Radiohead Calls ComScore Report Inaccurate

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Earlier this week, ComScore claimed that 62 percent of all people that downloaded Radiohead’s new album didn’t pay a dime for it. The band released a statement calling those numbers “wholly inaccurate.” While I am certainly no expert, I tend to believe the bands numbers versus an analysts prediction based on the “behavior of 1,000 internet users.”

Radiohead stuck up for its fans on Friday. The rock band denied that 62 percent of those who downloaded the group's new album paid nothing for the music.
Click to expand...
 
Their figures are only based on, "several hundred people" who purchased the Radiohead album, with no mention of how they sampled them.

Their data is nonsense. You would need many thousands in order to sample different countries, cities, towns, home users, cafe users etc. etc. before you could come up with something even vaguely representative of the true figures.
 
I think it was CNN that covered this (yesterday?) and mentioned the free,low but IGNORED those who payed MORE.
the other commentator came back with "well of course"

If I remembered who I would have emailed but I was dead tired so let it go
 
They don't get that it DOESN'T MATTER how many people paid for it. It matters if it was profitable and generated reasonable income compared to doing business via a major label.

If I would have shipped 2 million albums, and made $2 an album (being very generous with that number), all you have to do is match the $4 million income to be a huge success.

Honestly, I imagine getting $3 million dollars would be a huge success, as I don't really ever hear anyone say how much they like dealing with music execs and A&R guys and label accountants and lawyers and whatnot, and it's not like the lawyers are free.

It doesn't matter if 38% of people paid nothing if they were all people who wouldn't normally purchase radiohead albums.

I think the Saul Williams album will be more telling in the long run. It's a guy that doesn't ship a bajillion albums who the labels treat like the average artist, unlike radiohead. There's a only a couple tracks that I think are decen't on the album, but it's only $5 and he gets it enough to have it available in FLAC so I don't have to listen to crappy mp3s.
 
The financial success of the endeavor doesn't matter to the general media. It's another opportunity to show how dishonest music fans are and how they'll steal anything that isn't locked down. See! 62% of them STOLE Radiohead's album!
 
raz-0 said:
They don't get that it DOESN'T MATTER how many people paid for it. It matters if it was profitable and generated reasonable income compared to doing business via a major label.

If I would have shipped 2 million albums, and made $2 an album (being very generous with that number), all you have to do is match the $4 million income to be a huge success.

Honestly, I imagine getting $3 million dollars would be a huge success, as I don't really ever hear anyone say how much they like dealing with music execs and A&R guys and label accountants and lawyers and whatnot, and it's not like the lawyers are free.

It doesn't matter if 38% of people paid nothing if they were all people who wouldn't normally purchase radiohead albums.

I think the Saul Williams album will be more telling in the long run. It's a guy that doesn't ship a bajillion albums who the labels treat like the average artist, unlike radiohead. There's a only a couple tracks that I think are decen't on the album, but it's only $5 and he gets it enough to have it available in FLAC so I don't have to listen to crappy mp3s.
Click to expand...

I downloaded Saul's album, and would have been dearly disappointed and mad if I paid for it, cause it was crap. Some songs were good, but not good enough for a second listen. If only his album was more like the "List of Demands" single he had out before. I wish him luck though.
 
If its a big deal to Radiohead, then they should just release the actual figuers.
 
RoBo said:
They gave it away and asked people to pay what they want. Nobody stole it.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I meant that in a sarcastic tone. Figured it would translate given the context relative to the rest of my post.
 
Finkus said:
Their figures are only based on, "several hundred people" who purchased the Radiohead album, with no mention of how they sampled them.

Their data is nonsense. You would need many thousands in order to sample different countries, cities, towns, home users, cafe users etc. etc. before you could come up with something even vaguely representative of the true figures.
Click to expand...

You do not need more than a few hundred people provided the sample is good. That's sufficient to get you an error level of a few percent, increasing the sample size beyond this yields very small gains in the margin of error. Conversely a huge sample size won't help if it's a bad sample. See the 1932(??) US election poll that surveyed several million car owners and predicted FDRs defeat for the best known example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top