[Jussei]

I ended up paying around 6 pounds, so greater than $10, apparently making me a superfan, although I'm not.
I do like Radiohead, but aside from Kid A, I wouldn't have to have any of their albums. The fact that they started this first was the reason I decided on the amount that I gave them. In all honesty I was thinking 10 pounds+, but then I got my wits about me.
This is how things should be done when it comes to music. Saul Williams just did it. I reserved the album a few days and got it the 1st at $0, but will be listening to the album a few times and he'll probably get the $5.00 they were asking for the 320kbps/FLAC download.
The only negative I saw with the Radiohead deal was no 'try before you buy,' as the price you paid had to be decided at the beginning.

 

[XxATOLxX]

$0. There was so much hype surrounding this cd on Digg that I figured it should be worth a listen. It was good for the first 11 seconds then out of nowhere I hear a sound that resembles that of a dying camel. Needless to say, it didn't stay on the hard drive very long.

 

[jdimitri]

Where's the discbox option?

 

[goldenratiophi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdimitri /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where's the discbox option?

I think "Super dedicated fan level" includes discbox buyers

 

[Bluetick]

I guess a more appropriate level of distribution would have been to start with the remix followed by the remaster, then gold, then low-fi digital. I guess some people are only happy if others aren't trying to make money. The music industry is in the business of staying in busines. So what. There's no conspiracy there.

I just don't understand why some people choose to complain about the bitrate or the quality of the performances when it is FREE or damn near free. Go figure.

 

[miroslav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluetick /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just don't understand why some people choose to complain about the bitrate or the quality of the performances when it is FREE or damn near free. Go figure.

It was not free for some (many?) people who, in all honesty, opted to reward the bend and pay some bucks only to learn that they got this lousy bitrate which they would have never paid for had they known about it before they considered pay-what-you-want option.

Check out the new store>

http://www.radioheadstore.com/home.asp

See how easy is to write down the info regarding the quality of the digital files? RH should have done it with In Rainbows too and only then nobody would have right to complain.

 

[Sordel]

I'm willing to accept that there are people on these forums who have sound equipment (and ears) good enough to appreciate an improvement in SQ above 160kbps mp3 under good listening conditions.

I'll even stretch my imagination so far as to allow that these people only ever listen on that equipment under good listening conditions, and never listen to an album as background music or when concentrating on something else.

What I won't believe is that there are people with so pampered a set of ears that they regard an album recorded at 160kbps not only as not worth paying anything for under any listening conditions, but also as being so poor that the band is somehow ripping its fanbase off even releasing it.

Through most of my youth I was listening to cassettes through rotten headphones on dodgy personal stereos. It was horrible SQ, but I still enjoyed the music, and didn't blame the record companies for issuing their albums on cassette in the first place.

If you want to be an audiophile about In Rainbows, buy Discbox and stop whining about it.

 

[fuzydice]

Interesting article on the subject: http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1883

 

[goldenratiophi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sordel /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I won't believe is that there are people with so pampered a set of ears that they regard an album recorded at 160kbps not only as not worth paying anything for under any listening conditions, but also as being so poor that the band is somehow ripping its fanbase off even releasing it.

THANK YOU! I agree with this 100%. Some responses to this thread disgust me.

1. No indication of bitrate probably means that it's not very high, because 99% of people don't care.
2. You get to choose your own price.

So logically, you

3. Take a risk and spend a few bucks.
4. Complain because Radiohead is trying to nab the precious dollars of audiophiles. In other words:

"WAAAH! Product did everything as advertised but didn't specially cater to the 0.01% of us who find 160 kbps painfully unlistenable!!! Radiohead are thieves!"*

Please.

*dramatization

 

[soMn]

Paid $5, specifically for the chance to say screw You to the RIAA and to support this method of music distribution.

 

[miroslav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by goldenratiophi /img/forum/go_quote.gif 1. No indication of bitrate probably means that it's not very high, because 99% of people don't care.

That "probably" is the weakest point of the entire action because the actual figures are showing something else. I remember that, according to the media reports, in the first couple of days after the launch the average price paid for the digital download was around 9 dollars globally and a month later it is down to 6 dollars.

I think that it shows much more people than 1 percent expected something better and think that 160kbps is not worth paying for, more so because for weeks there was no clear reference about the bitrate on In Rainbows pages. It was up to the band to choose whatever bitrate they want, but if it`s not their responsibility for the missing bitrate info then for sure there`s somebody in their marketing division deserving to be fired.

Quote:

3. Take a risk and spend a few bucks.

Man, people are taking risks when they place a bet on football results, not when dealing with a respected rock band in a common crusade against RIAA. I thought the "name your price" method was based on trust, not taking risks.

And yes, it`s only a few bucks for you and me and for Jose from Mexico or Herman from Germany and we would have spent that pocket money on sweets on an average school or office day anyway. But if it`s true that there were over 450.000 paid downloads, than the amount of $$$ collected from those who think that 160kbps was not worth paying for rises considerably. At the end of the day, it`s a whole lot more of undeserved sweets for Radiohead.

On I side note, it was not my intention to disgust or insult anyone with my comments. It`s just that this little issue is not getting any media attention and I think the problem is real and worth discussing.

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought the "name your price" method was based on trust, not taking risks.

Were it based on trust, they'd have let people download the album and then pay what they thought it was worth.

I think that the pricing reflects the fact that Radiohead did not know what the right balance between price and demand was going to be, so they rolled the dice in the expectation that the average price would end up giving them a reasonable profit. Given that they announced a record deal almost before the experiment had got off the ground, I'm not sure that it was a crusading blow against the Record Industry empire.

That said, I don't need Radiohead to be crusaders, just a good band. And, in my view, In Rainbows is a very good album.

 

[Arjisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif I remember that, according to the media reports, in the first couple of days after the launch the average price paid for the digital download was around 9 dollars globally and a month later it is down to 6 dollars. I think that it shows much more people than 1 percent expected something better and think that 160kbps is not worth paying for, more so because for weeks there was no clear reference about the bitrate on In Rainbows pages.

I think it shows that there was pent up demand by avid Radiohead fans for their next album and, when it was finally made available, those avid fans jumped on buying it and happily paid more money than the eventual average because they tended to believe they would really like the music and because they wanted to thank Radiohead for their work thus far. Also, the more informed folks regarding the RIAA jumped on this and paid money to make a statement about the RIAA's practices. Once that initial rush was over, the trailing demand meant lower prices paid.

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by miroslav /img/forum/go_quote.gif That "probably" is the weakest point of the entire action because the actual figures are showing something else. I remember that, according to the media reports, in the first couple of days after the launch the average price paid for the digital download was around 9 dollars globally and a month later it is down to 6 dollars.

Faulty logic. Correlation does not equal causation. After one month, it was announced that Radiohead had signed a deal with an independent record label to distribute their RBCD by March 2008. The download is no longer the sole source of the record at real world pricing (boxset = $80 or so US).

I can't claim the announcement of the actual cd release caused the average price drop either. But it makes just as much sense and likely more than your argument. See how fun math can be?

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjisme /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think it shows that there was pent up demand by avid Radiohead fans for their next album and, when it was finally made available, those avid fans jumped on buying it and happily paid more money than the eventual average because they tended to believe they would really like the music and because they wanted to thank Radiohead for their work thus far. Also, the more informed folks regarding the RIAA jumped on this and paid money to make a statement about the RIAA's practices. Once that initial rush was over, the trailing demand meant lower prices paid.

This is very likely the reason for the drop.

miroslav, I agree with you, the idea of paying for lossy (and 160 at that) is an issue, particularly if this becomes the standard means of distribution. However, it was the slant you put on it that made folks wonder about your extreme distaste. Had they ONLY offered it for money, then 160 would have been nasty for those that cared. Because they offered it for free, it can't be considered mistrustful nor conspiratorial. They picked a bitrate that would appeal to most, cost them less in bandwidth when gauging those willing to pay vs. those not willing to pay. If the stats are true, and only 40% paid, then had the album been in FLAC or ALAC, their own costs would have been much higher.

I really do think the best solution is to permit those that paid an additional lossless download in the future.