http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1883 http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/10/...tes-radio.html
As of November, by most accounts, they had made $6-10 million. Not bad, and that's before the $80 version comes out.
Now, a lot of people will take issue with the vast number of people who chose to pay nothing, to which I would counter:
1) They still made $6 million in a month.
2) Many people who downloaded for free simply would not have bought the album if they had to pay for it. It's like when the movie industry will say they "lost" $25 million dollars from people downloading "Norbit". Not that "In rainbows" was a "Norbit".
3) Did you try to use the Radiohead site? It was impossible to navigate. Artsy as it was, by the end, I was so frustrated at the hoop I had to jump through, I left, at the downloading page, without downloading. It angered me that much. Love radiohead, like the album, love their attitude, but as a consumer I have to say that if Amazon had been in charge of their distribution, they would have seen a lot more people paying.
4) They are still a multi-million dollar band and, like home theater, every $$ you spend from your budget on radiohead is one less $$ that goes to small acts who need the money more, like
Jill Sobule. If I have $25 to spend on music, I'm going to be more inclined to give it to to act who needs it more. Radiohead will make more music, if Jill can't eat, she may never release another album.