|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 23, 2012 21:48:53 GMT -5
The same reason why they did it with GaGa last year. It's a highly anticipated album that is guaranteed to sell well. It'll be in high demand so it'll be their way to win over customers from iTunes who will pay $9.99 for it there but just a few dollars or less for it on their website. It's a risk the label weren't willing to take because if a bunch of people jumped ship from iTunes and went to Amazon or Google, those sales numbers wouldn't count toward a potential recording breaking first-week total. Not worth it.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Oct 23, 2012 21:55:21 GMT -5
I think if they got the album when everyone else did they wouldn't need to sell it for a dollar. 4 or 5 bucks would still be a great deal, lose them less money, have the album sales count, AND win them over new customers.
|
|
swim
New Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 408
|
Post by swim on Oct 23, 2012 21:57:12 GMT -5
I was going to wait for the Amazon MP3, but I won't purchase a copy if the discounted price won't count as a sale. I will not be buying it on iTunes this week.
|
|
|
Post by Living Legend on Oct 23, 2012 22:03:46 GMT -5
I hope that Taylor sells 1.2 million. Her and Britney can remain the Top 2 after that.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 23, 2012 22:20:57 GMT -5
I think if they got the album when everyone else did they wouldn't need to sell it for a dollar. 4 or 5 bucks would still be a great deal, lose them less money, have the album sales count, AND win them over new customers. It's still not a risk worth taking. $4 or $5 is still a good deal but Amazon and Google are known for selling albums at sale prices of cheaper than that. They don't care if their albums contribute to the charts at all.
|
|
🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾
Diamond Member
Banned
I will beach both of you off at the same time!
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 69,123
|
Post by 🅳🅸🆂🅲🅾 on Oct 23, 2012 22:56:11 GMT -5
Welp. Guess that mean's Amazon is selling the album for below $3.49 next week. I wouldn't expect anything less after Frank's album. They could do it anytime after they are given authorization to sell it. If they continue to do this sort of thing, I could see artists and labels not allowing their albums to be sold through there. This really pisses me off. I can see waiting a week or even a month, but the entire era? Are they trying to make it harder for her to peak higher on the Hot 100? They could still decide to put it on those subscription and streaming services later on. Nothing is set in stone. Adele's 21 was never made available on Spotify either and look at how massive its sales were (There are other reasons for that album's success too). "Rolling In The Deep" was on there though. I do think that having it on there would be helpful for those who want to hear the album without getting an illegal leaked version, or for convenience. I am one of those people who likes to listen to the albums on Spotify first to see what it's like and then buy it if I do. I have bought many albums I wouldn't have otherwise bought. The same reason why they did it with GaGa last year. It's a highly anticipated album that is guaranteed to sell well. It'll be in high demand so it'll be their way to win over customers from iTunes who will pay $9.99 for it there but just a few dollars or less for it on their website. It's a risk the label weren't willing to take because if a bunch of people jumped ship from iTunes and went to Amazon or Google, those sales numbers wouldn't count toward a potential recording breaking first-week total. Not worth it. After the massive glitches that were associated with downloading Gaga album from Amazon during the promotional period last year, many customers were turned off by Amazon's digital store. The customer service was surprisingly unprepared to handle all the customer complaints and problems. Even though the album was $1 and that is not a lot of money, but it's for the principle. Some people still haven't received the full, proper download they had paid for during the promotion. But, besides Frank, and Gaga I suppose, have they sold new albums before the 4 week mark for less than the $3.49? I don't think so, so they are following the rules, except for when an exclusive deal was used against them. They did that with Mary J. Blige's new album released last year. I think it was released the same week as the Black Friday shopping day and that album along with a bunch of others were sold at that price. Perhaps Amazon did not get the memo...
|
|
ILLUSION
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
"casually cruel in the name of being honest"
Joined: October 2012
Posts: 5,944
|
Post by ILLUSION on Oct 23, 2012 23:08:41 GMT -5
According to ABC GMA Today,Taylor sold 4 Million copies in one day!!! Go Taylor!!! This is a laugh. There is no way, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Oct 23, 2012 23:10:09 GMT -5
According to ABC GMA Today,Taylor sold 4 Million copies in one day!!! Go Taylor!!! This is a laugh. There is no way, sorry. It was an error on their part. I forget what was supposed to be said, I'm sure it's in here or the Red thread. But, besides Frank, and Gaga I suppose, have they sold new albums before the 4 week mark for less than the $3.49? I don't think so, so they are following the rules, except for when an exclusive deal was used against them. They did that with Mary J. Blige's new album released last year. I think it was released the same week as the Black Friday shopping day and that album along with a bunch of others were sold at that price. Perhaps Amazon did not get the memo... Didn't know about that one, thanks though! Although it does sound vaguely familiar, but I would have said it was physical sales that were too cheap.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 23:11:29 GMT -5
I think they meant 4 million including digital single sales of the individual album tracks.
|
|
|
Post by chocolatethunder on Oct 23, 2012 23:14:30 GMT -5
I hate the chick but have to congratulate her on this amazing achievement!!! There is a lot of people out there with amazing levels of tolerance.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Oct 23, 2012 23:40:17 GMT -5
Or 4 million for worldwide shipments...
|
|
|
Post by jj99$ - - LeLe on Oct 24, 2012 7:50:57 GMT -5
I think its 4 million Digital Singles Sold from RED. Which is Believable.
|
|
|
Post by jj99$ - - LeLe on Oct 24, 2012 8:03:33 GMT -5
Taylor's Whole Album is Available to stream on her Official SoundCloud.
That's where ive been listening to All the promo singles, which were duly uploaded as they were released.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 24, 2012 8:24:37 GMT -5
Believe it or not- and I know it's hard to believe- some labels aren't as invested in Hot 100 chart placements as others. They'd rather see more green, in terms of album sales. Funny that is, a business trying to be profitable.
|
|
bornfearless2000
4x Platinum Member
SOMETHING IN THE WATER
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 4,020
|
Post by bornfearless2000 on Oct 24, 2012 8:29:26 GMT -5
I hope she won't break Britney's record
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 8:43:09 GMT -5
Believe it or not- and I know it's hard to believe- some labels aren't as invested in Hot 100 chart placements as others. They'd rather see more green, in terms of album sales. Funny that is, a business trying to be profitable. Yes - money makes the world go around. Many of Taylor Swifts past Hot 100 "hits" have had Glee-like chart runs. If getting people to buy more of the 1.29 single was preferred over getting people to buy the reguar issue, then buy the target issue then the super-deluxe reissue for 15 dollars each then they would do that
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 8:43:44 GMT -5
I hope she won't break Britney's record 1.1 is the current estimate, I doubt it will come any where near 1.3
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 24, 2012 9:03:58 GMT -5
Believe it or not- and I know it's hard to believe- some labels aren't as invested in Hot 100 chart placements as others. They'd rather see more green, in terms of album sales. Funny that is, a business trying to be profitable. It depends on the artist. Everyone who puts out an album may not be able to sell the album. Singles are a much easier sell for people....especially, if they are a new artist.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Oct 24, 2012 9:04:54 GMT -5
I hope she won't break Britney's record 1.1 is the current estimate, I doubt it will come any where near 1.3 I think it's going to be right around 1m or 980k. I love that Amazon is getting hammered for their pricing. I think the record company model of holding back Amazon releases until later should be a model for the book companies as well.
|
|
chartfreak
Diamond Member
Enter your message here...
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 10,310
|
Post by chartfreak on Oct 24, 2012 9:25:54 GMT -5
They may not care about the Hot 100 chart, but they definitely care about the BB 200.
|
|
neally
Diamond Member
Everybody wants to throw it all away sometimes
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 12,141
|
Post by neally on Oct 24, 2012 9:28:41 GMT -5
Exactly, album sales are down over 50% during the past decade thanks to the digital era, where folks can buy individual tracks and pirate music easily. If Taylor opens with > 1 million album sales for the week, that would translate to ~ 2 million in sales from over a decade ago. No matter how you spin or slice it, Taylor's sales are simply UNBELIEVABLE and IMO, will have exceed Britney's record with the above sales adjustment factor. Not a big fan of made up "adjustment factors" Who knows if Taylor's music would have clicked enough a decade ago to sell any copies at all? There is more to consider than "selling 1 million today is like selling whatever 10 years ago" 1 million happens enough these days in "depressed climates" that you can't blame it on that. In any day and age, it takes a hot album from a hot artist to sell one million I agree with your last statement. Since you choose not to consider the 50% decline in album sales from the past decade, do you then consider adding in the Digital Track Equivalent Album (TEA) where 10 digital tracks= 1 TEA. If so, would it be fair in your opinion to add Taylor's actual album (physical + digital sales) + her TEA (total digital track sales for the week/10)= Equivalent album sales ? Unless I am incorrect in believing that these digital tracks are NOT counted twice, I think the equivalent album sales number is fair and should easily exceed Britney's (and many other artists' records), no ? I think this would be necessary for any valid comparison of a album from the digital era to an album from the non-digital era.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 24, 2012 9:47:12 GMT -5
Yes, chartfreak- hence, being profitable. :)
|
|
Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...
Diamond Member
All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter
Joined: February 2008
Posts: 18,336
|
Post by Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... on Oct 24, 2012 9:56:24 GMT -5
Believe it or not- and I know it's hard to believe- some labels aren't as invested in Hot 100 chart placements as others. They'd rather see more green, in terms of album sales. Funny that is, a business trying to be profitable. They may not care about the Hot 100 chart, but they definitely care about the BB 200. Yes, chartfreak- hence, being profitable. :) They're obviously concern with both charts. The iTunes countdown deal is proof of that.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Oct 24, 2012 9:59:01 GMT -5
^Well, yes, to a degree with singles sales, but that also builds anticipation for the album. :)
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Oct 24, 2012 10:03:59 GMT -5
Yes, but when the album comes out, it all about the album sales.
Hence, the pizza promotion and drug store promotion...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 13:35:42 GMT -5
ONE-DAY SALES: SWIFT VICTORY Red on Track for 1.1-1.2m: Kendrick Lamar Splashes Down in 225-240 Range; Tony Bennett, Gary Clark, Jr. and More Touch Down
October 24, 2012
Taylor Swift’s Red is on track for a massive 1.1-1.2 million debut, making the Big Machine singer-songwriter-megastar the first artist in more than a decade to pass the million mark on two consecutive first weeks. (The last? The Backstreet Boys, who accomplished this hat trick with Millennium and Black and Blue in 1999 and 2000). And get your head around this: The Red juggernaut could sell more than the entire Top10 from the corresponding week last year; for the week ending 10/30/11, that bunch—including Coldplay’s #1 Xyloto—totaled 1.124m.
Eyes are also on Aftermath/Interscope’s hip-hop breakout Kendrick Lamar, meanwhile, who will move an impressive 225-240k. In a Taylor-free debut week, he'd likely be stomping the chart like Godzilla, so much respect is due.
Tony Bennett’s latest Columbia set, the Latin-accented Viva Duets (featuring Christina Aguilera, Marc Anthony and Gloria Estefan, among other co-stars), will croon up 27-30k.
Other noteworthy bows include Roadrunner’s Stone Sour at 24-27k; Warner Bros.’ blues-rock-soul guitar hero Gary Clark, Jr. (18-21k); Astralwerks’ Swedish House Mafia (17-20k); and Capitol Nashville/EMI’s Lady Antebellum (17-20k).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 13:36:18 GMT -5
Now that we are pushing 1.2 million for an estimate - cue the Britney posts
|
|
|
Post by josh on Oct 24, 2012 13:38:10 GMT -5
Wasn't NSYNC the last, not Backstreet Boys, to do 2 million debuts?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2012 13:40:02 GMT -5
^Actually it was Eminem.... Wait that was week 2, nevermind. Yeah NSYNC is the correct answer.
And a hat trick is 3 not 2
|
|
jgizzle89
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,550
|
Post by jgizzle89 on Oct 24, 2012 13:40:18 GMT -5
Honestly, Kendrick Lamar's numbers are FAR more impressive given Taylor's expectations based on her past 1st-week performance and constant success of her iTunes singles.
Not to say this isn't very impressive, I'm just far more stunned by Kendrick.
|
|