it looks like maybe me have a new business model.
i wouldn't go that far. it's a great idea, it's been a LONG time coming too. shit, i'd been talking about offering free low quality mp3s in advance of cds for years but that doesn't really matter.
the main stumbling block with radiohead's
stunt (and i'm very much starting to think it was in fact a stunt) is that they didn't clearly disclose the product the consumers were getting until maybe 2 nights ago. by which point most people had already paid. only to find out they would only be getting 160kb/s mp3s (like offering to sell DVDs only to find out they're dubs of VHS tapes - AFTER you paid). will they be getting a discount for a lossless quality album when i hits shelves next year? even if they paid a retail price for the download? who knows? maybe RH will wise up and find a way to compensate the fans (coupons for the cd maybe?)
it was a great idea... but it got ****** up along the way. i'm not sure who dropped the ball but it fell. i'm not thinking it's going to ruin radiohead or anything but it's not going to reshape the industry yet.
i think the main issue is that the downloads were presented as 'the album' at 'whatever price the consumer wants to pay'. instead of a decent quality advanced copy for a voluntary tribute / donation. i figure if they had been upfront like that from the get go they would have made about as much since the only people who'd line up for something like this would be their hardcore fans.
as for trent reznor, he's the perfect example of a musician who should have learned how to read a contract on his own.
