As Radiohead's "historic" offer is now defunct and they show little interest in continuing as a download provider I'm decommissioning this review, so to speak. Read more here. I'm also downgrading my assessment to "shrugs" out of pure spite.
Of course I'm pushing two weeks behind the curve of the hype on the Radiohead "pay what you like" digital download of their latest album, In Rainbows.
And I'll admit: a part of me is a little annoyed by the degree of swooning, "this changes everything" coverage Radiohead's payment-optional experiment has received. I covered Jane Siberry doing this very thing in March of '06, and it was old news then (what Siberry calls "self-determined pricing" is still the standard at her site and it is still well worth checking out, incidentally). From "try it for free, buy if you feel it" presentations like Harvey Danger to every unsigned solo with free MP3s and a virtual tip jar, "payment optional" is hardly a new deal.
Even so, the distinction here is obvious. Radiohead is a major international act that has demonstrated its ability to debut an album at the top of the charts and sell a million copies in the U.S. alone. After wrapping up their contract with EMI in 2003 they could have rung up any of the major or major-minor labels and entered serious negotiations for a big money record deal. Not selling out is a different kind of decision when there are plenty of interested buyers with deep pockets.
And like a lot of people, I'm happy to see anything that motivates more public dialog about getting past the absurdly counterproductive artificial restrictions of the conventional market for music (and indeed for information in general).
So much for philosophy: on to the commerce experience.
I'll lead with the negatives. If Radiohead deserves bigger kudos for risking an unconventional distribution strategy as a big ticket act, then I give them worse marks for delivering a somewhat clunky, confusing sales experience. When I used it the website was very slow, and the actual transaction was not straightforward.
There are only two products for sale on the site - a costly (around $80 U.S.) discbox that includes vinyl LPs and CDs in premium packaging, and the price-unspecified digital download. Since a download is included in the price of the discbox, there is no reason to purchase more than one of these items. So the fact that the purchaser is forced to go through an "add item to cart/proceed to checkout" sales process is pointless and particularly irritating when each redundant click initiates another glacially slow page load (to add insult to injury, you have to click through two pointless front pages to get to the point where you can actually elect to purchase. I could have saved you the trouble by linking directly to the order page, but I'd hate for you to miss out on the complete Radiohead experience).
Now I could be accused of nitpicking, so I want to reiterate: to the extent that Radiohead made a statement about the roll affordable digital downloads can and should play in commercial music, they diluted this statement by delivering a poorly executed and tedious commerce experience.
Other cons included the fact that the site failed to deliver specifics about the download - format, number of tracks, or overall length - details I considered important to setting a price for the download (I eventually found these facts reported by third parties), some glitches in the checkout process resulting in getting kicked back to blank forms, and the fact that the download delivered only the MP3 tracks, no artwork or lyrics (I know I'm bucking established trends but damn it, delivering data is cheap. If you've got more, give it! Particularly when the purchaser's only options are a very expensive premium physical product versus a bare-bones digital download). Finally, I'm never thrilled when a purchase form requires I enter a mobile phone number. What if Radiohead won't stop texting me?
Moving on to the positives: I'd say that purchasing the album was not a terrible experience, merely substandard. Once I made it to the actual payment screen things went smoothly enough, and I quickly ended up with a link to a reasonably speedy download. The price was right - I elected to pay what I consider a very reasonable $3 (I'll tell you right now that my opinion that the general cost of music online is inflated is going to be an ongoing theme here) - which came out to £1.47. They tacked on a £0.45 service fee for a total £1.92 or about $3.92 U.S. For this I received a 48.4 MB zip archive of 10 160kbps MP3s. The tracks had correctly encoded metadata (mangled or absent track metadata is a HUGE pet peeve) so firing it up in iTunes was a cinch. I had successfully purchased my first Radiohead album. I liked it.
The bottom line: while I wouldn't tolerate this sort of technical incompetence from a website dedicated to selling digital music, I'm going to give Radiohead the benefit of the doubt in assuming that inexperience in the digital market and underestimating the volume of response the offer would receive were more at work in what was wrong with this transaction than actual indifference to the purchaser experience. So on the three point scale I just this moment invented of Props, Shrugs or Hate, I give Radiohead Props. Congratulations, Radiohead, you can now proudly display "the Phree Musique Blog gave the In Rainbows purchase site props!" on your website. Note: not anymore, as noted above. You mopey Limey bastards.
See previous reviews and submit sites for review at the Index Page
3 comments:
I agree with your assessment of the substandard e-commerce experience, but I chalked that up to the "artsiness" of Radiohead in general They've had these kinds of "Lori Anderson Inspired" websites since the get go, so this was expected.
Also, as far as missing meta-data goes, there was no cover art included in the digital download. I ended up taking a screengrab of the homepage which really wasn't too bad.
Finally, I'll agree with you one more time that what makes this a "swooning" event is the amount of guaranteed money they likely turned down in favor of freedom. Can't say that about a "dude in a basement" ;-)
Yeah, I'm thinkin' that the guy working at the gas station and pursuing fiscal independence via the music profession would be hard pressed to take inspiration here.
It smells like the difference between the farmer that toils day in and out versus the Investment Banker buying a hobby farm. Same end result, but much different priority.
Radiohead as hobby farmers... a little harsher than I would characterize it, WD45! But it raises an interesting point: while events like this may well mark a real shift in the the business and culture of music, and one that may be a solid win for the consumer, it doesn't necessarily mean the average low profile self-employed musician is going to make any gains beyond what he or she already has been quietly capitalizing on, to whatever degree possible, already: that is, access to outlets like CD Baby or iTunes, low cost promotion through the internet, and so on. Does the fact that Radiohead "legitimizes" the model and causes a certain amount of buzz really help with the true indie's primary and perennial problem: getting found. It doesn't much matter how long that tail is, at the far end it's too skinny to pay anyone anything meaningful... except, of course, the aggregators. Who, in the case of, say Google, might even be so kind as to hold on to your pitiful Adsense earnings indefinitely - in their bank accounts, natch.
Same as the old boss? Plenty more discussion of these issues to come...
Post a Comment