I might be wrong.

“One thing that I see the musicians wanting is more independence and, you know, more control over their destiny. The one downside to it is that for the most part, the reason they make music is because they’re damaged goods and they’re generally not that bright when it comes to making business decisions. So eventually the vampires that survive the aftermath of the industry collapse will figure out a way to get their fingers back into these guys.” *

This was how Maynard James Keenan, the frontman for TOOL described the consequences of Radiohead’s impact on the music industry and he is correct at many levels.

 Artists, particularly musicians do have a reputation as a fragile bunch of bananas, and the additional burden of being notoriously bad at making business decisions (Think Jimi Hendrix and his troubled relationship with Curtis Knight and the Squires).

The record industry has fed off the inability of acts to make good decisions or even decisions based on information. This is where the labels get their reputation as “vampires”. Quite often a penny-wise but pound-foolish musician will come to blame the record label for their own poor choices, forgetting they can always say no.

Record labels are in business, musicians wishing to become professionals are in business, and must take responsibility for all their choices and actions. To blindly assume that “The Radiohead model” is a something to be taken up en masse would be a very poor decision.

Radiohead, throughout their career have visited one theme ceaselessly- anti-consumerism. This is a broad theme covering many areas, but in reference to Radiohead, anti-consumerism seems to mean cutting out the middleman; People dealing with people for what the provider offers without corporate machinations- and they have proved that it’s possible and that the corporations are not necessary.

What Radiohead is offering as a model is an “Anti-model”- something that inspires and pushes artists to become creative with their business and art; injecting their own ideas and efforts into the industry. With the Radiohead anti-model each band’s marketing strategy will come to reflect the band.

Commercial pop sensations “in it for the money” will not be able to access this methodology without using companies to sponsor their art in return for advertising. RCRD LBL is just the first example of what Keenan is talking about when he refers to the “Vampires” “getting their fingers back into these guys”.

Most performers directed at producing synthetic pop (I refer to those who have their music written for them, their moves choreographed professionally and their image tailored by advertising executives) are in a symbiotic relationship with the labels; they simply cannot survive without the labels.

Britney Spears is a prime example of this type of performer- her talent lies in following instructions. Lily Allen’s hue and cry at Radiohead likely comes from the fact that she can claim only 30% credit for writing most of her songs. These people need the labels. None of this is to say synthetic pop does not have its place in the world.

The Radiohead anti model serves artists, not synthetic pop performers; it tells artists it is possible to grow their own marketing strategy, to think outside the current model and to exceed their teachers. It tells artists that they don’t need the labels.

I might be wrong…

* http://www.gigwise.com/news/38807/tool-radiohead-album-a-one-trick-pony

2+2=5?

 Many have tried to measure the success of Radiohead’s experiment. For those of you that have been following the story you will have noted the magic, “1.2 million” figure. 1.2 million downloaded in the first day*, 1.2 million in the first week**, 1.2 million hits in the first 29 days***, and in time I’m sure there will be those who speculate on “1.2 million suicides”

            Speculate is of course the keyword. While Internet data analyst’s comScore Inc were taken and beaten like a redheaded stepchild for their assumptions, they were not alone in making wild guesses at the success of the endeavour. There have been emphatic statements issued from all areas of the press and the Internet as to the amount of revenue produced, the average price paid and the percentage of people who paid for the new album; some would have that in the first twenty-four hours Radiohead made 4.8 million pounds (about 11.2 million dollars Australian).

            These are the facts; we don’t know how much the band has earned. In a statement issued by Radiohead to NME, they stated,

“In response to purely speculative figures announced in the press regarding the number of downloads and the price paid for the album, the group’s representatives would like to remind people that, as the album could only be downloaded from the band’s website, it is impossible for outside organisations to have accurate figures on sales,” they explained.The statement added: “However, they can confirm that the figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project.”****            The true measure of the success of “In rainbows” could maybe be better measured in terms of publicity; a quick search in Google yields a total of “About 1.49 million articles relating to the album while Leona Lewis’ album, which has been claimed to have soared through the charts registers a mere 0.86 million articles- this is with the backing of major marketing from “X-factor” and Sony BMG.            Radiohead has claimed publicity money literally cannot buy.

            So what does this tell the independent artist?

            First, the Internet is a valuable tool for publicity and marketing. Second, you don’t need big dollars and a huge marketing campaign behind you; Radiohead has generated this interest not in spite, but because of their silence; they’ve left the hard work up to the press; we’ve speculated, written, are writing, guessing and second guessing with every article only serving to reinforce the publicity monster that is rumbling and lurching about the world, absorbing peoples cash at their request and spitting out more and more copies of the album.

            By maintaining their silence Radiohead have maintained their anti-consumerism stance while at the same time being financially rewarded for it; people get a kick out of giving the band money because they don’t have to. The Album itself is DRM (Digital rights management) free, which means you can copy it, hand it out to friends or even peer to peer share it.

            In one fell swoop they have not eliminated the peer-to-peer sharing of the album, but made it unnecessary; why file share the album when you can download it yourself? How can you deride a band as “selling out” when they’re giving they ask you how much you think it’s worth?

            The Radiohead model is beyond the ken of economists because you cannot predict tipping with any degree of certainty; the model has left economists wondering, does 2+2=5?

* http://www.gigwise.com/news/37670/exclusive-radiohead-sell-12million-copies-of-in-rainbows

** http://www.ateaseweb.com/2007/10/17/in-rainbows-tops-virtual-charts/

*** http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1890

**** http://www.nme.com/news/32393

Subterranean Homesick Alien?

           From the outset Radiohead had stated that “In rainbows” would be available as a box set, consisting of two CD’s two LP’s artwork and lyrics, and was posted on www.inrainbows.com as available for £40 on pre order through the website.

           

This generated speculation that Radiohead was looking for a label to publish through. This appears to be almost right.

 

The disk box will ship by or before December the third. The album is also being released as a single disc with Radiohead retaining their independence but using various labels (ATO, XL, Remote control, Hostess) for distribution worldwide. The album will be a staggered release, beginning on the twenty-sixth of December and the final release date the thirty-first of December.

            When labels first began bargaining with Radiohead to manage the distribution of the CD, companies such as Starbucks had come to the table, offering lucrative deals- apparently not deals that were closing on Radiohead’s needs though. So what does this imply about Radiohead’s needs? Nothing, not a thing.

 

            Radiohead could not have taken the risk of releasing the album online unless they could afford to come away without making a cent from the album, and in fact, Yorke is quoted as saying, “Every record that we’ve done for ages has been leaked. Why not leak the bloody thing yourself?”*

 

            Releasing an album out of contract as a leak makes sense for a band like Radiohead. The album itself, while ineligible for chart listing has created such controversy and furore throughout the industry as to guarantee it’s release in physical format.

 

            Like it or not, and whether the album is a commercial success or not, “In Rainbows” will be a release that stays in the minds of the record industry for a very long time.

 

* http://www.nme.com/news/radiohead/32617

Knives out.

            You’d think by potentially increasing the profit percentage of all artists Radiohead would have the support of all other artists in the industry. From the responses of the like of Lilly Allen, Gene Simmons, and Mike Skinner of the Streets it seems that not everyone is happy at the prospect of letting the fans decide their fate. Why is this?

By and large the response from these people has been fairly unconcerned and tongue in cheek, there are a few expectations that deserve to have their point of view explained.

Lily Allen has been perhaps the most unsurprisingly aggressive, telling Rolling Stone Radiohead was, “arrogant.” adding “They’ve got millions of pounds. It sends a weird message to younger bands who haven’t done as well,” Allen reasoned. “You don’t choose how to pay for eggs. Why should it be different for music?”*

In a separate piece, “Yes, Lily Allen, We can see it’s all lies” I’ve gone further into Allen’s comments and how they relate to her background. To address the comment immediately, we do actually choose how much we pay for eggs. We choose Free range, Batter(ed)y hen, we get our own chickens or don’t eat eggs. Each has a price we are choosing to pay.

Further into the same article Gene Simmons from Kiss claimed, “That’s not a business model that works. I open a store and say ‘Come on in and pay whatever you want.’ Are you on fucking crack? Do you really believe that’s a business model that works?”*

There’s been no retort from Radiohead. Why?

There are many possible reasons. One of the most obvious is that the marketing of “In Rainbows” relies on an anti-marketing approach. Radiohead says nothing, the fans and other celebrities do all their marketing for them, speculating, just as I am, on how Radiohead have achieved what they have.

Another possible reason is that the exercise reinforces the theme of many of Radiohead’s releases- anti consumerism. In eliminating the marketing moguls and industry entirely from their relationship with Fans Radiohead is not just giving the industry the finger, but the whole capitalist mechanism. All while still making money.

There’s no doubt Radiohead will make some money from this release. They maintain a strong relationship with their fans. So a third possible reason comes to mind for the band not reacting to comments from the likes of Gene Simmons, Lily Allen and Mike Skinner- Yorke realizes opinions are like arseholes- everyone has one and everyone thinks theirs doesn’t stink.

How do you?

“They certainly seem to be writing my lyrics for me; if I’m ever stuck for an idea I go and read them.”- Thom Yorke

Thom Yorke said this about unofficial Radiohead sites, but he took the idea one step further. He got the fans, other artists and the media to do all his advertising for him for free. The entire promotion for “In rainbows” consisted of a hastily typed entry on the band’s website from Johnny Greenwood.

Four lines on a website and Time Magazine writes about you. Four lines on your own website and MTV wants an interview. Four lines on your website and New Music Express wants to write about you. Four lines on your website and everyone who is anyone wants to interview you.

This type of marketing is nothing new, and while it’s true the interest is a consequence of their work and the profile of the band built up over many years, it can be repeated.

It’s called Guerilla marketing- low budget, high impact marketing. While Radiohead certainly doesn’t want for funding would they have achieved the same impact with posters on bus shelters?

Impact on marketing has to be measured not just from the number of potential buyers you reach, but the cost and lasting effect. So when Lily Allen shifts the plum in her mouth across to the other side and gabs at Radiohead as being “Arrogant,” Thom Yorke must be wryly smiling and saying to himself, “Keep on selling those Downloads for me Lily, I’ll be here long after you OD on heroin,” because that’s what she is in fact doing- selling more albums, getting more press for Radiohead.

Guerilla marketing is effective even if you don’t have a profile. Here, in Adelaide, a quarter of the way through the year the city was inundated with Fliers, like news paper banners asking, “Who shot Paris?” with a date and address written at the bottom.

These were cheap, photocopied fliers wallpaper pasted to anything that was vertical and a few things that weren’t (famously, a passed out punk woke up with one glued on his leather jacket). The consequence of this marketing campaign was a sold out first show. I later learned from a reliable source that the whole marketing campaign cost AU$20.

The initial campaign for Radiohead cost the sum total of 0; nothing; nada; zilch.

Many would argue that Radiohead have crafted a model that is a capitalists wet dream and this is the case, but not the motivation; by working the way they have Radiohead have forced a change on the industry, avoided the unnecessary purely capital orientated mechanisms of art (such as labels, promoters, marketing companies) and offered themselves up to the mercy of their fans- and a tender mercy it has been.

The other face of the coin is that while the result is assumed to be a capitalists dream, the mechanism itself is their worst nightmare- it relies on people having a choice, not being required to think or act in a certain way and is very difficult to model. In a nation like Australia where tipping is rare, how could you ever believe you’d make money, would Simon Daly, the “Falls Festival” organizer have the confidence to ask people who come to the New years festival, “How much will you pay?”

To make money the Radiohead way you have to plan for the worst and hope for the best- the worst being you don’t make a single cent. How do You?

Jigsaws falling into place.

Radiohead’s venture into releasing music without a label and without a fixed price for release has many people saying, “This is the end of record labels,”

It may well be the end for labels as we know them, but is certainly not the end of labels. RCRD LBL, a combination of Blog and record label where all music will be offered free and without Digital rights management restrictions marks an early adaptation from Downtown Records and Peter Rojas. The label intends to make money from online advertising and is sponsored by Nikon, Virgin Airlines America, and Puma AG Sneaker unit.

This is an evolutionary response from an industry feeling the pinch of Radiohead’s impact- further evidenced by Warner music group being downgraded from Neutral to sell, after a dropping from US$27 a year ago to US$8.78 in the first week of November*

It’s not just the labels that have reacted to this news. Artists, both known and unknown have replied, some like Oasis’ Liam Gallagher saying “We’ll never do a Radiohead,”**. Lily Allen named Radiohead “Arrogant,” and said, “They’ve got millions of pounds. It sends a weird message to younger bands who haven’t done as well,” Allen reasoned. “You don’t choose how to pay for eggs. Why should it be different for music?”***

In one sense Allen is right. In my social circle there are many unsigned artists who are speculating that the “Radiohead model” will make them millions. As Allen implies, these unsigned and unknown acts haven’t got the background to make such an activity feasible.

Radiohead has over twenty-one years experience in the music industry. From their early days in 1986 as “On a Friday” they have been building a massive and loyal fan base.

Before they ventured to ask their fans, “How much will you pay?” they featured on the soundtrack to Baz Luhrman’s Romeo & Juliet (Talk show host) and created one of the songs that appeared when the end credits of the same film rolled (Exit music (For a film)/ Street spirit (fade out)). “Everything in it’s right place” was both the opening song on Kid A and for Cameron Crowe’s “Vanilla Sky”; they’ve produced such hits such as “Creep”, “High and Dry” and “Paranoid Android” and albums that tore through the charts like “Kid A” and “OK Computer,”

Radiohead was a success long before “In rainbows” and EMI supported them throughout their initial development. Make no bones of it, the band had the ability, but EMI was the one with the dollars that stood behind them.

Those who resort to Issa (Jane Siberry) an example are forgetting she too had the support of labels such as, Duke Street, Open Air, Windham hill, Street, Eastside Digital, Reprise and Rhino before finally forming her own label in 2005, Sheeba records.**** Issa was supported and developed from 1988- seventeen years of growth before successfully going her own way.

So how does this relate to the band emerging from the garage and where does this new model feature in their futures?

Music is not just about good songs. Professional music is about good songs, good marketing, great press and working hand in glove with the labels- be that an independent label or a recognised commercial label.

While it’s true that labels make money out of artists, artists also get something from labels- support. It’s all well and good to have a friend who claims they can produce your record for cheap, but that friend may well not be what you need, and your friends are rarely objective in their criticism.

Perhaps if an artist can’t get signed to a label there’s a very good reason for it. What we will hopefully see from the industry is the urge to help develop and support a new generation of artists at the grass roots level; artists and labels working together for mutual success.

That said it’s all on the table and up for grabs.

Whatever path an artist takes it is an immense amount of hard work over a number of years before you reach the heights of Radiohead, Madonna, Queen and others who have won their independence. Consider the time an apprenticeship, invest your time and effort and you will succeed.

There are no over night successes that last; there is no short-cut to success.

It’s a long drawn out process of jigsaws, falling into place.

* http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9812275-7.html

** http://www.mtv.co.uk/channel/mtvuk/news/14112007/383140/we_ll_never_do_a_radiohead

*** http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/11/14/lily-allen-oasis-gene-simmons-backlash-against-radioheads-rainbows/

**** http://www.sheeba.ca/store/index.php?cPath=77

High And Dry?

 

 

 

Radiohead came to test the value of tipping after ending their relationship with EMI records in 2004 with the completion of their warmly received album “Hail to the thief”.

Out of contract and exploring their options, Johnny Greenwood claimed Radiohead proceeded with the experiment “partly just to get it out quickly, so everyone would hear it at the same time, and partly because it was an experiment that felt worth trying, really.”*

Was it a risk they took in offering the album up to fans asking them to “Pay what you want”? Were they creating an album that fans would run away with, leaving Radiohead without reward? Well, no.

You see, this has been done before, but never on such a scale. Issa (formerly known as Jane Siberry) has not only been doing this since 1995, but has documented the results of the exercise on her website. Her results show that of the people who came to her site to download, ninety-four percent paid at or above the suggested price.

The “Experiment,” as Johnny Greenwood called it, is based on the popular concept of tipping; paying a gratuity to a person who provides a service or goods. Many Charities also rely on “The Honesty system” to sell goods-people take the product and pay an agreed sum without supervision.

So before “In rainbows” there was a world of evidence to suggest that people were happy to pay for something when they didn’t have to.

The motivation was there, with Yorke wanting to let a stink bomb off in the industry; the means was there and known to be successful- Siberry’s experience was evidence of that; the capacity- an album – was also there.

As an album “In Rainbows” has received glowing press reviews and has been well received by fans. I found it to be more coherent than Kid A, and more human than OK Computer while still retaining both the diversity and disturbing undertones of these albums. It is arguably their best release to date.

On the week of release the ten tracks contained in the download took the first ten places on Last.Fm’s charts;** dismissing claims by some people that there would be no way to measure the success of the album without the conventional charting methods offered by a label.

The release is not 100% profit for the band; Nigel Godrich and Mark Stent, the producers were paid for the recording; as was Stanley Donwood, who created the artwork. The Internet Exchange Point, PacketExchange, allowed Radiohead to execute the transfer of the 48 Mb zip file flawlessly.

The approach taken by Radiohead is not 100% profit- but it is a much better deal than that offered by any label. They managed a major release without the assistance of a record label, which had little to offer an established act such as Radiohead.

Tomorrow we move on to discuss just why Radiohead doesn’t need a label, but why the record labels remain relevant to the music industry as a whole.

 

* http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2007/10/10/radioheads-jonny-greenwood-on-in-rainbows-its-fun-to-make-people-think-about-what-music-is-worth/

**http://www.last.fm/music/+charts/?charttype=weekly&subtype=track&range=1191758400-1192363200

Reaching People is Easy

“In rainbows” is the seventh studio Album from English band, Radiohead, and was launched with this simple statement from guitarist Johnny Greenwood while sitting at his laptop in his kitchen,

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.

Jonny

In 1997 Radiohead followed up their successful but undistinguished (Despite great tracks such as “Creep” and “High and dry”) first two albums, “Pablo Honey,” and “The Bends” with “OK Computer”. OK Computer’s expansive sounds and heavy anti-consumer themes that resonated with a generation laid the ground work for their 2000 release “Kid A” an album described by some as computers feeling sad and listening to Jazz, minimalist, expansive and even at points uplifting.

They have influenced such acts as Muse, Coldplay, Travis, John Mayer, Bloc party and The Roots. Now there influence has gone one step further and Thom Yorke has made his dreams come true.

“We were having endless debates, spending entire afternoons talking about, ‘Well, if we do something, how do we put it out?’ ” he recalls. “It just became this endless and pointless discussion. Because in our dreams, it would be really nice to just let off this enormous stink bomb in the industry.” –

www.ateaseweb.com/2006/07/03/ny-times-the-sweet-malaise-of-thom-yorke/

As we all know by now, with the Release Of “In Rainbows,”, he has done just that. With Radiohead not signed to any label at all, they offered the album for download on their site, www.inrainbows.com, as a 48Mb self extracting zip file. Radiohead have done this with previous releases, “Kid A” appearing on the now defunct Napster three months before the street date.

Unlike most other models of marketing, Radiohead have asked their fans how much they were willing to pay; you could even download the album for free if you wanted. Gratis. Zero, not a penny if that’s the way you felt.

This has been done before; Jane Siberry has made a practise of this sort of marketing. It is slightly different with Radiohead; Siberry did not have the profile of Radiohead.

In this string of articles I intend to chart the actions of Radiohead and draw comparisons to make this mechanism something that we can all use- the only variation being the degree of ground work that Radiohead has put in. Any act that started 21 years ago (1986) is already going to have a loyal base of fans.