Radiohead Net 4.8million Pounds From 'In Rainbows'

Average album price paid is 4 quid...

October 12, 2007 by Scott Colothan

Radiohead Net 4.8million Pounds From 'In Rainbows'

A poll of in excess of 3,000 people on a Record of the Day website has found that the average price a Radiohead fan paid for a copy of ‘In Rainbows’ was £4.

Corroborated with our exclusive that the Oxford band shifted 1.2million copies of the album – thanks to inside knowledge of a source close to the band – it means that Radiohead could have potentially earned a massive £4.8million from the album already!

Because the band doesn’t have a record deal, they get to keep the vast majority of the money with minimal overheads. If they were to sell the album through an online distributor, for example, they could see as little as a quarter of that money.

Of course, the band are netting more money via the £40 album box set sales and also the physical CD when it’s released early next year. Download sales are also set to continue.

It seems Thom Yorke and co. are laughing all the way to the bank, then.

You can keep up to date with all the latest news from Gigwise by following us on Twitter and liking us on Facebook.

(13)

There are overheads, you’re forgetting bandwith, studio costs, a producer, money going to the payment processor. But still, they must have netted a lot after those.
~ by Ian 10/12/2007 Report
Damn you don’t half make up some shit on this site.
~ by this guy 10/12/2007 Report
This is a bit basic. It’s also speculating wildly. Of course there are overheads, they’ve just saved a bit on distribution/promotion and seem to have held onto %100 of the royalties. You’re basically making up a story here.
~ by DL 10/12/2007 Report
If any band in the world actually deserved the money alleged here, then Radiohead does. Perhaps the music industry will heed the clarion call in ”2+2=5” and start paying attention.
~ by e 10/12/2007 Report
I’ll believe the 1.2 million figure when I see it confirmed by the band. I’m guessing that it’s about ten times too high a number. Come on.
~ by Juliet 10/12/2007 Report