8 Jan 2008 19:47
Re: Issa on NPR!
birdie <birdies <at> ix.netcom.com>
2008-01-08 18:47:21 GMT
2008-01-08 18:47:21 GMT
jeremy513 <at> aol.com wrote: >With all due respect to long-time Sib poster Birdie, I do not think it's fair to characterize the Radiohead experiment as a "flop." > It was touted as such in some of the press - I'd have to re-read the LA Times article to refresh what they said there... > > >Radiohead has not released any figures; the well-publicized report a couple of months ago claiming that 60 percent of people downloading it downloaded it for free was called "wholly inaccurate" by the band, but it still circulated widely and became the de facto "truth." > > That could be the source... > > >The hard reality here, as Issa herself has no doubt confronted, is that, when given the opportunity to download music for a price of one's choosing, many people will in fact choose "free." > Sooo...that's just a given. > Even if the Radiohead figures are in fact accurate, I'd say the fact that 40 percent of those downloading did pay something is rather remarkable. Of the 60 percent who purportedly took the music for free, how many of them would never have bought it at all? There's no loss of income for the band from that group, then. Also, how many downloaded for free because they knew they would be buying the CD when it came out? And of the 40 percent who supposedly paid for the electronic download, how many will also buy the physical CD? And how many paid the band a little something who would not otherwise have bought a Radiohead album at all? > > > I think truncated sample versions are all anyone needs to figure out if they like it well enough to buy the whole song or album. In any other business, only samples would be offered. Why would anyone expect to be given a whole sandwich as a sample when just a bite sized piece is all that is needed? What's with the FREE business, anyway? Is music made by the wind blowing over reeds in a lake? Is it just created out of the blue? Well, of course it's not...artists pay to make it. If the whole pay now pay later don't pay at all thing is to get people to think before ripping it for free somehow - then- there needs to be dialogue over how music is produced and the future of it. Because, it does take money to make and promote and it is a product - just like anything else that is made for public consumption. If the free give-aways are staged as promotional events - then - they pay for themselves. Look how much publicity Radiohead and Issa have gotten out of it. Prince gave away like a million CD's in a brit paper. It creates press...publicity. As long as you can write it off as promo expenses - great. > <> > > > Anyway, sorry, didn't mean to climb on a soapbox, but these memes get > going on the net, and I thought it was important to give this "'In > Rainbows' was a flop" idea some context. Thanks for listening! > > It has been great publicity for them and in that sense, alone - a success. Meanwhile, myspace and other social networking sites need to start having to pay per play for the music on their sites. It's just outrageous that Murdoch gets all this music piped in for free, all these people are attracted to the site to hear it, and he uses this "mall" to sell ad space in and make money off everybody..... Enough of the free. Someone is always paying and someone else is always getting something out of it. The reality is - that unless you are listening to the wind over the reeds. There is no such thing as free. Murdoch is making money off everybody. go figure. Birdie