Shady Dealings
Posted by Matt Cipriano | 17 Comments
In the last two weeks Radiohead has been making a ton of news with the release of their new album In Rainbows. There has been a ton of hype surrounding it, as one of the most popular bands around decided to release their newest album directly over the internet and allowed customers to pay what they wanted for it. You may have read about it in one of my previous posts (1, 2).
Anyway, on Wednesday the album was released, folks could go online to the Radiohead website and download the album for what ever price they chose (including $0.00) or they could purchase a $80.00 box set that would ship in December with some special stuff included, making this the first album released by a super-major band without the help of a major label.
Well, apparently that was all a load of hooey. According to the Financial Times: “Radiohead’s much-debated decision to let fans choose what they pay for its new album online is a promotional tactic to boost sales of compact discs, the band’s management said yesterday.” Yes, they released a version of the album online to promote sales of the actual album. There are actually a number of things in this article that annoyed me to some extent or just plain pissed me off. Let’s look at a few of them, shall we:
-”You can’t listen to a Radiohead record[*] on MP3 [the digital music file standard] and hear the detail; it’s impossible”
-”CDs are undervalued and sold too cheaply”
-”Radiohead will release the album on CD in January, and its managers hinted that the physical version might contain more material.”
-Although Radiohead’s decision to sell direct to fans has been seen as a blow to the traditional music industry, its managers are in discussions with the four large record companies – Universal Music, Sony BMG, Warner Music and EMI – for help with the January CD release.
And, well, actually that is almost the entire article. Different things bother me for different reasons. The argument about the quality of CDs over MP3 is a classic argument that has been made time and time again about new media products. In fact, live musicians are currently making this argument about previously recorded music on Broadway right now (though they might have a point). MP3 recordings are as good as you make them.
About CDs being considered undervalued and sold to cheaply: I don’t even know what to say about that, but, I guess you would feel that way if you made most of your money off of selling CDs.
Next up, the January release: How do you release an album online, let people pay what they want for it and then a few days later mention that you will be selling the official album in January? Radiohead is in for a double payday with this. As I said, shady.
This new revolution that Radiohead was supposedly starting was nothing but a hype machine to get a better deal with their eventual distributer, if you ask me. When the actual album comes out, I am totally getting a bootleg from someone. What they’re doing is just a really disingenuous tactic, if you ask me.
* I also have issue with the reference to listening to a record on MP3. A record is a record. You can’t listen to a CD on MP3 or a tape on MP3. I believe he meant to say “album.” But I’ll let that slide and try to focus on the big picture.
Comments
17 Responses to “Shady Dealings”
Leave a Reply
Trust us
As with Anna Karina, we prefer to remember the U.S.A as she was in the 1960s.
Seek and ye shall find
Archives
Matt Friedlander’s Tumblr Feed
Josh Friedlander’s Twitter Feed
- JoshFriedlander: RT @askanyone: I have a missed call from “Truman Capote.” This is the name of a conference room in the RH bldg. Still called it back.
- JoshFriedlander: RT @ARhedge: AR: Paul Singer's Elliott Management drops case against AR. http://bit.ly/cA9ot6 -
- JoshFriedlander: RT @ARhedge: AR (partial view): Harbinger’s wireless bet rankles investors; is Falcone's hedge fund a PE shop now? http://bit.ly/c6oo98 ...
- JoshFriedlander: I just figured myself out. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/03/caring-for-your-introvert/2696/
- JoshFriedlander: Hamano Sushi on #Yelp: A prime sushi takeout spot in "mommy valley," Hamano gives decent value and the food was OK. ... http://bit.ly/cgBYW6
October 12th, 2007 @
I can’t access the FT article, but an LA Times piece does a clear job of explaining what the FT must have been referring to. Apparently, the hoopla is two-fold: a manager from the band explained that the online sales were a bit of a teaser AND the site downloads were in the 160 Kbps MP3 standard, which (truth be told) offer much less fidelity than a full CD sound file.
But why is this a bad thing? You can still get the music in a listenable format off the web site for whatever price you choose. The manager is just saying that he believes fans will either (or also) buy the CD because they will want to experience the songs with the detail provided by CD quality sound.
Also, I’m not sure Radiohead ever said: We’re out to change the way people sell music. If they did, OK, then bad Radiohead! But if not it was probably meant as an interesting way to test the waters and see what fans would be willing to pay, in good faith, for music.
October 12th, 2007 @
It’s a bad thing for the folks who decided that they were actually going to pay for the current release of the album- If I had decided that since I normally would have paid, let’s say $10 for the album so I downloaded it and paid $10, I had no advanced knowledge that this was not the “official” release and I was going to be expected to pony up another $10 once the album actual was released in January. If they had said from go that this was the situation- or just straight up did not charge folks, well I would feel differently
October 13th, 2007 @
The term ‘record’ is simply short for ‘recording.’ The word was only assigned to the physical object of a disc made of vinyl because it was the first method of listening to recorded music. The term ‘record’ is, as far as I’m concerned, suitable for any format. Also, ‘record’ and ‘album’ are not synonymous in the recording industry as evidenced by the different awards given out by NARAS: Record of the Year and Album of the Year where ‘record’ is any single released by an artist and ‘album’ is the full compilation of songs released together as a group (on vinyl; CD; cassette tape; mp3). To make things more confusing they also have Song of the Year which is awarded to any song from the album, not necessarily released as a single.
But I agree with Josh. It sounds like Matt bought into an idea that Radiohead were attempting to be groundbreaking and shun traditional record industry practices. When he discovered that they are interested in making money just like any other band, his vision of them as morally superior was shattered and despite their not having misled anyone or done anything suspect he is castigating them.
Anyway, groundbreaking was what Radiohead were with OK Computer. Since then they’ve been retreading the same ground. I haven’t yet listened to the new album in its entirety or very carefully, but what I have heard doesn’t sound much more interesting than their last four albums.
October 14th, 2007 @
I still need to disagree here- first, I like Radiohead, I don’t love them, I don’t think their music is the best music ever. With the term “record” I am just nit-picking, you’ve got me there.
I know Radiohead is all about making money off their music, just like every other band out there. I thought the idea of releasing the album on their site was great and, yes, groundbreaking, especially with the “pay what you want” model that they were using.
My problem is with the fact that Radiohead didn’t tell their customers that this was a beta release to their real album. As I said, if I had paid $10 for this album I would have been pretty pissed off to find out that the recording quality was mediocre and that this was not the actual album that they would be releasing in January.
I think it was totally misleading that they allowed customers to pay for something that they were going to be making better without telling the customers just that.
It would be like going to a movie theater, paying to see a movie and then instead watching a bootleg of the rough cut, then a few days after its release being told that the director was going to improve the movie and make it SO much better, but you’ll have to pay another $10 to see it when it comes out.
October 16th, 2007 @
But Matt, Radiohead offered a free product. If you take something for free and then find out that a better version is coming later then you’ve lost nothing.
If you paid for something Radiohead offered for free in the first place then you’re a chump. You personally didn’t pay for it, so why are you upset with Radiohead? For creating clever marketing? Or are you pissed off for any possible chumps out there who did pay for something that was free in the first place.
You movie theater argument doesn’t work. It would be like if you went to see a free film shown on DVD, voluntarily gave money, and then found out later that it would be released again projected on 35mm with additional scenes.
I think Radiohead created a really useful marketing tool. They’ve inverted the model. I bet you’ve downloaded loads of stuff for free illegally that you’re supposed to pay for. Now Radiohead has decided to see what people are willing to pay for something that’s offered for free.
October 17th, 2007 @
Boo Hoo. Apparently you did not read that the CD and Disc-box were to be released, or that the download would be of inferior quality than that of the CD release. This is a big “oops” on your part. As for the music, what was it worth to you?
Frederick Foxtrott
October 18th, 2007 @
I hadn’t seen it that way, but Jason is right: the product is free anyway. People steal music all the time. This way, they get the CD sales and they ALSO get whatever people are willing to pay. They’ve basically found a way to monetize good will. Clever.
However, I still agree with Matt that there’s a deception involved. Maybe they are technically in the right, but they must have known that this was a trick and ran the risk of offending feelings. In fact, it stands to offend exactly the wrong feelings: those of the people who had the most goodwill towards the band and therefore paid the most (or paid what they felt was fair) for the product.
These people thought they were entering something of a prisoner’s dillema with the band (if they didn’t pay or udnerpaid, they stood to lose in the long run, if they overpaid, they were chumps, so they would have to be fair), but the band had hedged.
October 18th, 2007 @
Thank you Josh for seeing my perspective on this.
October 18th, 2007 @
I am still unclear about your arguments. What is deceptive in the least?
They get CD sales and they get what ever people were willing to pay…
I am an avid CD shopper. When I tell people this they say, “You still have CD’s,” and I mean a lot of people say this to me.
The people who want to have the music now can. The people who want to wait can, or you can pay nothing and still get the CD.
Look in your collection and be honest. How any burned discs do you have? How long have you gone without paying for music?
This blog has created a false problem. It was well known that a CD was to be released and that it was of inferior quality.
This quote is a lie:
“Next up, the January release: How do you release an album online, let people pay what they want for it and then a few days later mention that you will be selling the official album in January? Radiohead is in for a double payday with this. As I said, shady.”
If you would have paid attention you might not be so upset.
Consider the following:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/1
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/2
If you don’t bother looking at the links provided, I’ll cite them as well:
“Okay people! Take a couple deep breaths, count to 10, switch the caps lock off, clean up the triple espresso you just spit all over the computer screen, and check this: that new Radiohead album, In Rainbows? The one that the world knew practically zilch about 24 hours ago? The one that drops digitally (DRM-free, no less!) in nine days, for a price of your own choosing? The one that’s also coming out in a deluxe “discbox” in December? Well, it’s also coming out in good, old fashioned CD format early next year.”
There is no prisoner’s dilemma, in fact you must misunderstand what a prisoner’s dilemma is.
Radiohead knew their record would be leaked, burned, and distributed by November, so they stayed ahead of the game.
You got your information from the Financial Times…
The Financial Times people!
If you truly believe this was a scheme set to maximize profits, you are missing the point.
I can’t wait until you make up another dilemma…
-Frederick Foxtrott
October 19th, 2007 @
FF,
The issue here is not that a box set was due out. I agree with you that that was widely reported. What was not widely reported (I don’t think the Pitchfork site counts as a mainstream publication) was that the band was planning to release a CD version and that that version would probably contain additional material.
When the band said people would be able to pay whatever and download the new album, they were not actually offering their final product.
I’m really not picky enough to care about the sound quality of the download. It’s actually pretty easy to make fun of that, as this poster did on the MTV site:
But Radiohead said it was going to let people pay whatever they deemed worthy for the album and apparently left the impression that this process was going to be their primary method of remuneration for this particular album (aside from the later sales of the box set). So, when people bought the album online they acted in good faith, offering to pay once for the product. When the band then turns around and says it had always intended to offer a full cd with added material, it made those who had already paid feel like chumps. Fans will now also have to buy the CD.
In the prisoners’ dillemma, both can go free when they fail to implicate each other, but the temptation is great to rat out your partner if it buys you leniency. Here, fans thought the band had forged a similar symbiosis: pay fairly and we can show the world that we can make a living offering music at what our fans deem to be a fair price. Pay low, and we will suffer (and so will the fans, eventually, because they will never get such cheap music again…at least legally).
Many fans paid up thinking that their payment was the only way Radiohead could profit from the sales (of course, leaving out touring and merchandise), and so they risked overpaying had they not trusted that the band was poised to suffer otherwise. Radiohead did not risk anything. Those who paid what they felt was a fair price online soon learned that the band did not trust that their fans would pay fairly, and had hedged by planning all along to earn fees from a later cd release that would make the download irrelevant and incomplete.
The really awful admission, from longtime managers Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, is that the download was merely a publicity stunt. And the reason that stunt worked so well is that it made the band look like it was trusting its compensation to the fairness of its fans. This was and is a big middle finger to fans who trusted that the band was trusting them.
As the managers admitted: “If we didn’t believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn’t do what we are doing,” Edge said.
They never intended to trust fans with anything. They just took what they could get.
October 19th, 2007 @
[...] This quote from American Madness is a lie: [...]
October 19th, 2007 @
I don’t know how else to say it…
Radiohead said they would release a CD version in 2008 on October 1st 2007
The manager’s quote that USA Today and The Financial times refers to was given a week prior to the release of In Rainbows. So your statement, “But Radiohead said it was going to let people pay whatever they deemed worthy for the album and apparently left the impression that this process was going to be their primary method of remuneration for this particular album (aside from the later sales of the box set).” is totally false.
What does this mean? That USA Today and The Financial Times both admit that the band’s management explained that a CD would be released as early as Spring 2008. As I’ll state again…”The devil manager’s” quote was given the week prior to the release of In Rainbows. The information was given by the band…While I can easily argue that much more “mainstream” publications informed the public of the situation (see above), lets pretend for a moment they did not.
It is not Radiohead’s fault that Pitchfork bothered to spread the word. Who are you blaming here? The band or the media?
Certainly everyone knows by now that a CD is coming, and the download rates are still healthy and they are still mostly paying for them.
There are some really pissed off people out there…
*For all references refer to frederickfoxtrott.wordpress.com*
October 19th, 2007 @
All disagreements aside…Thanks, although I must admit it is not entirely my doing. It helps living in a rundown old factory with a bunch of artists…
October 19th, 2007 @
Okay, so the article I initially read from…. It appears to be from Time, said nothing about a January release, I assumed Time was a reliable enough source to not have to search for more info, beyond that the article quotes from the Radohead website: “Hello everyone. Well, the new album is finished, and it’s coming out in 10 days. We’ve called it In Rainbows. Love from us all.”"
To me that does not sound like “The new album is 95% done, and we will be releasing a version in 10 days, but then another version that is better with more tracks in 3 months” And that’s what I was writing on-
Maybe the fault does not fully lie with Radiohead, but also with the media outlets who left that detail out. On the other hand saying it will come out in CD form is not saying the same as it will come out in better quality with some additional tracks in CD form.
Also the Radiohead website (or at least the bits of it I glanced at while downloading In Rainbows) wasn’t exactly clear about all this either. And really as the customer you deserve to have all the facts right up front about what you are doling out money for.
October 19th, 2007 @
Well since we both, or all three of us want to press the issue…
“Radiohead’s management also confirmed that a physical CD of In Rainbows will hit shelves sometime in January, possibly with extra songs.
In an interview last week with British trade magazine Music Week, Radiohead’s longtime managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, acknowledged that the download offer was a piece of a larger puzzle to generate more publicity for the CD release. “If we didn’t believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn’t do what we are doing,” Edge said.”
-USA Today
Edge = Devil Manager
Also write this one down to avoid future blunders…
A CD release will always…always…always be of better quality than a MP3.
I think it is strange that I knew all the information you seem to have missed. Trust me, it is not because I am a genius.
As for Radiohead coming out with extras. If you have ever bought a Radiohead album before you would know that they love deluxe sets with all kinds of extras. I mean really…
They are not remixing the album or reengineering the record for the eventual release. The songs are 100% done. You just get more with the physical copy.
I mean this in the most respectful way possible…
Do you get pissed when bands release b-sides too?
Stop whining…When the “real” record come out, rip it off like everyone else will…
October 19th, 2007 @
Nah- I tend to think B-sides are a waste of time. Usually 1 decent song and a bunch of music that it is clear why it didn’t make the cut for the original album.
Though excessive “Greatest Hits” albums do piss me off
In terms of having more info then me, as I said, I had 1 source, just goes to show you what major news sources might neglect to mention in their article
October 20th, 2007 @
I paid for the damn download. If they release a CD, I’ll feel ripped and I won’t buy it. If this new CD comes out with new songs I’ll downloaded ‘em illegally as, you know, I’m pissed. Maybe that’s what RH wanted, to create some chaos and piss off some people. Maybe that makes the album more enjoyable. I dunno…