Radiohead essentially put their album online for free but allowed downloaders to "set their own price." The result was that many downloaders paid at least a couple of dollars, which was more than what any record label would have paid them had they been selling copies for $15.98 at some shopping mall record store.
Some downloaders paid as much as $100 (obviously well-off fans who wanted to encourage the process).
As for those who paid nothing, the band has an opportunity to win more fans, especially since traditional radio isn't playing it (they are still too busy playing "flavor of the moment" acts like Timbaland, Britney Spears and Beyonce).
Performing artists offering their music directly to the fans is the wave of the future. That said, I'm dubious about the Eagles decision to market their music through Wal-Mart. No serious music fan goes to Wal-Mart to buy music.
“No serious music fan goes to Wal-Mart to buy music.”
Why not? It is the same CD if it comes from Wal-Mart as if it came from some pompous highbrow music store.
Music is a commodity to be bought at the best price. If you can buy a download you want from Wal-Mart for 88 cents, why buy from a more expensive site?
That’s interesting about Radiohead. Sounds a lot like “Shareware”; download the program for free but make a voluntary donation to the independent programmer if you like the product and what to him or her to develop more.
I agree that this is an option I’d be much more interested in than retailer exclusives.
It would have to be one heck of a great CD before I’d venture into a Walmart. I’m not anti-Walmart, I just hate going there.
“No serious music fan goes to Wal-Mart to buy music.”
Why, do you have to dress down?
Mark
>>No serious music fan goes to Wal-Mart to buy music.
Do serious music fans ever have to buy paper towels, motor oil, greeting cards, or other Wal-Mart staples?
Well, there's no history on a case like this one where they'll go to Wally World or go without.