Punknews.org

|
Sign In | create an account

Most chose to pay nothing for Radiohead's "donation-only" album

Contributed by shindo. Posted by aubin on Wednesday, November 7, 2007 at 1:30 PM (EST)

Though much has been made of Radiohead's decision to release their album for donations, the future use of this practice may be deterred a little by the results of a recent survey which found many people paying nothing or next-to-nothing for the album.

According to the survey, 62 percent of the people who downloaded In Rainbows in a four-week period last month opted not to pay a cent for the record. The remaining 38 percent voluntarily paid an average of $6. There were extreme outlier's of course - with Nine Inch Nail's Trent Reznor paying $5,000 for the record - but these numbers suggest that the band wouldn't have been much worse off if they had simply licensed the record to a major label.

In the face of internet downloading over the past few years, many have argued that people are opting not to support the major label system or wish to support artists directly. Unfortunately, these results suggest that for most, price is still the only real factor at play.

Games and Technology (103 comments)

Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?

Share your opinion by posting comments on the stories that interest you
Rate music and bands and help shape the weekly top ten
Let Punknews.org use your ratings to help you find bands and albums you might like
Customize features on the site to get the news the way you want.

Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Seriously.

misterspike (November 7, 2007)

Wait a second ... you mean people chose not to pay for something that was offered for free? Wow, shocking.

I also hear that if you stand outside in the rain, you'll get wet. Just a rumor, mind you.

2+ Replies

SydBarrett420 (November 7, 2007)

Because some people won't read all the way down i will post this again:

radiohead has liscenced this album out to a major label and it will be released next year. This was all just a publicity/marketing tool.

don't be fooled, this band isn't doing anything groundbreaking other than finding new ways to get their names in the headlines and gain some kind of "indie" cred. On sites like this one.

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

fans of this band are borderline retarded anyway. f-em.

iamthebat (November 7, 2007)

It's been obvious for a long time that people who steal music just started using the "band's don't get the money anyway!" thing as an easy excuse...

5+ Replies

dontwantaname (November 7, 2007)

my excuse would be that i cant pay 20-60 for every rare record i want or a lot of times you can't even find the record anywhere to buy so downloading is the only option. i dont even download much anyway.

Guy_Incognito (November 7, 2007)

You know...you don't exactly fit the profile of what most industry people are complaining about anyway. Carry on sir.

It's the people who pirate the latest and greatest or other readily available back catalog that hurts the industry's ability to sign and record new artists.

victim (November 7, 2007)

I could give a fuck about the industry

Banal242 (November 7, 2007)

I concur.

listofdemands (November 7, 2007)

i paid nine bucks for it. so, you're wrong. if every band put their records online, i would buy instead of download. i bought saul william's record on his site for five bucks. i have no problem paying bands, but i'm not paying labels.
-nic

Banal242 (November 7, 2007)

Obviously he's not wrong about 60% of people, though.

listofdemands (November 7, 2007)

that's very true. i just assumed he meant everyone who downloads music. i'm only defending myself. i have said i would support this move from day one and so far i have followed through. i will continue to follow through if more bands do this.
-nic

randomhero323 (November 7, 2007)

no shit

bikeage (November 7, 2007)

38 percent actually paid?! WHAT THE FUCK?

3+ Replies

Aubin (November 7, 2007)

I paid.

Laurier (November 7, 2007)

Support the music, support the band.

bikeage (November 7, 2007)

im not saying paying is wrong im just suprised so many people actually did

listofdemands (November 7, 2007)

i paid, too.
-nic

usversusthem (November 7, 2007)

Me three.

mynameisbud (November 7, 2007)

i wouldnt donate shit
there already pretty rich anyways

2+ Replies

Lmnndtlgrph (November 7, 2007)

that's actually a good point.

i spend around $100 a month on records, but when it comes to bands on major labels -i just download for free.

leecorsoisapenis (November 7, 2007)

Where's already rich? Montana, California, Oregon? I don't get it.

Jim

rearanged3 (November 7, 2007)

It was impossible to put in that many digits to pay 5000 bucks during the pre-sale. I haven't checked since. Trent Reznor is a liar.

3+ Replies

EyesLikeBombs (November 7, 2007)

You don't think that maybe Trent Reznor has the resources and contacts to get into contact with Radiohead personally or their manager/guy in charge offinances to send the money that way?

Swook (November 7, 2007)

That was a gross oversight by Radiohead...don't you think they would put it so you could enter a million dollars on the odd chance that some billionaire loves their band?

655321 (November 7, 2007)

may he did, like, 10 $500 purchase?

dontwantaname (November 7, 2007)

you know brian jonestown massacre has had all their albums up on their website for free and has for years. plus they have interviews, live shit, all their vids, records by bands they like and samplers. all for fucking free. they've done a fuck of a lot more with the free thing than radiohead.

2+ Replies

baldsteve (November 7, 2007)

Wow, for once you speak up about a band other than 'fuck them, they suck' and it's about the brian jonestown massacre.

Thus_Spoke_Sean (November 7, 2007)

they've done a fuck of a lot more with the free thing than radiohead.

Really? Do we have to spell the point out for you everytime? A big deal wasn't made about this other band because they are INCREDIBLY less popular than Radiohead.

Jesus, i'm sure your mom meant to tell you this eventually:

Life's not fair.

jordyboy (November 7, 2007)

The price of recording an album is a moot point with a band like Radiohead, who probably spends hundreds of thousands..hell, millions of dollars touring.
A tour is what can make or break a band, when CDs are being sold in person (especially at a show) the consumer is more likely to pay full amount (which I'm assuming would be 15-20 at a show) to get the band to the next venue.

Not that Radiohead really needs it monetarily, but if my band were on their level I wouldn't continue to pursue music of that stature if fans were showing little to no support, but I'm sure the millions of fans attending shows kind of prove that they have support (and make a lot of money) at their shows.

Fuck it, how much do you think the CD really cost them? I'm sure Mr. Reznor knocked out a giant chunk of their recording fees, and do we know the total they have made

show rest of comment

3+ Replies

Thus_Spoke_Sean (November 7, 2007)

I love how you try to make it sound like you came to conclusion after you:

1) say you don't know how much they spend on touring
2) say you don't know how much they would sell a cd in person
3) You think $5,000 is a "giant chunk" of what they spent on recording (which means you also have no idea how much they sepnt there either)
4) Admit that we don't know how much money they have made off the record yet.

You made no argument, try again.

abrrock (November 7, 2007)

"I'm sure Mr. Reznor knocked out a giant chunk of their recording fees"

$5000? are you nuts? do you have any clue how much it costs to record an album? let alone, by a band who's recording process is notoriously meticulous and more often than not, an incredibly lengthy process.

Guy_Incognito (November 7, 2007)

Agreed, especially a Radiohead album.

$5000 might be enough for another Cheshire Cat clone or something but not most well done albums.

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

if you learn to record your own music, its free. and with a decent pro tools rig, it sounds PLENTY good enough for ANY kind of music. hooray.

Banal242 (November 7, 2007)

I liked my headline better.

EyesLikeBombs (November 7, 2007)

Did this survey take note of how many people downloaded it, didn't like it and decided it wasn't worth their money? The point isn't of this pricing model isn't "Der, this many people downloaded it so this many people should buy it." The point is that everyone should be able to hear it, and those who enjoy it should pay a price in accordance to the amount of enjoyment they got out of it. And please take note that a metricd ASSLOAD of people with no interest in Radiohead (Myself for example.) downloaded this when because of publicity. These are people that would not have downloaded, much less bought the album otherwise.

Guess what? I downloaded this album and paid $0. It's got nothing to dow ith me not wanting to pay. It's because the album put me to sleep. The same way I wouldn't want to pay for traditionally released album that put me to sleep.

1+ Reply

Thus_Spoke_Sean (November 7, 2007)

Great point. I was going to buy it, as i am a huge Radiohead fan, but my roommate downloaded it for nothing.....so i listened to it a few times.....and i don't think it's all that great.

Upon first listen, while doing some writing, I thought it was really cool. When I gave it my full attention I really thought it was (I never thought I'd say this about radiohead) just poppy background music.

wrongstring (November 7, 2007)

it works as a good test model and barometer for future releases. i paid 80 bucks for the disc box set with the vinyl and cds and book and additional tracks. still haven't got it yet but i'm expecting it to be awesome. beside that 120 bit download of in rainbows, while a great album, doesn't sound all that great quality wise. it is a way to see what people are actually willing to pay for in the anonymity of the web. that said, have you visited your local record store lately? Lou's records in Encinitas are expanding!

ArtieFufkin (November 7, 2007)

Radiohead would have to pay me to download it

1+ Reply

nina_d (November 7, 2007)

agreed

fox82 (November 7, 2007)

How about "adware" records? It's kinda like what 50 Cent does on his records anyway, but basically unless you pay for the record, say every 30 seconds you get a fucking advert about a cock extension or a Lexus or whatever. If anything, it would be funny.

2+ Replies

655321 (November 7, 2007)

what a concept. just have commercialized albums for free and if people want the commercial-free album, they have to pay for it. Its like HBO!

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

how is it like HBO? HBO is never free.

swiftjustice (November 7, 2007)

This doesn't take into account the people that wouldn't have bought it or even downloaded it if it just came out in stores normally.

xmadcowx (November 7, 2007)

This survey is misleading. It doesnt consider if those people who paid nothing would of bought the album in the first place had it not been free. it doesn't consider the profit that is being made from the average 6 dollar donations, which is a lot of money when you consider there is no physical production of the music and that I assume most of the money is going to Radiohead and assoc. anyways. It doesn't compare the potential profit of a hardcopy version with the download method (which theoretically could bring in more money for the band, even with less sales). I hate statistics.

Root_Beer (November 7, 2007)

Lets not be hasty to conclude much from this survey as it only samples "a few hundred people". The survey didn't provide a margin of error either so the validity is sketchy.

Lets wait for a better survey before we buy the sensationalized bullshit that the results sent "shockwaves throughout the industry".

It said US residents paid an average of $8.05 for it.

I, a US resident, paid $5.

1+ Reply

JohnnyZ77 (November 7, 2007)

i paid zero for it. i'll go see their live show next time they are around me and they will get my $$ that way.

Dante3000 (rich) (November 7, 2007)

Trent Reznor was incredibly bummed that the "0" key on his keyboard was stuck.
OR:
Millionaires paying millionaires: You be the Judge.

I got a copy of "In Rainbows" from a co-worker. I thought it wasn't interesting. I wouldn't have purchased it and I can't really say I would donate for it. However, I did pay the $5 for the new Saul Williams album and I can say it's well worth it. While I feel the album is a little lopsided I still feel it's a great album and I would have paid $13 for a CD if that was the only way to get it.

-Dante

2+ Replies

ExtraCheesePizza (November 7, 2007)

Do you think members of Radiohead bought a thousand high quality copies of "Niggy Tardust" to return the favor?

chickswithdicks (November 7, 2007)

the radiohead album is way better

sanserif (November 7, 2007)

I paid for it, and it was worth it for sure. Great album.

SydBarrett420 (November 7, 2007)

Stop lying, the album has been liscensed and will be released on a major label early next year. Stop acting like Radiohead is some kind of trail blazer. This is a clever marketing tool by a savy band that still has their mouth wrapped around the corporate cock.

6+ Replies

ArtieFufkin (November 7, 2007)

correct. Radiohead knows exactly what they are doing and they (nor should any of us) be surprised by these results. they will get PAID when the CD 'drops' on a major and they tour next year. this whole donation download experiment is a hobby for them in the meantime - all its doing is giving them publicity

Ghost_of_D_Boon (November 7, 2007)

The last time I checked, XL Recordings, the label doing the licensing, was an INDEPENDENT label...

ArtieFufkin (November 7, 2007)

I don't think it's going to matter whether or not the label is a major or an indie (I assumed it was going to be on a major). The point is it will sell well. Radiohead are pretty big amongst fans of sissy rock. This publicity is all pre-planned to hype the CD coming out next year

fox82 (November 7, 2007)

Jive Records was also an "independent" in the strictest sense (no shareholders, just one top honcho) and they gave us wonderful records by Britney Spears and Goldfinger. So what?

yourmomdotcom (November 7, 2007)

so, you have something to back this up with??

SydBarrett420 (November 7, 2007)

Do a little leg work on your own. It's pretty easy to find thatthey WILL be releasing it next year on a major label.

fallingupwards84 (November 7, 2007)

its a miracle that as many as 38% chose to voluntarily pay. that's incredible actually.

2+ Replies

GlassPipeMurder (November 7, 2007)

yeah i thought that was pretty high.

dlangl4 (November 7, 2007)

Definitely more than what I would have guessed. Not to mention the people who didn't like it and will probably never listen to it again (like everyone else has said). 38% seems like a lot to me.

Dante3000 (rich) (November 7, 2007)

Okay, I made a joke about it a few posts up but is anyone else really kind of upset that Trent Reznor paid $5,000 for the album? Couldn't he find a charity or some bullshit to donate that money to? I understand he supports the cause and he wants it to work because it's "essentially" what he plans to do but I know it's also a PR stunt because Radiohead is the high profile act. I doubt he's donating $5,000 to quote unquote or to Defiance, Ohio.

I understand he could have spent the money in far worse ways, but giving Radiohead $5,000 is way down their on my list of priorities on "things I could do with $5,000".
-Dante

2+ Replies

Lmnndtlgrph (November 7, 2007)

I'm sure Reznor does give to charities. This however, is something he feels strongly about and he wanted to do something to bring attention to it.

He should however, mail a check to Defiance, Ohio.

SydBarrett420 (November 7, 2007)

This is a marketing sham and I'm suprised so many readers here failed to realize it. Is this site becoming Digg where people don't bother to read up on the articles and just read the comments?

BarleyPat (November 7, 2007)

It's good that we have you around to stop in once in a while and tell everybody how stupid they all are.

SydBarrett420 (November 7, 2007)

Not everyone, just people like you BarleyPat

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

somebody has to do it. you're not realizing it on your own.

Lmnndtlgrph (November 7, 2007)

So, what? They only made $3.72 per download then. So not only did more people hear the new record (which means more people will be likely to come out on their next tour) but they still made more money per download than they would have made with each CD.

3+ Replies

Guy_Incognito (November 7, 2007)

Actually the number is $2.28 per album based on those percentages. Check your math. The study says $2.26 but the difference is just rounding error.

In either case that's not even close to what they would have made if they would have self-released on physical disc or even digital on iTunes.

iTunes margin is rougly $5.95 per album after digital distro cut.

Physical margin on a $13.98 CD is $5-$6 per each after distro cut and mfg cost.

You can't compare self-released donation pricing vs label-released fixed pricing. You have to assume that their alternative was to self-release the album digitaly or physically with a fixed price through an existing outlet if you want to make a fair comparison of "optimum outcome".

Unless they got 300% or more donation DLs than they would have if it would have been fixed price on iTunes or

show rest of comment

ArtieFufkin (November 7, 2007)

Thanks for the info and research. I think it's safe to say that we can all agree on that the donation download experiment was a way for them to make some extra cash

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

no. we absolutely cannot agree on that, because its wrong. they did it for publicity. marketing is worth so much more than just making a few bucks.

escalators (November 7, 2007)

except you ignore the fact that many of the people who downloaded would not have paid anyway. i downloaded it to check it out, but i am not a radiohead fan and probably would have never paid for it (and also will likely never listen to it again). i am sure there are many more people out there like me. this introduces a variable into the equation that makes it impossible for you to calculate what their "optimum outcome" was, unless they start surveying people upon downloading asking if they would have bought it anyway.

karmabad (November 7, 2007)

it's not the matter of price i think...even if the cd is on sale at best buy for 6.99 people will still download the album for free, plain and simple. at this point the industry (indie and major) are unfortunately fighting a battle that they cannot win...its time to find another way to make money in music.

http://thisblogisover.wordpress.com/

3+ Replies

Guy_Incognito (November 7, 2007)

Got a new way to propose? I'd love to hear it.

The only "other ways" I've heard or seen so far have been considerably worse for artists and usually involve the label having a bigger stake in the artist's merch and concert revenues. Either artists will get less money from concerts or they'll have to charge consumers more.

Gotta pay for recording and promo somehow. If it ain't off of record sales it's going to be something else. At the end of the day the industry will have to extract the same amount of revenue from the consumer that they do today in order to support new projects. It seems like the old status quo was the least intrusive way for them to do that. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

karmabad (November 7, 2007)

music licensing (games, movie soundtracks, ringtones), merchandise marketing and not album marketing, touring (it doesn't have to be national until the band can afford it), not relying on tour support (the bronx did this during their first release), music publishing. "gotta pay for recoding and promo somehow." yep. maybe bands need to treat this as more of a business than having to rely on a label. i know of several bands that had to take out loans...they've since paid them of. but like any business, it's obviously a risk. my point is, it might be time to say goodbye to labels...blah...this topic is tiring and always goes in circles.

victim (November 7, 2007)

Its not a question of practicality. The music industry is being subsumed by its own impeccable "logic". The bottom-line, go get fucked, capitalist attitude we all know and love.

If something is abundantly available to the point where literally EVERYONE who wants it can have it for de facto free (minus negligible costs like electricity, bandwidth, etc) then it IS free. Thats bourgeoisie economics in a nutshell, if slightly reversed from the usual scarcity paradigm.

So you don't get to ask "Got a better idea" because that question is moot. Its happening, and its one of the most liberating things that could happen right now, given world social conditions.

This is not only about muisic either -- capitalists, for all of their heavy-handed muscle-flexing on intellectual property rights, are clearly going to LOSE this battle in its present form. I

show rest of comment

jawwbrakerdan (November 7, 2007)

I think a lot of people aren't seeing the big picture.

FIRST, from the day it went up, via a BBC interview, Thom york said they never planned to totally abandone putting the music onto a CD through a record company.

Second, the last THREE Radiohead records have been leaked early. So if you look at it that way, the band just recouped some money on something that was a total loss the last few times out.

i don't think anybody thinks "pay for it only if you want to" is a new way to pay the bills.

I think the point is to shake things up and show there's a bunch of different ways to do stuff. While lots of small bands have been posting albums free online, somebody the size of Radiohead can have a bigger impact.

1+ Reply

fox82 (November 7, 2007)

I don't think you can equate 'paying bills' (I assume you mean water, electricity, heat etc...) to purchasing a record. "Paying for it if you want to" is not the same as in donating what you feel is right or appropriate. You would be surprised how the donation concept works out, I mean just go to a DIY show at a squat, that's how they do it there!

The fact that they want to release the record conventionally to me says that they are trying to create a hype of the record and in any case, the physical product will actually be complete (rather an iffy bitrate, no artwork or other bonuses the end product will have).

With regards to the early leaks, whose fault is that? It's the marketing department of their label who sends out promo records 3-4 months in advance of its release. How about instead of doing that, they send them out a lot later?

show rest of comment

ihateallofyou (November 7, 2007)

this thread is just tons of people continuing to make excuses for the fact that they steal music. it makes me sick. music has less and less value every day and it continues getting harder for new bands to justify their continued existence.

3+ Replies

ashtraymonument (November 7, 2007)

if a new band is good, i'll buy their music.
i don't have any qualms about stealing music. i can't afford entire discographies of all the bands i like. i downloaded streetlight's new album because i really wanted to fucking hear it. when it comes out, i'm going to the record store.

Banal242 (November 7, 2007)

You can't buy all the discographies you want?

Boo hoo.

I can't have everything I want either.

NotPatriotic (November 7, 2007)

I think you may have meant to say, "music has less and less MONETARY walue every day." Music has the same value to an individual as it has in the past, that has not changed.

GlassPipeMurder (November 7, 2007)

i would probably donate like $30 for a new Swingin' Utters album.

NRO826 (November 7, 2007)

Heres a link to the original study. It sort of addresses the question of some users asking "how many people downloaded?" Apparently, it was "a significant percentage" of the 1.2 million visitors.

http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1883

3+ Replies

ArtieFufkin (November 7, 2007)

'freeloaders' is pretty clever

Guy_Incognito (November 7, 2007)

The term "Significant" is pretty relative depending on the circles you are in. For instance, I would consider a third party candidate getting 5% of the vote a VERY significant percentage.

Significant just implies impact, not a specific percentage.

It could be 5% or it could be 50%. There is really no way to tell.

My money is on between 10% to 25%. Even that would be a pretty big conversion rate by internet standards...but then again it is free if you chose to make it so.

SydBarrett420 (November 7, 2007)

nice study with none of the data behind it listed. What was the sample size? How did they deteremine the mean of what people paid?

It is possible that if they took another "survey" the average price paid could be totally different. You can't believe this data unless the methods used to collect it and filter it are defined and listed on the site, which they aren't.

Ghost_of_D_Boon (November 7, 2007)

Those that downloaded it for "free" still had to pay a 45 pence fee to Radiohead and their website partner in order to get the download.

1+ Reply

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

what does that even mean?

eran_zombis (November 7, 2007)

Does this account for those that spent $80 for the box set but downloaded it for free in the meantime?

jacknife737 (November 7, 2007)

Interesting news.

1)kind of disproves the claim that “I support bands not labels”, that a lot of people throw around.

2)My main qualm with the above mentioned claim is that a lot of the bands I listen to are on what can be considered “indie” record labels, and I have no problem with them getting their cut. Like, if it wasn’t for Fat Wreck’s promotion, I doubt I would have gotten into None More Black, Dead To Me, etc. Plus if you don’t feel this way, instead of downloading some Link 80 cd, you might as well kick Mike Park in the balls.

the_problem_with_fire (November 7, 2007)

I plan on downloading the Saul Williams album and donating $10-12 which is what i would pay at a reasonable price for a physical copy of the album.

Figures that most weren't paying for an album that you could get for free or choose to pay for. Personally, if I enjoy a band's music, I have no issues with giving them or their label a few more bucks to make more records in the future with, or whatever happens to that money...

MsJustinChris (November 7, 2007)

In my Statistics class, we call this 'Misleading Figures'

sublimefan (November 7, 2007)

Think about this, Reznor over pays for a Radiohead album, then NIN releases an album the same way Radiohead does, 5 guys from Radiohead each over pay for the NIN record just like Trent did for them.

StuckInBielers (November 7, 2007)

"price is still the only real factor at play." What about size and wealth of the artist? Radiohead really aren't risking anything by doing this, its got nowt to do with integrity or supporting the artist. How can you support an artist whose already got more money than they can spend? I pay for Bomb The Music Industry albums and i paid for Saul Williams', but i wouldn't for this.

1+ Reply

victim (November 7, 2007)

Yeah, I hate the PN write ups on stories like this. I can never tell if they're trying to be impartial (and failed) or if they're just out and out saying what it sounds like they're saying (between the lines of course)

neffernin (November 7, 2007)

This might have been said already, but they plan on releasing this hard copied as well. Being a radio head release, it will definately get sales. Therfore they are douchebags and trying to doubledip, getting their hardcore fans to pay for something twice ^^

1+ Reply

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

no. their fans are douchebags for paying for the album twice. hell, their fans are douchebags for paying for the album once. or even listening to the album once on purpose.

FranklinStein (November 7, 2007)

meh, i'd rather donate 5,000 dollars to buy a sex doll and never leave my room...except of course to watch "the hills".

1+ Reply

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

pssst. get a tv in your room. you can do anything you want at that point.

HonestAbe (November 7, 2007)

I'm not quite sure why people seem so "jealous" and "angry" over the fact that Radiohead isn't the first band to do this. As most of you should know, a lot of the music you listen to is considered "underground" music, meaning 90% of the world doesn't even know it exists.

I realize that is a hard concept to wrap your brains around, but consider some other interests people might have and realize that that you probably know little to nothing about said interest. If someone asked me about competetive figure skating, I could name Tanya Harding, and that Elvis dude. Yet I understand that some people consider it to be just as important in their lives, as I do music.

The point being, we all know Radiohead is getting the attention off this as being "revolutionary," and maybe they are because their status brought it into the limelight. That's what happens

show rest of comment

2+ Replies

RightCliqificus (November 8, 2007)

i don't know what a BJM or a BTMI are, but i know you are an idiot and saying that radio "are the most important band of our time" shows that you have no clue about anything ever. even if you like this band, they are so incredibly unimportant and NO ONE will remember them 10-20 years from now, whereas there are dozens of other bands in the last 10-20 years that people WILL still be remembering.

HonestAbe (November 8, 2007)

1. You're wrong...but i said "for my money" meeaning it's an opinion not a statement.
2. Youre really into MXPX so your opinion doesn't count

Banger (November 8, 2007)

"these numbers suggest that the band wouldn't have been much worse off if they had simply licensed the record to a major label."

So:

1. Radiohead did at least a little better financially than they would have if they had licensed the record to a major label, plus they get major points for sticking it to The Man.
2. Fans get to choose their own price, or pay nothing at all, with the average amount paid being half the price of what a major label would have charged.
3. Some major label loses the opportunity to make millions of dollars off of music buyers.

Explain to me again how these results are bad?

Features

Exclusive Streams

see more streams

Newest Reviews

see more reviews

Punknews.org Team

Other Places to Go

Punknews.org Flickr Pool

View All Photos