Radiohead says 62% figure is crap

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:45 am

Just as I suspected......you can't believe everything you read, and statistics can be made to say whatever the author wants....

From a post at Gearslutz:

[quote]radiohead denies those numbers :

••œIn response to purely speculative figures announced in the press regarding the number of downloads and the price paid for the album, the group••™s representatives would like to remind people that••¦ it is impossible for outside organisations to have accurate figures on sales.

However, they can confirm that the figures quoted by the company comScore Inc are wholly inaccurate and in no way reflect definitive market intelligence or, indeed, the true success of the project.••

YouTube · Post by **James Steele** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:52 am

Well that's cool. I know I was the one who posted the story that ran in the Associated Press. I'd like to hear what the actual figures are but they're not saying. I'm sure they have some good reasons why. They don't say or imply if the actually numbers were *better* do they?

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:18 am

James Steele wrote:Well that's cool. I know I was the one who posted the story that ran in the Associated Press. I'd like to hear what the actual figures are but they're not saying. I'm sure they have some good reasons why. They don't say or imply if the actually numbers were *better* do they?

Yeah, true. They didn't say anything about the real numbers, just that the ones published were not accurate. Guess I was in a glass-half-full state of mind, assuming that it was better than stated.

I did start to wonder about the scientific rigor of this company's surveying methods.....they only used "a few hundred" people in the survey, and those few hundred people were only people that had signed up on this company's website....that hardly seems like a survey that represents a widespread view of the general public at large.

[edited out my own stupidity.

]

Kubi · Post by **Kubi** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:07 am

Resonant Alien wrote: But.......if the "others outside the US" were in the UK or Europe, that $4.50 USD translates into about 7 Euro or about 9 Pounds....both are reasonable payments in the country's actual currency....misleading to say the least.

Oh boy, don't we all wish you were right. But $4.50 is about 3 Euros, or 2.25 pounds. The dollar is very weak right now...

Resonant Alien · Post by **Resonant Alien** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:36 am

Kubi wrote:
Resonant Alien wrote: But.......if the "others outside the US" were in the UK or Europe, that $4.50 USD translates into about 7 Euro or about 9 Pounds....both are reasonable payments in the country's actual currency....misleading to say the least.
Oh boy, don't we all wish you were right. But $4.50 is about 3 Euros, or 2.25 pounds. The dollar is very weak right now...

DUH. Sorry - not enough coffee when I posted that.........

Did the math backwards.....hoo hee back to bed.......

OldTimey · Post by **OldTimey** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:03 pm

i was surprised when i read james' post. i had heard on a podcast devoted to independent music that more people had paid than had not paid. but that may have been only taking the first two weeks of it's availability into account. or it might have been BS.