Radiohead fans pay more than £2.90 for digital album. (Maybe)
by Colin Dodd
Radiohead controversy shows limits of knowledge in an Information Age
When people want to know something really badly, someone, somewhere will step up and offer them a number. This number may not be accurate, but that’s almost beside the point: if people want a number and only a single number exists, it won’t be long before pundits start citing it as true. Besides, even if it’s not quite true, it must be in the ballpark, right?
Take the case of Radiohead’s new album, for instance. Released to fans as a direct download that could be had for any price, In Rainbows became a breathlessly-watched experiment in the ways that Internet distribution could be used to bypass the major labels and offer music directly to fans. How many fans picked up a copy? What did they pay? Did US visitors pay more? What’s Radiohead’s total take from the experiment?
These are excellent questions, and everyone wants immediate answers. At the beginning of this last week, Internet metrics firm comScore obliged. They had the numbers; it was all there in black and white. $6 average downloads. 60 percent of downloaders unwilling to pay anything. US users paid more than everyone else ($8.05 vs. $4.64).
Just one problem: Radiohead says that the numbers aren’t true. In a statement later in the week, the band called the figures “purely speculative” and “wholly inaccurate.” The group claimed that no outside organization could possibly have truly accurate information. Of course, they didn’t bother to tell us what the real numbers were, either.
