This “name your price” success is, I think, just an anomaly. An exciting one, and hopefully inspirational to other bands, but not sustainable.
I think it’s a fairly strong model, because it actually echoes many of the contours of the pre-mass-consumption music industry. Prior to the era where you had to purchase physical objects which contained (somehow) recorded data, musicians relied, in one for or another, on tips, patronage and live performances.
Today, with instantaneous and essentially cost-free global distribution, you can take that same basic model and overlay it on a much more robust industry which is somewhat more lucrative for artists. The “pay what you want” price point recognizes the reality of the current scene (where anyone who wants to can get any music for free) and doesn’t insult the fan’s intelligence, and the $80 deluxe art package creates a premium value that’s both highly profitable for the band, and actually worth something to fans. I think a slightly hybridized model that gives the music away for free and says, “pay us if you like it” could be a big winner for artists with less of a dedicated following.
At the end of the day, people appreciate quality, and most are eager to support the things they like. Radiohead is in a somewhat unique position to do this, but other artists (Prince comes to mind) are making similar breaks away from traditional industry models to great success. It’s not going to happen overnight, but considering there’s been zero innovation from the labels, and online music stores seem to have stabilized in their effect, this is the kind of move coming from artists that could drive some enterprising individuals to really innovate.
However, all of this will almost certainly shrink the traditional industry, as it makes no-talent A&R and radio payola harder to sustain.
We'll see
We’ll definitely see about this, but:
This “name your price” success is, I think, just an anomaly. An exciting one, and hopefully inspirational to other bands, but not sustainable.
I think it’s a fairly strong model, because it actually echoes many of the contours of the pre-mass-consumption music industry. Prior to the era where you had to purchase physical objects which contained (somehow) recorded data, musicians relied, in one for or another, on tips, patronage and live performances.
Today, with instantaneous and essentially cost-free global distribution, you can take that same basic model and overlay it on a much more robust industry which is somewhat more lucrative for artists. The “pay what you want” price point recognizes the reality of the current scene (where anyone who wants to can get any music for free) and doesn’t insult the fan’s intelligence, and the $80 deluxe art package creates a premium value that’s both highly profitable for the band, and actually worth something to fans. I think a slightly hybridized model that gives the music away for free and says, “pay us if you like it” could be a big winner for artists with less of a dedicated following.
At the end of the day, people appreciate quality, and most are eager to support the things they like. Radiohead is in a somewhat unique position to do this, but other artists (Prince comes to mind) are making similar breaks away from traditional industry models to great success. It’s not going to happen overnight, but considering there’s been zero innovation from the labels, and online music stores seem to have stabilized in their effect, this is the kind of move coming from artists that could drive some enterprising individuals to really innovate.
However, all of this will almost certainly shrink the traditional industry, as it makes no-talent A&R and radio payola harder to sustain.