badrobot
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,350
|
Post by badrobot on May 9, 2011 9:27:21 GMT -5
If I recall, Bootylicious was a limited run single. They only printed a certain amount.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2011 9:39:02 GMT -5
So how come it didn't outsell 'Loverboy? ??? Because Mariah is the only one who gets the benefit of discounted singles......according to theorists. People fail to realize that discounting singles was a general practice at the time, especially at Sony who used it for several of their big acts. The market was dead and the only way to shift physical copies was to discount them. With Napster being the biggest source for downloaded music, there were very few people who were going to play a buck + for a single. I remember in 2001 seeing singles in stores every now and then selling for a penny.
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Tea-why on May 9, 2011 10:18:30 GMT -5
If I recall, Bootylicious was a limited run single. They only printed a certain amount. Ah, ok. That makes sense. I'm surprised that "Loverboy" still sold more copies when they first came out considering the amount of airplay "Bootylicious" was receiving compared to it. I would think that DC3 would've outsold Mariah, now knowing that they were both the same price.
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Tea-why on May 9, 2011 10:18:53 GMT -5
Because Mariah is the only one who gets the benefit of discounted singles......according to theorists. People fail to realize that discounting singles was a general practice at the time, especially at Sony who used it for several of their big acts. The market was dead and the only way to shift physical copies was to discount them. With Napster being the biggest source for downloaded music, there were very few people who were going to play a buck + for a single. I remember in 2001 seeing singles in stores every now and then selling for a penny. lol really? do any of them come to mind?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2011 10:29:07 GMT -5
I remember in 2001 seeing singles in stores every now and then selling for a penny. lol really? do any of them come to mind? I remember Dixie Chicks' "Long Time Gone" selling for a penny at FYE if you bought anything else. When you went to the register they asked if you were interested in a copy of the Dixie Chicks single for a penny. The single shot into the top 10 of the Hot 100 after that which was rare for a non crossover country single. Another one was Allure's "Enjoy Yourself". It was the lead single from their sophomore album. That one was selling for a penny on the shelf. That helped it to get to #50 on the R&B chart despite very low airplay. It also helped the single spend 18 weeks on the R&B chart which was only a couple weeks short of the amount of time that their two 90s hits spent on the R&B chart.
|
|
badrobot
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,350
|
Post by badrobot on May 9, 2011 10:35:57 GMT -5
To be fair, any record store selling a single for less than 49 cents was likely doing so at their own discretion, not because a label made them.
|
|
CookyMonzta
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 1,362
|
Post by CookyMonzta on May 9, 2011 19:06:05 GMT -5
Why did sales drop so dramatically in the early 2000's ??? The attempt by the music industry (which was at an all-time high in 1999) to force consumers to buy entire albums. The result: They deliberately shrank the size of their singles shipments (in some cases, to almost nothing), and the consumers revolted by going to the Web to get their fix. Murder-suicide by the industry. And they're still paying for it, deservedly. No one else to blame but themselves; not the original Napster, not KaZaA, and not Limewire.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 9, 2011 23:04:33 GMT -5
Yes- very little in the way of competition for CD singles sales in the latter half of 2001 until digital singles took off. As a maxi-only single, "Die Another Day" spent 11 weeks at No. 1 on Singles Sales in 2002, and it has scanned around 202,000 to date.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on May 9, 2011 23:07:55 GMT -5
Yes- very little in the way of competition for CD singles sales in the latter half of 2001 until digital singles took off. As a maxi-only single, "Die Another Day" spent 11 weeks at No. 1 on Singles Sales in 2002, and it has scanned around 202,000 to date. What a shame it only scanned 28K first week, had it only been released a couple of years prior...
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,071
|
Post by Dammn Baby on May 9, 2011 23:08:14 GMT -5
I remember some fans were buying whole cases of Loverboy singles because they were so deeply discounted, in a futile effort to get the song to #1. LOL. Now that's dedication.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2011 23:12:44 GMT -5
I remember some fans were buying whole cases of Loverboy singles because they were so deeply discounted, in a futile effort to get the song to #1. LOL. Now that's dedication. Hasn't it been addressed before that multiple copies purchased in a single transaction only counts toward one sale?
|
|
hughster1
New Member
Joined: September 2010
Posts: 226
|
Post by hughster1 on May 9, 2011 23:26:00 GMT -5
Why did sales drop so dramatically in the early 2000's ??? The attempt by the music industry (which was at an all-time high in 1999) to force consumers to buy entire albums. The result: They deliberately shrank the size of their singles shipments (in some cases, to almost nothing), and the consumers revolted by going to the Web to get their fix. Murder-suicide by the industry. And they're still paying for it, deservedly. No one else to blame but themselves; not the original Napster, not KaZaA, and not Limewire. This was one of the dumbest things the industry ever did. Possibly the dumbest. Singles were what got young kids into record stores. They bought a single for a dollar or two when they were 8, 9, 10; as they hit their teens and had more disposable income, they moved up to albums. Singles were loss leaders in a way; a friend who worked for a label said labels hated them because it cost as much to produce and ship a CD single as a CD album with much less profit. But what they forgot is singles purchases got young fans in the habit of going into record stores. Is it any wonder, then, that CD sales started to plummet right around the time that kids from '91-'92 - the years when singles purchases started to drop off - hit their late teens and early twenties? And that these fans - now largely in their thirties - and younger - never bought albums in the numbers their older peers did? And that record stores started closing in the 2000's, because a customer base had never developed? Those consumers never got the record purchasing habit. And as the older fan base died off or otherwise lost interest, new fans did not take their place. Stupid, stupid record industry.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,071
|
Post by Dammn Baby on May 9, 2011 23:40:18 GMT -5
I remember some fans were buying whole cases of Loverboy singles because they were so deeply discounted, in a futile effort to get the song to #1. LOL. Now that's dedication. Hasn't it been addressed before that multiple copies purchased in a single transaction only counts toward one sale? Not sure! I just remember fans sending pics in to Mariah Daily with their cardboard box containing shipments of 500 copies.
|
|
KMJ1
2x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 2,037
|
Post by KMJ1 on May 12, 2011 4:48:53 GMT -5
the entire music scene from around 2000-2005 was just beyond a rancid mess lol. everything "charting" was low end, 4gettable rap and hip hop dominating (all airplay based) due to the fact that there was like NO singles market. Only airplay was controlling the charts. It was like a nazi or communist like situation for the music industry during that time. they were suing people and coming after 6 year old kids and 85 year old grandmas etc..while controlling the charts due to people having NO say or option to really buy singles and contribute to the charts.
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Tea-why on May 12, 2011 7:41:46 GMT -5
The attempt by the music industry (which was at an all-time high in 1999) to force consumers to buy entire albums. The result: They deliberately shrank the size of their singles shipments (in some cases, to almost nothing), and the consumers revolted by going to the Web to get their fix. Murder-suicide by the industry. And they're still paying for it, deservedly. No one else to blame but themselves; not the original Napster, not KaZaA, and not Limewire. This was one of the dumbest things the industry ever did. Possibly the dumbest. Singles were what got young kids into record stores. They bought a single for a dollar or two when they were 8, 9, 10; as they hit their teens and had more disposable income, they moved up to albums. Singles were loss leaders in a way; a friend who worked for a label said labels hated them because it cost as much to produce and ship a CD single as a CD album with much less profit. But what they forgot is singles purchases got young fans in the habit of going into record stores. Is it any wonder, then, that CD sales started to plummet right around the time that kids from '91-'92 - the years when singles purchases started to drop off - hit their late teens and early twenties? And that these fans - now largely in their thirties - and younger - never bought albums in the numbers their older peers did? And that record stores started closing in the 2000's, because a customer base had never developed? Those consumers never got the record purchasing habit. And as the older fan base died off or otherwise lost interest, new fans did not take their place. Stupid, stupid record industry. Preach.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on May 12, 2011 9:16:53 GMT -5
I remember some fans were buying whole cases of Loverboy singles because they were so deeply discounted, in a futile effort to get the song to #1. LOL. Now that's dedication. Hasn't it been addressed before that multiple copies purchased in a single transaction only counts toward one sale? Yes, in the later years of SoundScan. We don't know if that was true during the 90s.
|
|
tshawn74
New Member
Joined: October 2007
Posts: 225
|
Post by tshawn74 on May 12, 2011 10:25:41 GMT -5
Why did sales drop so dramatically in the early 2000's ??? The labels are LARGELY responsible for the decline of the physical single. For years, labels had been complaining that sales of the physical single cut into album sales. To me, that argument DOES NOT hold water. I say that because singles by Michael, Janet, Prince, Madonna, Mariah and Whitney have sold millions and yet, they STILL sold a shitload of albums. But, they thought that anyway and over the years started distributing less and less physical singles. They wanted the consumer to $14.99/$15.99 for a CD, instead of $1.99 for a physical single. And I'm telling you just as sure as I'm standing here now. The same thing is gonna happen with iTunes. Does anyone remember when the labels wanted to raise the price of the downloads?? I'm almost certain that what happened with the physical single will happen with iTunes.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 12, 2011 11:14:39 GMT -5
All of a sudden, labels were concerned that singles cut into album sales- that never was an issue for the 30 or so years prior to that. :) There's no question that iTunes and the ability to buy individual tracks (including non-singles) affected album sales- the evidence is there, with the year-to-year declines over the last seven years or so.
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on May 12, 2011 19:19:22 GMT -5
New article: Best selling albums from 1992~2010new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/74364/chart-watch-extra-20-years-of-top-albums/1992: Billy Ray Cyrus, Some Gave All, 4,832,000. 1993: Whitney Houston & Various Artists, The Bodyguard, 5,460,000. 1994: Soundtrack, The Lion King, 4,934,000. 1995: Hootie & the Blowfish, Cracked Rear View, 7,020,000. 1996: Alanis Morissette, Jagged Little Pill, 7,380,000. 1997: Spice Girls, Spice, 5,302,000. 1998: Soundtrack, Titanic, 9,338,000. 1999: Backstreet Boys, Millennium, 9,446,000. 2000: *NSYNC, No Strings Attached, 9,936,000. 2001: Linkin Park, Hybrid Theory, 4,813,000. 2002: Eminem, The Eminem Show, 7,608,000. 2003: 50 Cent, Get Rich Or Die Tryin', 6,536,000. 2004: Usher, Confessions, 7,979,000. 2005: Mariah Carey, The Emancipation Of Mimi, 4,969,000. 2006: Various Artists, High School Musical soundtrack, 3,719,000. 2007: Josh Groban, Noel, 3,699,000. 2008: Lil Wayne, Tha Carter III, 2,874,000. 2009: Taylor Swift, Fearless, 3,217,000. 2010: Eminem, Recovery, 3,415,000. 2011: Adele, 21, 1,554,000 (so far).
|
|
Rodze
2x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 2,546
|
Post by Rodze on May 19, 2011 15:58:10 GMT -5
Chart Watch Extra: 20 Years, 20 Recordsnew.music.yahoo.com/blogs/chart_watch/74367/chart-watch-extra-20-years-20-records/I'm just listing the sales. The remarkable feats for each album can be found in the article. 1. Metallica, Metallica, 15,664,000. 2. Shania Twain, Come On Over, 15,504,000 3. Alanis Morissette, Jagged Little Pill, 14,686,000 4. Backstreet Boys, Millennium, 12,119,000 5. Whitney Houston & Various Artists, The Bodyguard, 11,825,000 6. The Beatles, 1, 11,740,000 13. Bob Marley & the Wailers, Legend, 10,508,000 14. Eminem, The Marshall Mathers LP, 10,429,000 16. Soundtrack, Titanic soundtrack, 10,141,000 19. Usher, Confessions, 9,902,000 31. Eagles, Hell Freezes Over, 8,724,000 32. Dixie Chicks, Wide Open Spaces, 8,713,000 59. Kenny G, Miracles-The Holiday Album, 7,229,000 62. Lauryn Hill, The Miseducation Of Lauryn Hill, 7,045,000 79. Taylor Swift, Fearless, 6,303,000 93. Garth Brooks, Double Live, 6,016,000 109. OutKast, Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, 5,693,000 157. London Cast, Phantom Of The Opera, 4,959,000 162. TV Cast, High School Musical, 4,862,000 184. The Beatles, Abbey Road, 4,706,000 Adam Sandler, What The Hell Happened To Me?, 2,124,000
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,624
|
Post by Tea-why on May 19, 2011 21:55:16 GMT -5
Why did sales drop so dramatically in the early 2000's ??? The labels are LARGELY responsible for the decline of the physical single. For years, labels had been complaining that sales of the physical single cut into album sales. To me, that argument DOES NOT hold water. I say that because singles by Michael, Janet, Prince, Madonna, Mariah and Whitney have sold millions and yet, they STILL sold a s**tload of albums. But, they thought that anyway and over the years started distributing less and less physical singles. They wanted the consumer to $14.99/$15.99 for a CD, instead of $1.99 for a physical single. And I'm telling you just as sure as I'm standing here now. The same thing is gonna happen with iTunes. Does anyone remember when the labels wanted to raise the price of the downloads?? I'm almost certain that what happened with the physical single will happen with iTunes. Sadly, I've think that that is what is going to happen to i-tunes as well.
|
|
Chris Ng
Platinum Member
Everybody hurts
Joined: April 2007
Posts: 1,936
|
Post by Chris Ng on May 20, 2011 3:46:45 GMT -5
Canadian female artists have 2 spots in the Top 3. Wow
|
|
BlueSwan
Gold Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 661
|
Post by BlueSwan on May 20, 2011 7:39:43 GMT -5
It's not gonna happen to itunes. They're too afraid of illegal downloads to attempt any such thing - and quite rightly so.
|
|
badrobot
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,350
|
Post by badrobot on May 20, 2011 12:10:51 GMT -5
Adele could easily end up the highest year-end seller since 2005.
|
|