandals, reissue after crappy reissue (remember those first few years of digital remasters and just how awful they were?), iTunes, a complete lack of adaptation to the marketplace…there are so many different variables that have fallen into place to create the current mess the music industry is in. And there’s no easy way out for anyone.

   In terms of where I fall as a blog in all this: I stay as close to legal as I can, particularly with new music, but if it’s something that’s been out for some time I don’t really think twice about sharing an mp3. We are mp3 blogs, after all, so it’s not totally unreasonable for people to come to us looking for mp3s. And with older, more obscure artists, one would hope by sharing a track we’re turning someone onto something they’d have otherwise been unfamiliar with. Might be a pipe dream, but fingers crossed.




8. sean — June 21, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
   
   

   Oh and Allan, you made me cry with this comment: “For me personally, I don’t really care about extra quality or extra goodies”. How can you not care about the quality?? There’s a massive difference between a 160kbps mp3 and even a 320, let alone a 1411kbps CD.




9. Allan — June 21, 2009 @ 8:39 pm
   
   

   I’m sorry I made you cry….but yeah I know there’s a massive difference between the quality but it just never mattered to me. I could live with poor quality…




10. Allan — June 21, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
    
    

    Radiohead’s model pissed everyone off except the consumer. The amount of buzz that Radiohead created with it was part of a brilliant plan to market the album for free.

    I definitely agree with you though. I don’t see Radiohead as being “selfish” for looking out for themselves. I would’ve done the very same thing, provided I could get it to work.

    When I see someone comparing to blogging, what if I called Pretty Much Amazing selfish? It makes no difference. They don’t care in the first place and sometimes you need to be selfish to be successful (in all areas really). So yeah, we aren’t fully legal ourselves but it’s not like I’m on their naughty list either.

    I do find it interesting that some people thought that Radiohead didn’t make any money out of it and could “take the hit”.

    This whole conversation does bring in the fallacy of the major label industry. Really the major label industry is useful for struggling artists and less important for established artists like Radiohead. Radiohead could’ve flipped the industry upside down.




11. sean — June 22, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
    
    

    Most artists would make more money simply offering digital albums online for $3.99 directly than they ever would through a record label at $16.99 a piece. You have to support a massive infrastructure with a major record label, and by the time the money trickles down you don’t end up with much.

    I read that Metric made more from Fantasies – which they released directly – than from any of their other albums combined. Admittedly, some of that could be attributed to their increasing popularity, but as I understand it they made more from selling less, on the whole.




12. Allan — June 22, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
    
    

    I think it depends, not every band would make more money $3.99. Sometimes artists do better with major label funding – a lot fail but some are really successful with that model.

    Metric is a bit of different case. They didn’t fully release it directly. Different labels depending on the country (here it is Last Gang Records) so it gets a little complicated at least for me…wouldn’t surprise me if they went fully independent here though as they have a large following in Canada.




13. Patrick Coholan — September 1, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
    
    

    June 9…. “Need to have people who care,” what’s that sentiment above, sir? What’s the need for adulation? You’re hemming and hawwing. I’m reading this blog because I’m referenced. Music consumers want value? What are you, serving fast food during rush hour from behind a counter? Economists says, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch!” In the ongoing .mp3 era of the Internet, music is interchangeable with every other nuance that washes over consumers and slips past us. It’s less about being a “Creep” than it is to listen. Thank you, In Rainbows.




14. Allan — September 1, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
    
    

    Hey Patrick,

    I guess to elaborate on the need of people caring. I guess I’m discussing how a story becomes big in media. Blogs care that Radiohead is doing something cool and different and it becomes something that’s passed along and the media picks up on it. The viral marketing aspect of artists trying to succeed is important.

    I see a lot of bands trying hard and giving away their work for free but it doesn’t matter to a lot of people and it didn’t matter to people who didn’t care about Radiohead. Just pointing out that Radiohead was huge.

    I don’t really look at myself at the providers. But hey fast food places do well . As for music consumers wanting value, I mean from artists (didn’t mean myself). It’s a big deal that In Rainbows was good, or else who would care? You could have a free piece of crap, doesn’t mean people will want it.

    As for your point on the mp3 and internet, you make a good point there.

Leave A Comment

Previous Post       Next Post