According to a report from UK newspaper The Times, Radiohead and their former label Parlophone, part of EMI, hit a sour note when the label offered them an advance of $3 million for In Rainbows. Radiohead reportedly thought that was an insult and demanded $10 million. This was the meltdown between label and artist that led to the name-you-own-price In Rainbows
The man wearing the suit in the case was Guy Hands, who recently acquired EMI after his private equity company Terra Firma took over in a £2.1 billion deal. Radhiohead's management implied that Mr. Hands didn't "negotiating seriously."
"Radiohead were demanding an extraordinary amount of money," a rep from the label insisted, "and we did not believe that our other artists should have to subsidise their gains.”
“We couldn’t move ahead with EMI because Guy Hands irrevocably refused to discuss the catalogue in any meaningful way," Bryce Edge, Radiohead's manager told the paper. The band were attempting to negotiate the rights to some of their previous albums, something the label knew would lead to a loss in future profits.
"We sold 25 million records and we have the moral rights over those six albums," Edge insists. "We wanted a say in how they are exploited in the future. We were not seeking a big advance payment, or a guaranteed marketing spend as discussions never got that far.”
In other words it got nasty before it got too far. The band won't be able to own any rights to their previous six albums for 50 years dur to copyright law.
This still left the suited bigwig a little worried and led Mr. Hands to write a letter to EMI artists, like Coldplay and Gorillaz, saying, “We really value the collaborative relationship you have with the many EMI staff globally, who work on your projects.”
In other words...they know they are in trouble.
My Trusted MOGs
Great post - lots of good info - Cheers!
My Trusted MOGs
FWIW, i read an article that said according to (scientific) poll, only 38% of the 1.2 million people who d'loaded the radiohead album paid for it... and the average price paid was $6. so that brings in 2.75 million dollars... not so far away from the 3 million advance that was offered...
My Trusted MOGs
Even if Radiohead "only" got 2.75 million from the download (I doubt those figures are entirely accurate, because they don't seem to account for the automatic charge that went to all orders, regardless of whether you chose to pay anything), they are getting paid again with the proper release. Also, the discbox sale generated some revenue. They will get more than 3 million off this album, deservedly. It makes EMI look really shortsighted.
My Trusted MOGs
There was not an automatic charge for anyone you inputted "0". There was only a service fee of .01 and up. I put in .01 and ended up paying near a dollar, the first time I purchased the album.
My Trusted MOGs
The lowest possible amount for the site was not one british penny. You could input "0", and there was no fee. I didn't have to give credit card information or anything.
Also, do you think that the transaction fee really went to Radiohead?
My Trusted MOGs
I recall there being a service fee, regardless of what was paid. You paid one. I did too. This article says there was one.
"While 1.2 million people visited the site, comScore said, the tracking service could say only that it detected a "significant percentage of visitors ultimately downloading the album." Of that group, only 38 percent of downloaders volunteered to pay anything for the tracks -- the remainder paid only the processing fee of about 50 US cents, a fee attached to every download regardless of the price decided upon by the listener." http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/60191.html?welcome=1199740457
This article says so too.
"As proof, the order form’s section for price is blank — and it will accept the lowest possible amount for the site: One British penny (about two American cents). After a perfunctory credit-card charge, Radiohead, one of the most popular and innovative rock bands of the past two decades, will gladly hand over a copy of the whole album for less than a dollar, PC World concluded in an article noting that Apple’s iTunes Music Store was left out of this deal." http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/radiohead-album-price-tag-its-up-to-you/
Here is another one: "The release was announced with a short message from guitarist Jonny Greenwood on the band's website, revealing that the new album, In Rainbows, would be available to download from October 10. Orders started rolling in yesterday, with customers able decide how much to pay - from nothing (plus a 45p administration charge) upwards" http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/02/digitalmedia.musicnews
My point is that everyone paid at least 50 cents for the download. That means that Radiohead made an additional 400,000 dollars above what the initial figures said (gross). In any case, the "scientific" study that came up with this figure was not based on the actual sales figures, but on the web site traffic. The company that did the study had no access to the real figures.
My Trusted MOGs
Order Number WAS5739512 Order Date Wed 31st Oct 2007
Your Address 48323 MI USADownload
1
£ 0.00
£ 0.00
Total Goods Price £ 0.00 Order Total £ 0.00 This transaction will appear on your credit card bill as WASTE PRODUCTS LTD. or a shortened version of this.
My Trusted MOGs
It appears you are right. If I was cheap enough to stiff Radiohead, I would have found out for myself.
The figures cited above are still not correct and are based on the site traffic, not the sales figures.
My Trusted MOGs
Regarding the fee going to Radiohead, I assume they got at least a portion of it, since it was completely self-released, on their web site, using servers they had just purchased. Who do you think got the fee? EMI?
My Trusted MOGs
I did it in science, haha. I have like 5 receipts to see what would happen. :)
My Trusted MOGs
The credit card company may have gotten a portion also. They can charge 25 - 50 cents per transaction. Of course, the fee was more like 1 dollar, as you attest. That means the fee was probably more than what the credit card company charged.
My Trusted MOGs
That makes sense. When I went on there the first time, I was confounded by the whole system. I was curious what would happen if I put .00 also. I will stop hijacking this thread now.
My Trusted MOGs
Thom Yorke has said:
It was simply a response to a situation. We're out of contract. We have our own studio. We have this new server. What the hell else would we do?
We did not ask for a load of cash from our old record label EMI to re-sign. That is a L I E. The Times in the UK should check its facts before it prints such dirt.
What we wanted was some control over OUR work and how it was used in the future by them -- that seemed reasonable to us as we cared about it a great deal.
Mr. Hands was not interested so neither were we. We made the sign of the cross and walked away. Sadly.
We are extremely upset that this crap is being spread about.
To be digging up such bullshit or more politely airing yer dirty laundry in public seems a very strange way for the head of an international record label to be proceeding.
On a happier note we took no 'bread-head' advances at all from both independent labels XL and TBD for our new record.
So judge for yourself.