Power to the Artist
So, in the October 2nd New York Times, I read a blog entry about how Radiohead is letting fans decide how much to pay for their upcoming new album, “In Rainbows”. The band is planning on letting users pay what they want for a digital version of the album. On top of that, they are going to sell the tunes without any digital-rights management (a.k.a. copy protection) locks.
According to the original article in the Times, this new model to distribute and sell music is being adopted by several mainstream artists including Prince, Madonna and Nine Inch Nails. It certainly challenges Apple’s fixed price structure of 99 cents per song and $10 to $12 per album.
Personally, I think it is an interesting way to sell music. It takes out the middle man, the record companies. It remains to be seen how music consumers will respond. Will music listeners simply pay 1 cent for the whole album? Or will they just wait until somebody buys the album and wait for it to hit the peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent, Limewire or _______________ (fill in your favorite P2P network here). Interestingly enough, “the blog Idolator.com carried a poll in which the plurality of voters — almost 40 percent — said they would pay from $2.05 to $10.12.”
So are people going to pay because they feel they need to support the artistic endeavors of Radiohead? Maybe people are more honest when they feel as though they have more direct access to the artist. Or maybe people feel that this pricing structure gives them a chance to “critique” the music. Maybe they say to themselves, “I can pay more if I like the music and less if I don’t.”
I can see how Radiohead and the other groups are able to choose this mode of distribution. They are so well-established that they don’t need a distribution company to help raise awareness of their existence in the vast world of music. And maybe that means in the end, they will make more money because they don’t have to pay royalties, have more creative freedom, and build a tighter connection with their community and fan-base.
This style of distribution probably would not work well for small, independent bands that are not well-known. They still need radio stations to help promote their music. They still need record companies to book performances, to advertise, to produce. Or do they? I’d like to think that this mode of distribution can work in an age where access to the online world is becoming more and more pervasive and where the cost of buying online ads seems to be getting lower and lower. I’d also be willing to bet that access to talented music producers and editors is easier. I’d also like to think that people don’t make music just for the sake of making music and making money. Maybe I’m naïve, but I hope that the main reason people make music is to share experiences about their lives, their thoughts, their successes, and their failures. It is still about personal expression, right?
So, what about radio? How does this mode of distribution impact radio? If artists are willing to sell their music to individuals for such a small price, does it mean that they will allow radio stations to play their music without paying ridiculous royalties? I mean, seriously, why should BPR have to pay a fee per listener per song if listeners who like the song can legally download their own copy for as little as 1 cent? Take that SoundExchange!
I don’t know the answer, but I’d like to hear what all the 5 readers of this blog think.
Last 5 posts by eugene
- East Meets Words featuring Edward Bok Lee - August 1st, 2008
- Asian Americans and Mental Health - July 22nd, 2008
- Be Like Water - July 21st, 2008
- Two Warriors Bring Peace and Love to East Meets Words - July 18th, 2008
- 99 Ranch, Super 88, H-Mart, ... - July 14th, 2008
Tags: Commentary, News, Online Radio.
i’m wondering how artists are going to make money through this new way of charging for songs…it certainly doesn’t sound profitable. i suppose this “pay what you wish” system gives more power to the listener, though. it sounds libertarian in nature - but what if people are cheap regardless? i might pay a little more for a song i love than one i don’t..but then again, i might not. regardless, i think any artist who wants exposure needs effective advertising & heavy promotion, word-of-mouth, whatever will get his/her name out there.
I wonder how artists are going to make money too. It does have a libertarian bent. I’m also pretty sure that only the well-known artists can do that. Little known artists can’t do this.
Little known artists on major labels can’t do it, but independent artists can - and do - do it this way, right? Communicate directly with fans?
Regardless, it’s a great idea…and publicity ploy. I wasn’t even checking for a new Radiohead album, and the amount of press it’ll get because it’s a news story will help with sales. We’ll see if they’re successful, it’s good to see some folks turning their back on the corporate system at least temporarily. Because in the past, most artists who supported consumers’s rights to hear good music and not overpay were sucky bands like Limp Bizkit and Offspring. While good bands like Metallica and Dr. Dre and Alicia Keys were pro-corporate…