The first official news has hit the wire. Radiohead has signed with ATO Records to distribute In Rainbows in the US, with a release date of January 1, 2008. XL Recordings is distributing the album in the UK.

Considering this morning’s post, I wanted to break the big news, as it was released today.

One of my very good friends, the Rev. Dr. Xenlab, is someone I count on to give me honest feedback about what I’m up to.? He was a co-founder of Polyvibe, left the company shortly after it was founded, and is the current provider of our web hosting, as well as a sometimes consultant in the world of internet technology, branding, and marketing.? Once he got wind of this letter, he sent me an email saying “Post it as an open letter on the net.”? I was stopped by fear of looking silly until this morning, when I saw he scooped me. Feeling even more foolish having my own story scooped, I was inspired into action.

Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Radiohead last week.? Keep in mind I was unable to find an accurate email address, so while you get to read it, they have not.
*Start Transmission*

Hello,

We’re Polyvibe Records, a very small independent label in the US. We applaud your effort to short circuit the industry behemoth, and we are contacting you with a very unconventional proposition.

While Polyvibe is a very small label, we are fully committed to artist empowerment, and providing artists with the tools and freedom they need to have fulfilling careers.

We would be honored to be considered as the label to distribute In Rainbows in the US.

We are aware that you are being courted by hundreds of major and independent labels for the opportunity to release your album. We see a magnificent opportunity to make a powerful statement for the future of the music industry, a future where artists are free to create and distribute their music any way they choose, and without constant criticism and scrutiny form the corporate media.

Clearly it won’t matter what label distributes In Rainbows, as the sales of the album are based on artist recognition. There are no actions labels need to take to assure the success of your album. Regardless of your label choice, thank you for considering us.

Thank you for giving this email your time and attention.

-Mic Mell
President / A&R
Polyvibe
www.Polyvi.be
www.PolyvibeEntertainmentGroup.com

*End Transmission*

The Bottom Line:? You never lose something by asking. Any of you out there who have a dream, a vision, or a plan, remember that the worst someone can say is no.? And if you still get nervous when it’s time to make the powerful request, keep me in mind.? After all, what can you ask for that’s riskier than this?
Oh, and if you know how to contact Radiohead, let them know Polyvibe says Hello.

This has been all over the internet this morning. I was forwarded the link above, so TechConsumer gets the nod. Here’s the official statement from Radiohead regarding the recent sales reporting of In Rainbows, first reported by comScore Inc.

Let’s look at it from a different angle.

Consider that no one but the band’s organization has accurate sales totals, and they are not required to release those figures. While comScore may have a powerful system to approximate results, it’s still speculation. Fans don’t care how many albums the band sells, they’re buying it for the music. So why is the industry racing to release information that the ‘experiment’ is a ‘failure’, and why is the media scrambling to report sales totals for In Rainbows?

If In Rainbows proves to be a success (and I predict the band will make more money for themselves then they did on Kid A), then platinum artists don’t need major labels to promote them anymore. Major labels are scrambling to show the experiment doesn’t work to protect their interests. Their marketing machine propelled Radiohead to the spotlight, and now the band can generate media frenzy on their own. If this works for Radiohead, it can work for all artists with millions of loyal fans.

Thanks to the overwhelm of media coverage on the album, Radiohead doesn’t need to spend a penny on promotion if they choose. Once an artist reaches iconic status, they need no entity to propel their career, as long as the music is quality (and the reviews of In Rainbows are glowing). This kind of free publicity eliminates the need for huge marketing pushes. Without multi-platinum artists to buffer the bottom line, major labels are nothing more than upper-tier indie labels with massive back catalogs. Thus, the need to publicly show that the method doesn’t work. The reporting of In Rainbows isn’t about album sales or revenue, it’s about keeping mega-stars on major label rosters.

This story does not represent a shift in the music industry, it represents a shift for mega-artists. Once an artist has broken into international stardom, they no longer need the promotional muscle of major labels. The echo chamber of media almost guarantees releases from superstar artists will be plastered all over media outlets, with the hopes of generating readers, viewers, or web hits. The major label business model does not account for artists leaving the label after they are mega-stars. That’s where the major labels became major in the first place.

However, In Rainbows has little or no effect on the rest of the industry, as there are not many bands that can be compared to Radiohead in terms of success. For the 95% of artists that have not had a decade of major label development and promotion, Saul Williams‘ new release (produced by Trent Reznor) is the one to watch. Released with an option to buy or download at a lower bit rate, his sales figures are a measure of what is available for a mid level artist using this tactic. Of course, Saul Williams’ Q Score is much lower than Radiohead’s, so we haven’t heard much about this.

The story here isn’t Radiohead’s actions around In Rainbows, but rather the power they have to cause huge ripples in public conversation without the major label that broke them. Regardless of the amount of money made, In Rainbows shows that superstar acts can release an independent album and maintain their media spotlight.

The sales figures are a red herring for the real issue: Major labels have lost their ability to be the only avenue for mega-artists success, and these artists represent a huge part of their revenue.

Digital Music News bills itself as “the news and information authority for music industry and technology executives. Our readership is a … digital music executive audience representing … traditional labels, music subscription and download stores, online music stores, digital radio companies, P2P applications, legal services, portable mp3 player manufacturers, and micropayment firms, just to name a few”

So far, approximately 38% of fans have bought the new Radiohead album In Rainbows. Considering that Radiohead reaps 100% of the profits, they’re probably making more than they did before.

“According to the data, 17 percent [of fans] paid an average of $4 for the album, while 12 percent paid between $8 and $12…Radiohead sold well past one million units on the album.” If the numbers above are accurate reflections of what people are paying, the total rake for this album so far is a significant amount of money. And in short span of time.

“The result deflates the excitement surrounding the effort, heralded by many as a groundbreaking model. It also challenges the levels of loyalty that established bands can expect from longtime fans.” How does this deflate the model? If a million people buy an album they can get for free, doesn’t that show there’s still a demand? Apparently even when music is totally free people still choose to buy it. The only group of people disenfranchised by this development are major labels, who will be forced to abandon almost all artist development and marketing models in the face of this trend.

“Elsewhere, large numbers of fans continue to grab the album outside of the Radiohead website on free file-sharing networks, another unexpected development.” Unexpected? How can anyone who follows the current industry trends see file sharing as an unexpected development?

Kudos to Alexandra Osorio on having a detailed breakdown of the sales of In Rainbows. As far as the analysis goes, its obvious who their readership is when they call file sharing of In Rainbows unexpected.

Many artists that experience high volumes of downloads on p2p networks also experience brisk sales. The days of mega-platinum albums are pretty much at an end, so I’m defining brisk sales as between 50,000 to 7 million units sold. This is abroad spectrum, as it includes middle tier artists as well. The future of music will most like include far more middle tier artists, making a decent living, and fewer multi million dollar pop sensations.

The actions of Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and Saul Williams are not meant to devalue music to nothing. These artists want people to buy their music. They pay their mortgages, buy their gas, and feed their kids off music sales and gigs. The intention behind these artists’ actions are to move forward a major shift in the music business. The sooner major labels are out of the picture, the sooner our culture can have a conversation about the value of music. It;s great that people can choose how much they want to pay to support artists. At the same time, all of us in the middle or lower tiers of the industry cannot sustain a vibrant career without revenue. Digital music sales are expanding rapidly; obviously people are buying music.

Consider that people can get almost any music they want for free. With a small amount of effort, any album can be found, downloaded, and added to a collection as an MP3. So when people do buy music, what does it measure?

The Love of the Music

Album and track sales measure artist support, and appreciation of the music itself. When major albums are leaked well in advance of release dates and still sell well, it’s clear that the people buying it don’t have to. Why would people buy something they can get for free? It’s not consistent with a capitalist mentality.

Music is in a post capitalist environment, and totally uncharted territory for any commodity. There is no scarcity of music, and the supply outstrips the demand by miles. When people buy an album, they are saying “I like this music or artist enough to support them. I want them to continue to make great music, and I am moved and touched by what they create.”

Sales dynamics and trends for non-major label releases follow a completely different set of rules than mainstream music sales do. Mega-Artists that are joining the ranks of independent musicians aren’t breaking new ground as much as they are creating a public awareness of the way the music business works for most of the artists in it. For those of us in the trenches of our careers, they are putting a spotlight on how we do business.

Free downloads from major artists are simply a proving ground that in the post major label era of music, people will still buy music they support. The only difference between downloading an album for free on an artist site or off Bit Torrent is the amount of effort one has to put in (i.e. clicking a link instead of typing a name into a search prompt).

Although accurate sales totals for In Rainbows won’t be available till the end of the year, it’s clear people are willing to pay for music when they are not forced to. Now that big time acts are involved in the independent music world, there’s no denying that people buy music they love, even if it’s free. The only thing that has changed with In Rainbows is the kind of market analysis we are seeing in major media publications. Major labels can’t whitewash entertainment news about the reality of the business anymore.

When people have access to the music they want for free, and without being treated like criminals, supporting the artist is a natural action to take. it’s when we are treated like criminals, or asked to pay large sums of money for long dead artists, that the public begins to resent buying music.

The Bottom Line: Album sales no longer measure marketing ability or brand placement, they measure people’s love of the music.

What do you think?

What do album sales measure?

Are Radiohead/Saul Williams/NIN breaking new ground, are are they amplifying a message that most of us already hear?

Having seen this post a couple days ago, I feel compelled to put my two bits into the future of albums. It is true that Prince gave his album away in a newspaper, and that Radiohead is breaking new ground with their latest album (for those of you living in a cave, you can choose how much you want to pay for the album).

Animosity toward major record companies is growing faster than US citizens contempt for their government (I’ll refrain from linking out to anything here). The entertainment industry is entering what is known as a paradigm shift. It’s a blessing that international acts who have sold tens of millions of albums are bucking the existing system, and thus speeding up its downfall. Once the major labels are gone (or reduced to distribution entities), a new paradigm for the music industry will emerge.

I’m going to speculate on two different future paradigms for the entertainment industry.
In the bleak future, there are almost no major studios, and there are only one or two companies making high end studio gear. In this future, albums are considered such a small part of an artist’s career that the effort and attention paid to them diminishes. A professional musician becomes someone who tours and sells merch exclusively, while the number of live venues and outlets for performance shrink exponentially (Have you heard what is happening in orchestras?). As internet streams and access to media continues to increase, the value of going to a live show also drops. In this future, there is zero market for music as a commodity. Almost all musicians become hobbyists, and only artists with marketing budgets to swamp the internet garner popularity. Most musicians will no longer believe that they can live their dreams, and less and less of us will be willing to take the risks that it takes to generate rampant success. In this future, acts like Metallica and Radiohead will continue to make money – their touring and merch machines can support a massive infrastructure.

While this future is depressing, it is not the future we are living into culturally. Major acts are taking actions now that will ensure that the market for music opens up, and are creating an environment where any artist can create success with dedication and commitment. In fact, going back to Radiohead (check out the comments on this article), fans are embracing the opportunity to support an artist, and are buying the album.

Depending on how you look at things now, you can say that albums sales are bottoming out, or you can say that the imbalance of major label influence is being removed from the sales figures.

The future we are actually living into (in my humble opinion) is one where albums sell, and fans want to buy music they love. Most of the animosity toward buying music has to do with pricing structures and that major labels take most of the money. Even though people can download anything they want for free, albums are still selling. While the value of albums may drop, the percentage going to artists will increase, balancing out the pot for artists (the only party that fans care about anyways). A billion downloads is not a coincidence. A la carte downloads are novel now, but just like a six pack is far cheaper than buying one can of soda, the value of buying an album will follow the same path.
We can look at the actions of multi-platinum artists as a litmus test for the music industry, but they do not represent most artists. Gauging the future of album sales on artists who have sold millions of albums is no different that gauging the future of album sales on major label methodology. The typical mid level artist has neither the resources nor the clout to write off the value of albums.

There will be a shift in the perceived value of music by fans, too. Once DRM goes away, and people stop trying to litigate file sharing away, audiences will begin to give up their resentment of buying music. With software, file sharing is also rampant. Yet software companies are selling enough units to stay in business.

People value things more when they buy them. A hard drive filled with downloaded music
will never go away (and is there any of us who have no mix tapes or downloaded songs?

While the current environment of corporate pressure raises hackles, audiences want great albums to listen to. We just don’t want to be told we’re criminals.

The future of music lies in respecting the choice of the audience. If people don’t want to buy an artists music, but they want to listen to it, more power to them. As long as they enjoy it. If people love music, they will buy it.

On a final note, we of the Polyvibe are putting our music out on p2p networks. Feel free to enjoy it. If you like what you hear, support the artists.

*The opinions expressed above are my own, and are intended to provide a perspective outside of mainstream music industry types. We are committed to creating a conversation about what is possible for the future of music outside of mainstream perspectives.