Release Methods - Radiohead v. U2

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Not bands this big.

you think radiohead's still big

 

[gareth brown]

Good points. But we owe nothing to the CD. Music is as popular as ever, but the CD is almost over.

And what's wrong with convenience? Illegal downloading is one thing, but the consumers want a safe, affordable, fair, legal, expeditious way of getting music. If it means dismantling the traditionally corrupt, artist-screwing major labels, so be it.

ummm...I never actually said there was anything wrong with it, i download plenty of music with iTunes and what-not so I find the whole challenging nature of your post a bit unnecessary...

plus who said we OWE the CD anything?? We know full well the CD's pretty much on the way out, why do you think they're just offering the majority the chance to DOWNLOAD the album??

 

[BVS]

Not bands this big.

Even for those who get the album for free, some of their online details will be known to the band - that's a road to a marketing campaign, especially involving the concerts.

Yeah, so you have a big band acting like a small band, it's still not that inovative. They could have found out that info with a mailing list or a myspace account as well.

I just don't think it's as great as everyone who's bowing down to it thinks... It just sounds like they'll be using the die hards to cover their losses. Of course some details are still sketching, so we'll see.

Prince gave his album for free in the UK with a magazine in July... and sold out 21 consecutive shows in London afterwards. Not to mention the chance to seriously jeopardize the greedy system of record labels that exists today. So I would say it is quite smart.

Now that's brilliant marketing on both sides. Magazine buyers get exposed to someone they may or may not have bought the album, and big fans go out and buy a magazine that may or may not have bought the album. Everyone wins.

But I doubt the album was truly "free". A lot of times the magazine does get marked up a little when they come with bonuses like this and usually there's a deal worked out between the mag and the artist.

 

[djerdap]

Using die hards to cover their losses? There is hardly any chance that the number of die hards buying the 80-buck edition will make up for thousands of people who will get the album for free or for a low price.

 

[BVS]

Using die hards to cover their losses? There is hardly any chance that the number of die hards buying the 80-buck edition will make up for thousands of people who will get the album for free or for a low price.

Sure it would. RH have a pretty big die hard base, those who have been listening to them since almost the beginning, and probably very little casual fan base.

The average artist makes a couple of bucks off a CD. So if you aren't even producing CDs, it's just downloads, you have no overhead. So the $80 will more than take care of their overhead for the hardcopies that are included in the deluxe package and give them quite a bit more than are use to getting if they were selling through a label. They may not get the volume, but dollar wise I really don't see how they won't get what they are use to getting...

 

[Nate Dogg]

Somewhere, U2 is not giving a shit about Radiohead.

I know I'm not.

 

[Pero]

i don't see the point in charging whatever for an album. i could easily pay 1 pound and have more respect to the band than someone who paid 2 or 200.
it's great idea to make it downloadable, but i think,maybe i'm wrong, that better idea is to put few of the songs from new album downloadable via their website and release a normal album, with promotion or whatever.

great idea,don't see it as perfect. imagine everyone doing this. soon we'll have no reason to go out of our house.

 

[ahittle]

What is the purpose of promotion besides maximizing the profits? Why do we as fans require promotion?

 

[martha]

Using die hards to cover their losses? There is hardly any chance that the number of die hards buying the 80-buck edition will make up for thousands of people who will get the album for free or for a low price.

Apparently Radiohead doesn't care.

 

[PopFly]

I think the big problem, if any, that most of us have with U2's releases is that they happen infrequently. Keep in mind this is still Radiohead's first record in four years, so spite of this innovative release strategy, it's been just as long a wait for RH fans as it has been for us.

 

[65980]

Interesting

I find this topic totally fascinating.

I agree with the earlier poster who said that Radiohead probably don't care -- at this point -- about sales and how big they are; they just want to get the music to their fans ASAP. Obviously, they've chosen the best way to do that. I'm sure they're aware that this method might be compromising CD sales down the road, or a #1 album and some bigger press, etc. But I think they don't care right now.

And yeah, I think U2 do care about that. They always have. So they're less likely to do something like that.

I think recent years have made clear that big bands/artists don't necessarily need huge sales of CDs to get massive exposure and remain hugely popular, relevant, and a big concert attraction (the Prince idea, for example). The interesting part is: how much of a product is even needed for the music industry to keep rewarding artists financially? Prince gave away his entire album and doesn't seem to suffer for it; if anything, it gave him more exposure than anything else. We'll see what happens with Radiohead. If a band gave one track away free, as a kind of 'teaser', on the Net, would that impact sales later on? The thing is, it's so easy to "steal" music online these days that I don't know if any strategy makes any kind of difference any more.

There's also the argument that if the music is easy to steal, borrow and copy, etc. (which it clearly is today), then it's just as well to make it all freely available to as many people as possible (this is more-or-less the Prince idea). That way, the ones who do really want a physical copy will get a chance to "test" the music first, decide if they like it, and then go out and buy it. There's some truth to that argument, because I know that I'm more inclined to go out and buy an album after I've heard the music and learned to like it. This is effectively the "advertising" that singles did in years past.

Of course, all this really can only be contemplated by big, established artists that are rich and can afford to have risk and take a loss. Newer artists on smaller labels can't really afford to have their one popular song "stolen."

Anyway, it's all interesting...

 

[xaviMF22]

the actual CDs/LPs are being made to order in the discbox and anyone who pre-orders them gets them in December and downloads it with everyone else.

It's not really pathetic, it's been four years since Radiohead put out their last record and maybe they just want everyone to hear it sooner rather than wait potentially months to sort out stuff with a new record label and promoting it etc etc.

Essentially they just want their fans to hear this new music, bypassing leaks and so on and pretty much offering it for FREE if people are that scabby...

I myself would take a physical album in the form of the LPs/CDs hands-down but there's no need to get so worked up over it...you just wait about two months as they're made to order and so on and it's a pretty snap announcement! Stop going on like you're part of a dying breed of people who see sense and are NORMAL and "traditional" as it's just going to end up sounding elitist!! [edit - haha, oh wait...i've just seen your post in the other thread...] Like it or not [i personally hate it] CD sales are dropping and a huge amount of people are downloading music instead simply for convenience's sake!

At the end of the day Radiohead's new album is coming out in TEN DAYS. We're finally getting to hear the music and if that means downloading it while we wait for boxsets to arrive two months later then I am more than happy to wait!
It's just experimenting with new methods of releasing music and since they're not on a label, who cares? I'm not saying it's smart and innovative and so on since tons of bands have done stuff like this but you know, as long as we don't have to wait til March to get our hands on it when the album's already totally done and dusted then fine...

ten days

 

[xaviMF22]

Not bands this big.

exactly RH is a huge band...and for them to do is uber cool

 

[xaviMF22]

you think radiohead's still big

you think they are not

 

[martha]

Re: Interesting

If a band gave one track away free, as a kind of 'teaser', on the Net, would that impact sales later on?

We'll see, maybe. Bruce had Radio Nowhere free on iTunes a few weeks ago, and Magic comes out tomorrow.

He's kinda big....

 

[intedomine]

I myself would take a physical album in the form of the LPs/CDs hands-down but there's no need to get so worked up over it...you just wait about two months as they're made to order and so on and it's a pretty snap announcement! Stop going on like you're part of a dying breed of people who see sense and are NORMAL and "traditional" as it's just going to end up sounding elitist!! [edit - haha, oh wait...i've just seen your post in the other thread...]

There was nothing shamefully wrong with the old hand-over-the-money-over-the-counter way, or at least nothing necessarilly superior about the newfangled download way. That's my main qualm.

And it's also discrimination against those who don't own or use computers? How are they supposed to access new Radiohead? Why should they be suppressed from enjoying the new tunes? Mind you, I kind of expected this from the computer nerds that Radiohead themselves are.

Why not release the album phsyically and digitally the same day? Spring a surprise release, with no prior announcement? That would be fair dinkum bold.

And this silly "discbox" idea, or what is essentially a double album (if not in the official sense). If you refuse to download or order the expensive package, how else are the non-computer savvy supposed to enjoy these new tunes?

Will In Rainbows only hit the shelves as a single album for traditional album shoppers, while digital downloaders are allowed to enjoy more tunes?

That smacks of elitism to me. Out with the old, in with the new. Let's embrace the future!Leave the people of the past behind!

 

[guill]

Whatever you want to pay.

Truly. You get to decide how much you want to pay for it when you order it.

They are like the Peruvian bands you see in subway stations, you give 1, 2 euros or nothing according to your mood.
Radiohead is back to the roots of true underground music

 

[ahittle]

Re: Interesting

More and more, bands are finding their prime source of income in touring and merch at concerts. It seems like now the CD is now just a vehicle to get out there and play shows. Used to be, you'd play a show to promote CD sales, and now it seems to be switching.

I don't know how many records Wilco is selling, but those guys tour like mad and are doing quite well. U2 makes most of their money through touring.

 

[martha]

And it's also discrimination against those who don't own or use computers? How are they supposed to access new Radiohead? Why should they be suppressed from enjoying the new tunes? Mind you, I kind of expected this from the computer nerds that Radiohead themselves are.

Which is why U2 probably won't do this for a long time, if ever.

 

[xaviMF22]

That smacks of elitism to me. Out with the old, in with the new. Let's embrace the future!Leave the people of the past behind!

 

[norsehorse23]

radiohead have always marched to the beat of a different drummer. in this case they may have stumbled upon something that could really change the way new music is released. whether we like it or not, the internet and the technology boom surrounding it (Mp3, itunes, etc.) have made the traditional going out and buying a cd somewhat obsolete. i think the idea of a 'free' downloadable album is genius... they'll make their money with a tour, which has already been pointed out, besides we all know that artists often don't get paid more than 30 percent of what their album makes for the record companies. i read on the bbc site yesterday that when prince gave out his latest album for free in the uk, he sold out 21 consecutive shows in london. hmmm, he came out pretty good there, didn't he. who knows, maybe people will take a 'suggested donation' route when they download it, and radiohead will make tons of money from the album. headache earlier pointed out, accurately, that u2 probably couldn't get away with doing this any time soon, unless artists of a similar stature do also, and we all know that u2 doesn't have alot of company in their level. doesn't mean they can't try though.

 

[ahittle]

Regardless of your take on the whole downloading thing, it is interesting to watch artists take control of their own careers.

The kids that I teach that are really into music have found their favorite artists online through word-of-mouth. Some of the bands are basically tiny local bands from the other side of the country, but they are building bases completely on their own without guys in ties writing up marketing plans and milking the bands up front for promotion costs.

U2 came out of a similar DIY spirit, but it meant different things back then. They are a corporation now with lots of mouths to feed and towers to build, and they wouldn't strip away their business model at this stage of the game.

But for younger bands, it is intriguing.

 

[U2girl]

Re: Re: Interesting

More and more, bands are finding their prime source of income in touring and merch at concerts. It seems like now the CD is now just a vehicle to get out there and play shows. Used to be, you'd play a show to promote CD sales, and now it seems to be switching.

Well, not surprising with the low sales of CDs and downloads becoming more and more prominent in getting the music out there - especially singles - internet is the new radio.
Even back in the day, U2 probably didn't make much album money until the JT-Rattle and Hum-AB megaseller trio. (come to think of it, I wonder how much money they made on tours until, say, Popmart)

The album is still out there in CD shape a few days later, and other artists did similar things before (Ipods, download of songs exclusively on one site, putting out album without a label online).

 

[ahittle]

Re: Re: Re: Interesting

Even back in the day, U2 probably didn't make much album money until the JT-Rattle and Hum-AB megaseller trio. (come to think of it, I wonder how much money they made on tours until, say, Popmart)

Yeah, didn't Paul McG say something to the effect that they didn't make much on JT - and they sank most of it back into the R&H movie? I recall him saying that they didn't start making real money until ZooTV.

How did they not absolutely kill on the JT tour? Huge singles, record, playing big ass places all over America (my frame of reference). Anybody know?

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting

Yeah, didn't Paul McG say something to the effect that they didn't make much on JT - and they sank most of it back into the R&H movie? I recall him saying that they didn't start making real money until ZooTV.

How did they not absolutely kill on the JT tour? Huge singles, record, playing big ass places all over America (my frame of reference). Anybody know?

they barley cleared even with ZooTv, they were saved by the T-Shirt sales apparently...

As for the Joshua Tree tour, I'm thinking ticket prices were lower in those days and they probably didn't play as many shows... just a guess mind you.

 

[65980]

Re: Re: Interesting

More and more, bands are finding their prime source of income in touring and merch at concerts. It seems like now the CD is now just a vehicle to get out there and play shows. Used to be, you'd play a show to promote CD sales, and now it seems to be switching.

I think you've isolated the key point here. I believe there is an increasing onus on guitar-type bands now to be able to perform live. I think the downloading era may eventually kill off the video stars (just as the MTV era created the hair-blower stars). Since the ad for a CD is now not very important, bands have to make money live again, which is how it should be.

And about the issue of U2 making money or not from tours: I read an interview with (I think) Larry once, where he said that the Joshua Tree tour was the first time they really made any money. But as someone pointed out, they then invested most of that into the R&H movie and other projects. Then, the spent a fortune on the sets for ZooTV which also minimized their profits.

It's incredible how little money (this is, of course, relative) popular bands made from tours in the 70s and 80s. The industry practice of completely screwing bands out of fortunes was so well established that barely anyone protested. The standard practice was that a band's earnings from the first few albums was all payback to the record company for early investment and promotion (or so the companies claimed legally by contract). No doubt U2 had made peanuts by the time of the War / Under A Blook Red Sky period, despite a UK#1 album. With Unforgettable Fire they had a new contract which basically guaranteed them long-term profits if they kept at it, so they could probably afford to relax a bit at that point, but it still took years to get to the point where they were keeping most of the profit they earned.

This is another reason I don't feel too bad for record companies losing profits in the digital age. Now, if we could just figure out a way to lower concert prices....

 

[mobvok]

There was nothing shamefully wrong with the old hand-over-the-money-over-the-counter way, or at least nothing necessarilly superior about the newfangled download way. That's my main qualm.

And it's also discrimination against those who don't own or use computers? How are they supposed to access new Radiohead? Why should they be suppressed from enjoying the new tunes? Mind you, I kind of expected this from the computer nerds that Radiohead themselves are.

Why not release the album phsyically and digitally the same day? Spring a surprise release, with no prior announcement? That would be fair dinkum bold.

And this silly "discbox" idea, or what is essentially a double album (if not in the official sense). If you refuse to download or order the expensive package, how else are the non-computer savvy supposed to enjoy these new tunes?

Will In Rainbows only hit the shelves as a single album for traditional album shoppers, while digital downloaders are allowed to enjoy more tunes?

That smacks of elitism to me. Out with the old, in with the new. Let's embrace the future!Leave the people of the past behind!

Your hypothetical people:

A) don't own a computer
B) if they do, don't have an internet connection
C) have no friends that could burn a CD for them

If any of those are true for someone, then getting the new Radiohead album two months later is the least of their problems in today's world.

Seriously, get with the program. It's 2007. Buy a freaking computer, and I guarantee these people's lives will improve considerably.

Free access to information! Do your taxes easily! Word Process without using a typewriter! Play music instantly! Computer solitaire!

 

[indra]

Computer solitaire!

The greatest invention ever!

 

[intedomine]

Your hypothetical people:

A) don't own a computer
B) if they do, don't have an internet connection
C) have no friends that could burn a CD for them

If any of those are true for someone, then getting the new Radiohead album two months later is the least of their problems in today's world.

Seriously, get with the program. It's 2007. Buy a freaking computer, and I guarantee these people's lives will improve considerably.

Free access to information! Do your taxes easily! Word Process without using a typewriter! Play music instantly! Computer solitaire!

Bear in mind, if you want to have a copy of the bonus disc (essentially 8 coodabeen b-sides), you have to place an internet pre-order. Some people won't be able to do this.

And why should someone fork out 1000 bucks for a computer just to download an album?

 

[mobvok]

Bear in mind, if you want to have a copy of the bonus disc (essentially 8 coodabeen b-sides), you have to place an internet pre-order. Some people won't be able to do this.

And why should someone fork out 1000 bucks for a computer just to download an album?

Like I already said, it's myopic to say that the only benefit from buying a computer is just being able to get the new Radiohead album early.