Coldplay vs. Radiohead vs. NIN
DOES FREE MUSIC = MORE POPULAR?
How does "free music" effect a band’s popularity? An analysis by Hitwise (via DMW) showed that Radiohead’s release was much more popular than either Coldplay’s or either of the Nine Inch Nails releases, as measured by US Internet visits. Radiohead also did a much better job of sustaining interest.
Why did Radiohead rule the net since Coldplay is a more popular band by most other measures? Was it because they were Radiohead was the first major band to go free? Or was Coldplay’s single song limited-time offering just not enough to grow and sustain fan interest?
Share on:
I do not think you can gauge band popularity solely based on traffic to the artist’s official website. You should know this especially since you published a post on 4/29/08, saying Coldplay’s “Violet Hill” had been played once every two seconds. In today’s media space it is very difficult to judge a band’s popularity on traffic to their website. Given the amount of alternate channels to interact with a band’s content, I think you need to look at the whole picture to make these assumptions.
agreeing with the last post; i read that coldplay was downloaded over 2 million times, which was more than radiohead
Fair statement. Though I still think its a valid relative comparison particularly since that is where you had to go to get the downloads as well as the top place most bands who have an older than teen audience go to connect with a the band. Or do you think that isn’t true?
Radiohead had a brilliant CAMPAIGN. It had an IDEA. It tapped into CURRENT TRENDS and CONVERSATIONS that were already occuring. It COURTED CONTROVERSY, questioned the STATUS QUO and TOOK ACTION on a subject that had previously been talked about but no one with enough visibility had gone for.
They had a PLAN. It was well rehearsed, constructed and thought out. It worked on many different levels.
This is very different to ‘releasing a free download’. I don’t care how many times something has been downloaded – it’s the coverage that counts. If you look at a ratio of free downloads against column inches I think you’ll find that Radiohead are well ahead.
I mean, we’re talking about Radiohead EVERY time ANYBODY does something even vaguely similar now. THAT is as good as it gets – Radiohead became a verb (almost) – To ‘do’ a Radiohead.
Great PR is about great ideas. Radiohead had one and executed it perfectly. For what it’s worth, I think NiN Trent Reznor did a pretty good job of it, but it was almost too cerebral for mainstream.
But everyone knows what Radiohead ‘did’. The story crossed over into popular culture and made it onto the news across a variety of targets.
In light of this, what Coldplay did just sounds like an afterthought. The Charlatans gave a whole album away just the other month on Alan Mcgee’s label. So what. No story.
If Coldplay gave away free t-shirt they’d probably shift a ton too. So what. No story.
hey julian, your point is well-made, but charlatans announced their free album months BEFORE radiohead did
Julien makes some good points, but I would add that each band’s audience plays a big role in this. To me, I imagine the stereotypical Radiohead fan as a younger, possibly more tech-savy person in which whose life the internet and digital music plays a large part.
Meanwhile, I see Coldplay as a band which may have a larger footprint or fanbase, but they would probably attract more fans that are less tech-savy and probably more casual listeners due to their wider appeal, esspecially compared to a band like Radiohead or even NIN.
It seems to me that the fans of each band are apples and oranges, and since they are the end user, and they are the deciding variables it’s almost a disservice to either band to compare their results.
@ bestman333
But that proves the point doesn’t it? Radiohead’s effort captured the imagination. The Charlatans didn’t manage to create much of a story and failed to really capitalise on what they did.
Radiohead gave an album away in such a way as to make it newsworthy. They did almost exactly the same as what many bands had already done. But they made it news.
I think it’s fine to compare results, but it says more about strategy than music. This stuff ain’t no accident.
’tis not about Radiohead, NIN, or Coldplay. Perhaps it could be argued that Radiohead, NIN and Coldplay have merely exploited free on the Internet to (a) remain relevant and (b) put a finger in the eye of the established music business.
Radiohead was essentially a household name among music fans, while the Charlatans UK never really found a major foothold in the United States. NIN/Trent Reznor created a music genre, and have an established following (established on the dime of major labels mind you). Coldplay has been on hiatus for a couple of years. Though once a ubiquitous band, giving the fans a freebie is an inexpensive way to reintroduce you.
How much money NIN and Radiohead made on their alternative pricing experiment is not all that relevant considering lesser known bands will not do nearly as well. So the question that really needs to be answered is how will currently unknown artists be able to profit from alternative pricing and distributing models in the same way (on a pro rata basis perhaps) as NIN/Radiohead.
Nancy Prager
http://www.nancyprager.wordpress.com