YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Oct 29, 2014 11:50:40 GMT -5
I'm excited to see how much this can move through the holidays. Even if she drops 80% in week 2 SHE'S STILL GOING TO SELL 200K Copies! With a softer drop she could very well sell more in her second week than the second highest debut of the year in week 1.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Oct 29, 2014 11:51:46 GMT -5
www.hitsdailydouble.com/news/rumormill.cgiYOUR NEW RELEASES: Earlier this week we told you Taylor Swift would bow somewhere past the 1 million mark. As the album grows (and Swift’s multimedia onslaught nears total ubiquity) the question arises: Can she beat the 1.2m first-week of 2012's Red? Early calculations suggest it's within reach. Here are this week's key debuts: Taylor Swift (Big Machine) 1.1-1.2m Now 52 (NOW) 90-95k Sam Hunt (MCA Nashville) 60-65k Led Zeppelin (IV) (Rhino) 35-40 Led Zeppelin (Houses of the Holy) (Rhino) 30-35k Black Veil Brides (Lava/Republic) 30-35k Barry Manilow (Verve) 30-35k Chris Tomlin (sixstepsrecords) 30-35k Trip Lee (Reach) 17-20k
|
|
Clauss
Platinum Member
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 1,752
|
Post by Clauss on Oct 29, 2014 11:54:09 GMT -5
Outsell Red first week. Queen. Goddess.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 20,927
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Oct 29, 2014 11:55:36 GMT -5
Absolute, downright slayage. Enough said.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Oct 29, 2014 11:58:36 GMT -5
Anybody trying to make excuses for their faves flops this year saying it was just because sales are down can have all the seats.
|
|
carrieidol1
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 12,571
|
Post by carrieidol1 on Oct 29, 2014 12:10:17 GMT -5
She's a beast.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,480
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Oct 29, 2014 12:10:27 GMT -5
Pre-orders or not it's astounding that shes increased her first day sales from Red. And this is without any of the album tracks getting the same out of the box publicity as Trouble did before it even came out 2 years ago.
|
|
Hefty Hanna
Diamond Member
a prettier jesus
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 20,332
|
Post by Hefty Hanna on Oct 29, 2014 12:16:22 GMT -5
Just to have here in thread, Red sold 1,209,000 copies its first week.
Britney's Oops! sold 1,319,000. That is the current highest first week figure for a female artist.
Also a cute note, Taylor's Speak Now is currently (until next's week's release of the chart) the 13th biggest first week sales for an album.
|
|
Joe1240
6x Platinum Member
Taylor Swift-The Best in Pop & Country Music!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,952
|
Post by Joe1240 on Oct 29, 2014 12:46:13 GMT -5
This has a good chance to break Britney's record.Go Taylor. :)
|
|
Envoirment
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2009
Posts: 13,538
|
Post by Envoirment on Oct 29, 2014 14:22:59 GMT -5
Just to have here in thread, Red sold 1,209,000 copies its first week. Britney's Oops! sold 1,319,000. That is the current highest first week figure for a female artist. Also a cute note, Taylor's Speak Now is currently (until next's week's release of the chart) the 13th biggest first week sales for an album. It'll be pretty cool if she could beat Britney's record, but I think she's more frontloaded than what Red is due to the pre-orders. I think she could do 1.25-1.3million though, especially given her huge promo blitz this week!
|
|
85la
3x Platinum Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 3,678
|
Post by 85la on Oct 29, 2014 14:29:14 GMT -5
Just WOW! BTW - I know hardly anyone uses that Microsoft app, but I wonder how many sales that will generate at .99? I'm assuming those will not count for SS. I'm not sure about Soundscan, but they definitely won't count for Billboard. Definitely a risky and desperate move for Microsoft, after all the Born This Way Controversy. I can already predict the major ruffling of feathers, lawsuits coming.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Oct 29, 2014 14:30:22 GMT -5
They're not going to be sued for selling an album for $0.99 lol. They're obviously taking the loss, not Big Machine.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Oct 29, 2014 14:47:50 GMT -5
Microsoft obviously fronted Big Machine money to be able to sell it at that price. It's a gimmgick to get people to start buying their music from the microsoft store instead of iTunes (which is never going to happen, unless something drastic changes). The number of units it will sell are going to be tiny compared to overall sales.
With Born This Way, didn't Amazon discount to $3.99 of their own free will and eat the cost to push their cloud music service? I don't see why that is so controversial, apart from the fact that those albums did count for Billboard because they were at the discount threshold.
|
|
Linnethia Monique
Diamond Member
Still 100% Snackable
🗣 NOW GET YOUR BOOTS AND YOUR COAT FOR THIS...
Joined: December 2004
Posts: 24,208
|
Post by Linnethia Monique on Oct 29, 2014 14:52:53 GMT -5
Microsoft obviously fronted Big Machine money to be able to sell it at that price. It's a gimmgick to get people to start buying their music from the microsoft store instead of iTunes (which is never going to happen, unless something drastic changes). The number of units it will sell are going to be tiny compared to overall sales. With Born This Way, didn't Amazon discount to $3.99 of their own free will and eat the cost to push their cloud music service? I don't see why that is so controversial, apart from the fact that those albums did count for Billboard because they were at the discount threshold. Born This Way was sold for $.99 which is why the threshold was created. I don't find any fault in the album being heavily discounted if it's not counted during the allotted time period.
|
|
kanimal
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,043
|
Post by kanimal on Oct 29, 2014 14:53:33 GMT -5
Anybody trying to make excuses for their faves flops this year saying it was just because sales are down can have all the seats. In fairness, many Swift fans were making that same excuse when the first Shake it Off figures came in... The reality is a combination of both. There's no doubt there is a market downturn, but there is also no doubt that people will buy an album worth buying. An album that feels this much like an event absolutely qualifies.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Oct 29, 2014 14:59:49 GMT -5
Microsoft obviously fronted Big Machine money to be able to sell it at that price. It's a gimmgick to get people to start buying their music from the microsoft store instead of iTunes (which is never going to happen, unless something drastic changes). The number of units it will sell are going to be tiny compared to overall sales. With Born This Way, didn't Amazon discount to $3.99 of their own free will and eat the cost to push their cloud music service? I don't see why that is so controversial, apart from the fact that those albums did count for Billboard because they were at the discount threshold. Born This Way was sold for $.99 which is why the threshold was created. I don't find any fault in the album being heavily discounted if it's not counted during the allotted time period. My issue with the threshold is that its arbitrary. After 4 weeks, any sales count, from my understand. So what is worse, having an album sell for $0.99 in week 1 or having it sell for $0.99 in week 5? What is the difference? It's still a new release, it not like the Bob Marley album that moved 20k or whatever the number was that has been out for 30 years.
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Oct 29, 2014 15:14:40 GMT -5
Wow!
|
|
sapphire
Gold Member
Joined: July 2013
Posts: 559
|
Post by sapphire on Oct 29, 2014 17:27:00 GMT -5
Anybody trying to make excuses for their faves flops this year saying it was just because sales are down can have all the seats. This year and last year!
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,957
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Oct 29, 2014 17:51:50 GMT -5
Taylor Swift's '1989' Surging Toward 1.2 Million-Plus Debut NEWSCHART ALERT By Keith Caulfield | October 29, 2014 6:31 PM EDT
Taylor Swift's 1989 continues to rack up monster sales, as industry forecasters now say the album could sell over 1.2 million copies in its first week (ending Nov. 2).
It's thus nearing the 1.21 million bow of her last album, 2012's Red (which was also the last release to sell a million copies in a week, according to Nielsen SoundScan).
The new album was released through Big Machine Records on Oct. 27 and is Swift's fifth studio album. It should easily debut atop next week's Billboard 200 chart, when its top 10 is revealed (along with Swift's official sales figure) on Wednesday, Nov. 5.
Sources say 1989 sold over 600,000 albums in its first day on sale and set a pre-order record in the U.S. iTunes Store, surpassing One Direction's 195,000 pre-order figure with last year's Midnight Memories.
If 1989 sells as forecasted, it will become the biggest-selling album released in 2014 after only one week on sale, have the largest sales week by any album since Red, and make Swift the only act to earn three million-selling weeks.
Swift's album is obviously the biggest news this week, in terms of new releases, but there are other albums also heading for the top 10. They include the new Now 52 compilation (90,000), country singer Sam Hunt's Montevallo (aiming for around 60,000 sold) and two Led Zeppelin reissues: Led Zeppelin IV (35,000) and Houses of the Holy (30,000).
|
|
#LisaRinna
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 42,164
|
Post by #LisaRinna on Oct 29, 2014 17:55:29 GMT -5
Slay a bit Taylor!
|
|
|
Post by Love Plastic Love on Oct 29, 2014 18:50:04 GMT -5
With Born This Way, didn't Amazon discount to $3.99 of their own free will and eat the cost to push their cloud music service? I don't see why that is so controversial, apart from the fact that those albums did count for Billboard because they were at the discount threshold. Yes, Amazon did. They chose to discount it to 99 cents and 3.99 ( for deluxe) but paid full price because they were attacking the Itunes crowd and trying to draw people to amazon. After that, most of the 99 cent deals on cds were a compromise between Amazon and the label where Amazon didn't eat the entire cost of doing that. Several albums benefited from this with well-timed 99 cent deals just outside of 4 weeks lol. Anyway, amazing sales news as always-matching Red is pretty stunning.
|
|
Nick
8x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2004
Posts: 8,681
|
Post by Nick on Oct 29, 2014 19:16:29 GMT -5
Not a fan, but I still bow down to Taylor's sales. Amazing that any artist can do that these days.
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Oct 30, 2014 2:06:21 GMT -5
With Born This Way, didn't Amazon discount to $3.99 of their own free will and eat the cost to push their cloud music service? I don't see why that is so controversial, apart from the fact that those albums did count for Billboard because they were at the discount threshold. Yes, Amazon did. They chose to discount it to 99 cents and 3.99 ( for deluxe) but paid full price because they were attacking the Itunes crowd and trying to draw people to amazon. After that, most of the 99 cent deals on cds were a compromise between Amazon and the label where Amazon didn't eat the entire cost of doing that. Several albums benefited from this with well-timed 99 cent deals just outside of 4 weeks lol. Anyway, amazing sales news as always-matching Red is pretty stunning. And they really haven't done .99 in a long time. 1.99 was a few months ago and even the 3.99 sales for more current releases having been happening lately - it's more obscure titles.
|
|
Future Captain
3x Platinum Member
hi, i'm the visual representation of untreated mental illnesses
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 3,997
My Charts
|
Post by Future Captain on Oct 30, 2014 5:54:35 GMT -5
Just when I thought 1,2 M is the roof, we found out it's pretty much the floor, Go Tay-Tay!
|
|
inclinations
New Member
Dupe
Joined: September 2014
Posts: 421
|
Post by inclinations on Oct 30, 2014 10:57:26 GMT -5
I just know they're gunning hard for that record. That would be a huge deal publicity wise for her.
|
|
JamaicaFunk²
Diamond Member
Will & Grace!
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 13,774
|
Post by JamaicaFunk² on Oct 30, 2014 13:01:58 GMT -5
I just know they're gunning hard for that record. That would be a huge deal publicity wise for her. Not to mention re-writing history books.... which, if I had to guess, would remain that way for a long, long time to come.
|
|
grandelf
Gold Member
Joined: August 2010
Posts: 818
|
Post by grandelf on Oct 30, 2014 14:04:54 GMT -5
www.billboard.com/articles/business/6304029/taylor-swift-1989-retail-sales-forecastWhere Are People Buying Taylor Swift's '1989'? A Retail Breakdown of (Probably) the Year's Biggest AlbumBy Ed Christman | October 30, 2014 2:22 PM EDT The debut week sales forecast for Taylor Swift's 1989 is now upped to 1.2 million units as the artist's album has already sold nearly 727,000 copies at just three merchants, iTunes, Target and Walmart, according to industry sources. In its first two days of availability, the Swift album has scanned 450,000 units at iTunes; 247,000 units at Target and about 30,000 at Walmart, those sources say. Consequently, industry prognosticators now project that Swift will scan about 600,000 for the week at iTunes, 410,00 at Target and 70,000 at Walmart, for a total of 1.08 million at those three merchants alone. Other Taylor sales numbers floating around the industry: Amazon sold 16,000, Best Buy sold 5,000 copies of the Swift album and Starbucks scanned about 3,000 units, which means first two day total sales for all six accounts named in this story was 751,000 units. Industry and UMG forecasts for the album have been bouncing around like a ball. Initially, UMG had been projecting 1.1 million units, but in light of declining digital sales and a slew of missed projections on other big releases, the first week projection was revised downward to 750,000 about a month ahead of the album's release. Then, when pre-orders proved to be stronger than expected, the Swift projection was revised to 800,000-900,000 units for its debut week. But Swift once again appears to be answering the question that a superstar artist can still sell a million units in the debut week, even in a market where CD and digital album sales are declining to the tune of 18 percent and 11 percent respectively so far this year. Now, the only question that remains open is if 1989 can top the first week sales of her last album, Red, which scanned 1.208 million in the week ending Oct. 28, 2012, according to Nielsen SoundScan.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Oct 30, 2014 14:10:50 GMT -5
I can't say enough how impressive her sales history is.
|
|
YourFaveIsAFlop
5x Platinum Member
Catch me in the fridge, right where the ice be
Joined: April 2014
Posts: 5,467
|
Post by YourFaveIsAFlop on Oct 30, 2014 14:29:58 GMT -5
I'm surprised Amazon's number is so low, tbh, considering it is #1 on CD and MP3 there
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on Oct 30, 2014 14:30:57 GMT -5
Amazon is a very small market.
|
|