nightshade
Diamond Member
I'm adaptable.
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 10,695
|
Post by nightshade on May 31, 2011 16:49:18 GMT -5
Gaga would have needed 2 more BTW give away days to beat Britneys record. Please, save it! Record sales in general are on a fraction of what they were when Britney did 1.3 million of her second album. This. Let's just take away the fact that 2000 was mentioned. If record sales were what they were back then this would've done insane things. Regardless, the album has done amazing. A+ in marketing & promotion.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on May 31, 2011 16:50:36 GMT -5
I'm not understanding the time period argument. If the current market were as successful as it was in 2000, then I'm sure (meaning a high possibility, not certainty) GaGa would've sold more. When you put it proportional, GaGa had the better debut.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 16:50:46 GMT -5
One thing that can pretty much be set in stone- Born This Way more than likely would not have topped 1m without Amazon's 99-cent promotion. Not really - don't know that for sure Many of those who bought it for 99 cents would have done so anyway at higher prices
|
|
|
Post by musicissalvation on May 31, 2011 16:51:40 GMT -5
I say two weeks and Adele will be back to being number 1
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 16:52:04 GMT -5
yes
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on May 31, 2011 16:53:55 GMT -5
...And then Lil' Wayne and Beyonce...
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on May 31, 2011 16:54:56 GMT -5
i'll say it again...you can't say Gaga would have sold as much in 2000 as she did in 2011. Would the type of music Gaga be as well received in the year 2000 as it has now? It's like if N'sync released an album today...Boybands today are not what they were in 2000.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 31, 2011 16:55:15 GMT -5
Well, I did say "more than likely." :) Countless articles reported how the projection was lower before the Amazon promotion. Everything is speculation, but I'd be willing to bet that without the 99-cent promo, the album would have sold at least a couple hundred thousand less. Of course, we'll never know for sure. ;)
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on May 31, 2011 16:56:56 GMT -5
i'll say it again...you can't say Gaga would have sold as much in 2000 as she did in 2011. Would the type of music Gaga be as well received in the year 2000 as it has now? It's like if N'sync released an album today...Boybands today are not what they were in 2000. I think many people were suggesting she would've sold buttloads more if sales were like they were in '00...not if it were released in '00.
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on May 31, 2011 16:57:41 GMT -5
Nobody is taking or trying to take away what Gaga did. But when you say...Well this 1.1 million >>>> 1.3, or 1.5, or 1.7, or 2.3 million then arguments are going to start.
Regardless, Gaga sold amazing. But im going to say something when someone claims what she did was better than so and so based on time period.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 16:58:34 GMT -5
you can't say Gaga would have sold as much in 2000 as she did in 2011. Would the type of music Gaga be as well received in the year 2000 as it has now? Holy fuck. Read: Let's just take away the fact that 2000 was mentioned. If record sales were what they were back then this would've done insane things.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 16:59:42 GMT -5
i'll say it again...you can't say Gaga would have sold as much in 2000 as she did in 2011. Would the type of music Gaga be as well received in the year 2000 as it has now? It's like if N'sync released an album today...Boybands today are not what they were in 2000. I think many people were suggesting she would've sold buttloads more if sales were like they were in '00...not if it were released in '00. Don't agree with that either.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on May 31, 2011 16:59:51 GMT -5
Nobody is taking or trying to take away what Gaga did. But when you say...Well this 1.1 million >>>> 1.3, or 1.5, or 1.7, or 2.3 million then arguments are going to start. Regardless, Gaga sold amazing. But im going to say something when someone claims what she did was better than so and so based on time period. I just meant it's a fun hypothetical to think of what Gaga/Wayne/Taylor would have sold if sales were still at their peak, like a conversion factor. Lots has changed since 2000 so I agree you can't say Gaga's is more impressive than Britney's or something.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 31, 2011 17:00:09 GMT -5
As always, it's consumers, not the acts themselves, who purchase the albums and make these records- well, most of them, anyway, discounting the albums acts themselves buy. ;) So, a big kudos to the record-buying public- the industry needs big numbers like this.
|
|
Lockheart
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2010
Posts: 4,273
|
Post by Lockheart on May 31, 2011 17:00:24 GMT -5
Oh, gosh. The Amazon more likely have helped GaGa sold past 1 million. The argument saying those who bought the 99cent album were likely to buy the album in full price is purely BS. I'm not taking anyway from GaGa. It's just annoying when people do that. But good for her debuting 1 million this week. The music industry needs sales like this. And what's even more impressive, The Fame is also in the top 20 and experienced an increase in sales. Good for GaGa!
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on May 31, 2011 17:01:07 GMT -5
I think many people were suggesting she would've sold buttloads more if sales were like they were in '00...not if it were released in '00. Don't agree with that either. Just out of curiosity, why/what do you mean?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 17:01:52 GMT -5
I agree you can't say Gaga's is more impressive than Britney's or something. But yes, you can. Gaga sold 1.1 million albums when sales were down. Britney sold 1.3 million copies in an amazing climate. More impressive? Gaga.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on May 31, 2011 17:02:05 GMT -5
Yes- I was one of those who finally got around to getting The Fame/The Fame Monster, after getting BTW via Amazon. Get The Fame closer to 4m scanned.
|
|
nightshade
Diamond Member
I'm adaptable.
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 10,695
|
Post by nightshade on May 31, 2011 17:04:46 GMT -5
Oh, gosh. The Amazon more likely have helped GaGa sold past 1 million. The argument saying those who bought the 99cent album were likely to buy the album in full price is purely BS. The argument that people would not have purchased the album because it was sold at a "regular" price is also BS. The point is that people purchased it. Facts are facts. No matter how it sold one million copies it did.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 17:05:11 GMT -5
Don't agree with that either. Just out of curiosity, why/what do you mean? The album is available in more places today than in 2000. You don't have to leave your bedroom to get it. In 2000, you did. True sales today are not the same as in 2000 - FOR ALBUMS IN GENERAL. But that is not the case for high profile discs. The right artist, at the right time, with the right music, will draw people out regardless. Because sales of CDs dropped from 2000 levels, doesn't mean interest in music did
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on May 31, 2011 17:05:41 GMT -5
The argument saying those who bought the 99cent album were likely to buy the album in full price is purely BS. Neither side is completely right but it's a perfectly valid point. One can't just SUBTRACT the sales that came from the 99 cent deal as there are countless factors that go into those sales and the consumers that bought them. Obviously some would've bought the album regardless of the heavy discount but took advantage of Amazon's super low price, in fact I am one of them. On the flip side though, it's certainly true that some of those many that bought it with the Amazon deal wouldn't have bought it otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by slicknickshady on May 31, 2011 17:06:31 GMT -5
I agree you can't say Gaga's is more impressive than Britney's or something. But yes, you can. Gaga sold 1.1 million albums when sales were down. Britney sold 1.3 million copies in an amazing climate. More impressive? Gaga. I disagree. I can counter that with...in 2000...Gaga wouldn't have been as popular as she is today.
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on May 31, 2011 17:08:23 GMT -5
Yes- I was one of those who finally got around to getting The Fame/The Fame Monster, after getting BTW via Amazon. Get The Fame closer to 4m scanned. Isn't The Fame at 4.2 million now as of this week?
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on May 31, 2011 17:09:28 GMT -5
But yes, you can. Gaga sold 1.1 million albums when sales were down. Britney sold 1.3 million copies in an amazing climate. More impressive? Gaga. I disagree. I can counter that with...in 2000...Gaga wouldn't have been as popular as she is today. You...aren't reading are you? If you're just gonna ignore the content of the posts numerous times, don't bother posting. You're clogging up the thread with your nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2011 17:09:52 GMT -5
I disagree. I can counter that with...in 2000...Gaga wouldn't have been as popular as she is today. You are not following anything, are you?
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on May 31, 2011 17:11:31 GMT -5
Just out of curiosity, why/what do you mean? The album is available in more places today than in 2000. You don't have to leave your bedroom to get it. In 2000, you did. True sales today are not the same as in 2000 - FOR ALBUMS IN GENERAL. But that is not the case for high profile discs. The right artist, at the right time, with the right music, will draw people out regardless. Because sales of CDs dropped from 2000 levels, doesn't mean interest in music did I agree on a lot of this - I don't think interest in music is down. But what about all the people illegally downloading? Many people I know had it illegally before or after the official release date. I just don't think if people were buying albums like they were in 2000, BTW wouldn't have sold more.
|
|
I Wish
5x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 5,094
|
Post by I Wish on May 31, 2011 17:11:53 GMT -5
The argument saying those who bought the 99cent album were likely to buy the album in full price is purely BS. Neither side is completely right but it's a perfectly valid point. One can't just SUBTRACT the sales that came from the 99 cent deal as there are countless factors that go into those sales and the consumers that bought them. Obviously some would've bought the album regardless of the heavy discount but took advantage of Amazon's super low price, in fact I am one of them. On the flip side though, it's certainly true that some of those many that bought it with the Amazon deal wouldn't have bought it otherwise. I think people are just arguing that a lot of the hundreds of thousands of people that bought the 99 cent deal would've bought it otherwise and a lot would not have. I can honestly say I would not have purchased this album had it not been .99. Heck, if the physical was .99 at Target or something & nowhere else, I wouldn't have purchased it. The fact that it was available on Amazon, without having to leave the comfort of my own bed was the sole reason I bought it. I haven't even listened to the album since I purchased it, bar two songs. lol
|
|
Mack
7x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by Mack on May 31, 2011 17:15:24 GMT -5
Expect in the 300K range for week 2 Taylor Swift had 320K in week 2 I have a feeling that GaGa's second-week fall will be much steeper than Taylor's. I don't think it's a given that she'll debut at #1. For one, people haven't been responding very positively toward her music this era. Two, her album is out in just over three weeks and she has no singles taking off on any charts. That doesn't bode well. Also, she'll have extremely stiff competition, as Adele and GaGa will likely still be ruling the charts at the end of June.
|
|
nightshade
Diamond Member
I'm adaptable.
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 10,695
|
Post by nightshade on May 31, 2011 17:16:52 GMT -5
Neither side is completely right but it's a perfectly valid point. One can't just SUBTRACT the sales that came from the 99 cent deal as there are countless factors that go into those sales and the consumers that bought them. Obviously some would've bought the album regardless of the heavy discount but took advantage of Amazon's super low price, in fact I am one of them. On the flip side though, it's certainly true that some of those many that bought it with the Amazon deal wouldn't have bought it otherwise. I think people are just arguing that a lot of the hundreds of thousands of people that bought the 99 cent deal would've bought it otherwise and a lot would not have. I can honestly say I would not have purchased this album had it not been .99. Heck, if the physical was .99 at Target or something & nowhere else, I wouldn't have purchased it. The fact that it was available on Amazon, without having to leave the comfort of my own bed was the sole reason I bought it. I haven't even listened to the album since I purchased it, bar two songs. lol Given your post history, you don't count.
|
|
I Wish
5x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 5,094
|
Post by I Wish on May 31, 2011 17:17:50 GMT -5
I can honestly say I would not have purchased this album had it not been .99. Heck, if the physical was .99 at Target or something & nowhere else, I wouldn't have purchased it. The fact that it was available on Amazon, without having to leave the comfort of my own bed was the sole reason I bought it. I haven't even listened to the album since I purchased it, bar two songs. lol Given your post history, you don't count. And you are? Save it.
|
|