| The Lowdown On The
Downloads
As I write, Radiohead’s In Rainbows sits
at Number One in America having sold 120,000 copies in a week, which
is a long way down from the 300,000 that their previous major label
release sold, it debuted at Number One in the U.K., their fifth
in row and is currently at Number Two in Australia; held off the
top spot by the all-powerful Timbaland who also has the Number One
single, their fourth Number Two album in a row down-under.
All this in spite of their download for what-you-want-to-pay
gesture last year. So what’s going on here? Was it merely
a profit-making publicity stunt or something more? What does it
tells us about the music consumer?
We do know that whilst over 1.5 million people
downloaded the album at the time; 60% didn’t pay anything,
the rest paid about six dollars, although the band themselves make
much of the fact that 15 people did pay the 220.00 AUD premium price.
I wonder how many of those people who did download
the album decided that they liked it so much that they wanted the
superior sound quality of the physical copy for their collection
and went out and bought it? How many potential album sales were
“lost’ as a result of the on-line offer? Are we looking
at two segments of the music market? Those who do and those who
don’t download music?
One group who are habituated to purchasing the
physical product and those who are content with merely the additional
data in their computer? Certainly sound quality is a subjective
experience that is still valued by a small percentage of music consumers
but I have the feeling that the vast majority are willing to sacrifice
it for access, convenience and little or no cost. Perhaps it’s
a generational difference too; older listeners who paradoxically
hear less-well still want optimum sonic quality and a younger generation
who are content to settle for a lesser standard because that is
what they are used to hearing via their computer.
The actual experience of the commercial financial
transaction could also be a factor. There are those who still relish
going into their favourite record shop, perusing what is available,
socializing with the staff, taking a chance on something, discovering
something new or unexpected before purchasing it and scuttling home
excitedly. My music collection contains numerous memories and experiences
that tell a story of the time and circumstances under which I acquired
them, a stark contrast to the solo stay-at-home push-a-button, type
in your credit card details, business deal of download. Even an
on-line CD purchase still brings the thrill of anticipation while
waiting for the mail man to deliver the actual item and un-wrapping
it for play. Perhaps there are a percentage of Radiohead devotees
who still want to own an object that they can physically hold in
their hand rather than a theoretical idea in stored in their CPU.
Radiohead themselves have not commented on how
they felt about the majority of down-loaders not paying anything
for the work that they spent so much time, energy and thought into
creating; confusing price with value.
Maybe the internet is simply full of freeloaders
who will grasp at anything for nothing, who relish getting something
for free above all else, that don’t care what “it”
is, but delight in the simple fact that “it” is gratis.
NIN man Trent Reznor after 18 years in the music
business and a niggardly relationship with his record company Universal,
has broken with the label after they refused to set up a site where
fans can download and remix tracks from his most recent album Y34RZ3R0R3MIX3D
and set it up himself independently.
In a possible foreshadowing of his plans for NIN's
future recordings, Reznor and poet/artist/musician Saul Williams
released exclusively via Williams' website the digital-only, Reznor-produced
Williams album The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust.
The pair offered up the set in several different formats, and offered
fans the choice to either download the album for free or make a
$5 contribution to receive a technically superior version and support
Williams.
The album was originally posted on November 1,
2007, and offered for free as a lower quality, 192kbps MP3 download,
or $5 for a higher fidelity 320kbps MP3 or FLAC version. Reznor
contends in his blog post that "not one cent was spent on marketing
this record," although he and Williams did launch a fairly
comprehensive press campaign.
But things have not gone altogether as planned.
According to Reznor's data, 154,449 fans had downloaded Williams'
album as of Jan. 2; of that number, only 28,322 (18.3%) chose to
pay $5 for it. Of those paying, 3220 chose 192kbps MP3, 19,764 chose
320kbps MP3, and 5338 chose FLAC.
On his website he suggested that he was “disheartened
“ by the response but 154,449 downloads of Williams' album
still far surpasses the 33,897 copies Williams' previous album--a
2004, self-titled set--sold in the form of CDs. He also lamented
the fact that the duo had spent too much on studio time, musicians
etc…creating a quality product, making it difficult given
the financial response, to even re-coup costs.
So once again consumer response, on the internet
at least, has shown a disinclination to pay over the opportunity
to get something for nothing, thus undermining the project itself.
Unlike the mega-popular Radiohead
who were able to garner millions of dollars on the internet and
even more with the release of the physical version of their work,
more marginal performers like Williams, aside from the increased
profile and publicity from the novelty value of their endeavours
will still find for the time being that offering the audience the
choice of something for nothing will bring them exactly that.
back
to top
|
