Trapped: Many artists selling singles, not albums

[Joe1240]

Trapped: Many artists selling singles, not albums
By MESFIN FEKADU | Associated Press – 1 hr 36 mins ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Just before Flo Rida released his third album, almost two million fans purchased the first single "Club Can't Handle Me," helping the rapper snag yet another Top 10 hit.

But in its first week out, only 11,000 people bought the 8-song EP — "Only One Flo Part 1" — making its debut measly at No. 107 on the Billboard charts. And in nearly two years, the album has only sold 62,000 units, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Flo Rida's experience in 2010 is being repeated again and again in today's pop scene. He's just one of many acts who suffer from an imbalance: They have a multitude of hits, but anemic album sales.

Years ago, a hit song was usually accompanied by a gold or platinum album, and multiple hits meant multiplatinum albums. But times have changed.

"If you used to have a big single, you would sell a million albums, and if you sell a million albums and you're a band, you can probably not have to work for a couple years. We don't have that luxury," said Cobra Starship's lead singer Gabe Saporta.

Cobra Starship had a top 10 hit with the double platinum dance jam "You Make Me Feel ...," but their latest album debuted at No. 50 and has sold a mere 33,000 units. Gym Class Heroes, which had a top 5 hit with the triple-platinum "Stereo Hearts" and success with its follow-up "(Expletive) Back Home," saw its fourth album, "The Papercut Chronicles II," debut at No. 54 on Billboard's Top 200 albums chart, spending just one week on the list. Its lead singer, Travie McCoy, had a similar issue with his 2010 solo debut "Lazarus": While the single "Billionaire," featuring Bruno Mars, sold more than three million tracks, the album only moved 74,000 units.

Ne-Yo, the Grammy-winning hitmaker who has written smashes for the likes of Beyonce and Rihanna, blames the phenomenon on a lack of personality and originality from the artists.

"I feel like it falls on the shoulders of not only the record label, but the artists themselves. I feel like the thing that makes you go out and get a person's whole album is you liking that artist, you connecting with that artist," said Ne-Yo, who recently became the senior vice president of A&R for Universal Motown Records.

"I feel like a lot of people are saying that the industry is moving to just being singles driven, and that's kind of a cop out to me. So it's like, basically that means that we sign a bunch of disposal artists, you know, as long as we get one hit that's good? That's B.S.," continued Ne-Yo.

Ne-Yo added that today's music executives should be "taking the time and spending the money that it takes to make sure that you're building icons, not fly-by-night, add water-and-stir artists."

Jason Derulo had three multiplatinum hits from his 2010 self-titled debut — including the No. 1 smash "Whatcha Say" — but the album has only sold 315,000 units, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Things didn't get better when Derulo released his sophomore album last September: "Future History" has sold just 64,000 so far.

Still, Derulo feels his second album helped dispel the notion that he falls into the category Ne-Yo described.

"When my songs came out and they were huge successes. ... No. 1 songs all over the world, and I was just like, 'Whoa. Wait a minute. We need these songs, but who is Jason Derulo?' So I feel like on this album we'll really get a chance to know who I am rather than going through songs, songs, songs," Derulo said.

Other performers who have suffered in album sales, but have hit singles, include Pitbull, Enrique Iglesias, Taio Cruz, Jay Sean, Sean Kingston, Mike Posner and Far East Movement.

Tom Corson, the COO and president of RCA Records — the label home of Pitbull and Posner — says that just because an artist doesn't sell a lot of albums doesn't make the act a failure. He said record companies determine an album's success by an artist's TEA, which stands for track-equivalent-albums.

"You have certain artists that sell 300,000 albums, but sell 10 million tracks. That's the equivalent of 1.3 million albums," he explained.

Corson says Pitbull is a great example of an act who defies the "singles artist" stereotype: While his latest albums, last year's "Planet Pit" and 2009's "Rebelution," have sold 397,000 and 249,000 units, respectively, his singles from those albums — "Give Me Everything" and "I Know You Want Me (Calle Ocho)," among others — have moved more than 15 million tracks. He also sold out Madison Square Garden with Iglesias last year and has endorsements with Bud Light, Kodak and Dr. Pepper.

Others, though, have managed to find success in both lanes, even when early projections didn't show promise.

Lady Gaga's 4.4 million-selling 2008 debut, "The Fame," wasn't an instant smash, but she released back-to-back hits while connecting with a core fan base — her "monsters" — and showed off much of her personality with her outrageous fashion choices and award show performances. Even Bruno Mars saw his debut "Doo-Wops and Hooligans" move 55,000 in its first week, despite having three monster smashes ahead of the CD's release. But he continued to churn out even more hit singles for himself and others. Now, Mars' album has sold more than 1.6 million copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

LMFAO, too, has had a similar breakthrough: When their massive tune, the now six-times platinum "Party Rock Anthem," hit the No. 1 spot this summer, their sophomore album "Sorry for Party Rocking" only moved 27,100 in its first week. But they managed another multiplatinum No. 1 hit — and pop culture moment — with "Sexy and I Know It," and fans have connected more with the wild, party-boy vibe of the duo. Now the album has sold more than 800,000 units and peaked at No. 5.

"It's always the whole world for us, and it was always a long-term thing," said Redfoo of LMFAO.

Adds Sky Blu of their winning formula: "It's a lifestyle. We're inspiring people to party."

This summer, Flo Rida will release his fourth album, which features the triple platinum "Good Feeling" and "Wild Ones," another platinum top 10 hit. Despite weak album sales, Corson says the rapper has a formula that works.

"There's a reason why Flo Rida keeps putting out records, 'cause it's good business," he said.

___

news.yahoo.com/trapped-many-artists-selling-singles-not-albums-133157844.html

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

LOVE LOVE LOVE this article. How about the Urban artists who aren't selling either albums or singles? Are they fly by nights? Ne-yo is wrong. It's all about the music. People want good music. All of those albums only have a couple of good tracks on them. Do these record labels really expect people to pay 10bucks from an album they only like a few tracks on?

I think the market is just shifting to a singles market. The record companies need to adjust their business model to that fact and stop trying to fit a square screw into a round hole.

[kingofpain]

It's also interesting how the majority of the artists listed are male. I'm surprised they didn't make light of Rihanna? Sure she sold over a million (I think) with her latest album, but with the amount of singles she sells, she should be selling a lot more copies.

[ListenToItTwice]

Apr 26, 2012 14:17:08 GMT -5 Joe1240 said:

LMFAO, too, has had a similar breakthrough: When their massive tune, the now six-times platinum "Party Rock Anthem," hit the No. 1 spot this summer, their sophomore album "Sorry for Party Rocking" only moved 27,100 in its first week. But they managed another multiplatinum No. 1 hit — and pop culture moment — with "Sexy and I Know It," and fans have connected more with the wild, party-boy vibe of the duo. Now the album has sold more than 800,000 units and peaked at No. 5.

This has to be the record for lowest-selling album with two #1 hits, right? Far East Movement is the record for an album with one #1.

[Deleted]

"(Expletive) Back Home"

[Deleted]

It's interesting when you put in that whole "artist track equivalent" thing. The amount of singles Flo-Rida and Pitbull sell pretty much make up for their album sales in a way. And especially Pitbull, who is racking up endor$ement$. I would definitely consider him a hugely successful act despite lacking in album sales.

That said, that quote by Jason Derulo is pretty embarrassing. Boi, we still not checkin' for you. #urfutureshistory!!lolz

[Wavey✨️]

Glad this article was made. Man, it shed some light on artists who are just not happy with the album sales.

Kingston's debut only sold well, his sophmore though..

[Deleted]

The issue when the singles are selling an the albums aren't is that digital downloads isn't where the money's at. How are labels making money off these artists?

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Apr 26, 2012 17:14:49 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

The issue when the singles are selling an the albums aren't is that digital downloads isn't where the money's at. How are labels making money off these artists?

Are you sure the label isn't making any money off of these artists who sell a million singles and get revenue from on demand stuff? Think about it they sold over a 1m TEA and without having to put any product into the stores and in many cases with less material. Would the record company like to make more with albums? Sure. However, that doesn't mean record companies aren't making money with singles. I were flo rida or one of these artists who doesn't sell albums, I wouldn't even bother. I'd release singles one after another and maybe a digital only EP. I wouldn't release anything physical at all ever.

The problem is when the label spent all this money and the artist isn't selling anything at all. R&B and urban leaning hip hop artists come to mind. A strong singles artist is what people should aspire to be. If you sell a million of every track that's a single the label is not going to fight it. They are going to collect the dough.

[Deleted]

Apr 26, 2012 17:19:36 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Apr 26, 2012 17:14:49 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

The issue when the singles are selling an the albums aren't is that digital downloads isn't where the money's at. How are labels making money off these artists?

Are you sure the label isn't making any money off of these artists who sell a million singles and get revenue from on demand stuff? Think about it they sold over a 1m TEA and without having to put any product into the stores and in many cases with less material. Would the record company like to make more with albums? Sure. However, that doesn't mean record companies aren't making money with singles. I were flo rida or one of these artists who doesn't sell albums, I wouldn't even bother. I'd release singles one after another and maybe a digital only EP. I wouldn't release anything physical at all ever.

The problem is when the label spent all this money and the artist isn't selling anything at all. R&B and urban leaning hip hop artists come to mind. A strong singles artist is what people should aspire to be. If you sell a million of every track that's a single the label is not going to fight it. They are going to collect the dough.

I'm just asking because it seems many of these acts have decent budgets based on the producers and collaborators they work with, but they're not selling albums and they're not touring. It just doesn't seem very lucrative for the label to spend all that money when people aren't really willing to do anything other than download the single.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Apr 26, 2012 14:44:42 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

LOVE LOVE LOVE this article. How about the Urban artists who aren't selling either albums or singles? Are they fly by nights? Ne-yo is wrong. It's all about the music. People want good music. All of those albums only have a couple of good tracks on them. Do these record labels really expect people to pay 10bucks from an album they only like a few tracks on?

I think the market is just shifting to a singles market. The record companies need to adjust their business model to that fact and stop trying to fit a square screw into a round hole.

I agree and disagree with this. I think most people that buy music do so without knowing how many songs they know they like from an album and base it off of both the singles they know and like, and the artist. It's one thing to have big hit songs and recognizable hits but if they're only listened to in passing through radio, tv and at the bar, then it doesn't generate into sales usually. I think it's about the music but it really is also about the artist and image. As was mentioned in the article, many of the acts that have big hit singles but no album sales generally don't have much of an image. They aren't able to sell out large venues because people don't really know much about them and aren't interested in finding out much about them.

I do agree that the market is shifting to a singles market again because of the ease of grabbing individual songs rather than having to resort to full albums. Labels and artists need to keep up with that rather than sitting back complaining about the way things used to be.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Apr 26, 2012 17:19:36 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Apr 26, 2012 17:14:49 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

The issue when the singles are selling an the albums aren't is that digital downloads isn't where the money's at. How are labels making money off these artists?

Are you sure the label isn't making any money off of these artists who sell a million singles and get revenue from on demand stuff? Think about it they sold over a 1m TEA and without having to put any product into the stores and in many cases with less material. Would the record company like to make more with albums? Sure. However, that doesn't mean record companies aren't making money with singles. I were flo rida or one of these artists who doesn't sell albums, I wouldn't even bother. I'd release singles one after another and maybe a digital only EP. I wouldn't release anything physical at all ever.

The problem is when the label spent all this money and the artist isn't selling anything at all. R&B and urban leaning hip hop artists come to mind. A strong singles artist is what people should aspire to be. If you sell a million of every track that's a single the label is not going to fight it. They are going to collect the dough.

It still costs money to promote these singles that go on to sell millions of copies. Depending on how much is put into the promo, they're probably lucky to break even. At least with a full album, the number of units needed to sell is much less to break even I'd imagine since a ten-track album is probably equivalent to selling ten units of a single digitally. A 500,000 copies sold record is better for a label than a 2 million selling single.

[Deleted]

The money is in tours, endorsement deals, etc. Without artist development, no one wants to see your tours or have you endorsing their products... I see this as a major issue with the way the industry rarely develops new artists anymore and just throws a new artist out there with a hot song and expects that to jump start a career.

[Deleted]

Funny how the industry declared the single all but dead back in the 90's.

Of course it basically was before digital downloads.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Apr 26, 2012 17:34:48 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

Apr 26, 2012 17:19:36 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Are you sure the label isn't making any money off of these artists who sell a million singles and get revenue from on demand stuff? Think about it they sold over a 1m TEA and without having to put any product into the stores and in many cases with less material. Would the record company like to make more with albums? Sure. However, that doesn't mean record companies aren't making money with singles. I were flo rida or one of these artists who doesn't sell albums, I wouldn't even bother. I'd release singles one after another and maybe a digital only EP. I wouldn't release anything physical at all ever.

The problem is when the label spent all this money and the artist isn't selling anything at all. R&B and urban leaning hip hop artists come to mind. A strong singles artist is what people should aspire to be. If you sell a million of every track that's a single the label is not going to fight it. They are going to collect the dough.

It still costs money to promote these singles that go on to sell millions of copies. Depending on how much is put into the promo, they're probably lucky to break even. At least with a full album, the number of units needed to sell is much less to break even I'd imagine since a ten-track album is probably equivalent to selling ten units of a single digitally. A 500,000 copies sold record is better for a label than a 2 million selling single.

How much money does it really cost the label to promote an artist? They release a song for radio play and to iTunes and other outlets. Gotye shot up iTunes with a rabid group of US fans of their song. The label did very little initially. Once Gotye's record became a hit then Glee, SNL and the AI stuff came in and now you have a full on hit. How much do you think it costs the label to get a hot new artist of the moment onto one of these shows? The label's job was to get the radio to latch on. Once radio latched on, the label's job was done....but you have a number of cases where the label tries to get a song to catch on but it doesn't work. I think there is another dynamic going on where word of mouth (VIA social media, internet etc) is starting to play a bigger factor in the success of a song than it did before.

The only reason I even bothered to the check out some of these hit records is because I saw it on someone's Facebook page or from someone on here. In the case of Fun and Gotye it was before the records were even popular with the masses.

The social media aspect costs the artists nothing but time. Gaga's albums success is due to the fact that she is constantly involved with her fans on a more personal level through social media.

Thirdly, would you rather have people buy each song at 1.29 or would you rather have people buy your songs at 99 cents a piece? The record company is making more money when they sell it as a single. If someone doesn't know the song exists it's harder to pirate. Record companies will learn that eventually. People can pirate whole albums because they have a track listing. However, if the first place they hear about a song is as it's being labeled the next single. People are much more inclined to buy it off of iTunes particularly if it's new. No more aging of songs on albums. Each song from an artist can sell millions of copies.

The record companies are trying to make money off of the filler songs....however, in many cases they waste good songs by putting them on bad albums. then you have the good songs that never get noticed because the promotional dollars run out and the album gets old before the good songs gets noticed. In a singles market the bad songs will simply be forgotten and the good songs won't have to be killed off by being associated with the bad ones.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I would guess that it takes a few million for a label to legitimately attempt to get an artist on the radio and in places for people to take notice of them. This is based on various news stories I've read in the last few years that gave costs and stuff. Like that one from last year that said it cost however many thousands of dollars for Rihanna to record Man Down for the writers and recording and the like. Of course that's not promo but that's still money out of the label's pockets to record a song that they plan on working with down the road as a single.
Things like making ads, pushing a song to radio, etc, probably cost additional tens of thousands, if not in the 6-digit figures.

Speaking of GaGa, I have often wondered how much money was put into promo for her Born This Way album because I have never seen that type of promo for anything before. It was incredible but must have cost many millions of dollars considering it was on a worldwide scale.

I think your example of Gotye is an exception though. Word of mouth is a very powerful tool and of course it's free but it still has to start from somewhere. I think in the case of Gotye, the word of mouth was extremely powerful and successful because the song did seem to take off on its own before any other aspect of it. At least in the case of fun., that song became popular after Glee and the SuperBowl.

I think when comparing album sales to single sales, you simply need to add up the total amounts sold.

If a song sells 2 million copies digitally, it's a pretty big success. Assuming a label put standard amounts of money into promoting it (I don't know how much money is standard), they probably still make money from that one song. But each subsequent single from that artist still requires a certain amount of promo.
Whereas a ten-track album that sells half a million copies is equal to selling 5 million individual tracks. Promo went into the album as well, likely more than went into an individual single but the end result is more $ per unit sold.
I guess my point for this example is that when it comes to making money off of an act, a label is better off promoting the act rather than the individual song. Because once that act becomes recognizable, people will begin seeking out newer singles by them which means less money needs to be put into promoting future singles. The first single will likely be the one to get the most promotion put into it because the label is attempting to break the artist in. Making an artist a singles artist might almost be like doing that over and over again because people have to be convinced each time that this artist's song is worth checking out.

I guess to use Flo Rida as an example here. Whenever I hear there's a new Flo single, I never really rush to check it out because I know that while I've enjoyed Flo singles in the past, he's never really given me a reason to keep tabs on him. He's a hit or miss guy for me. However, since I liked his two most recent hits, I admit I have been tempted to consider getting his album whenever it comes out because in the last 6 months, I've been convinced that maybe there's more to him than the occasional decent song.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Apr 27, 2012 10:13:09 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

I would guess that it takes a few million for a label to legitimately attempt to get an artist on the radio and in places for people to take notice of them. This is based on various news stories I've read in the last few years that gave costs and stuff. Like that one from last year that said it cost however many thousands of dollars for Rihanna to record Man Down for the writers and recording and the like. Of course that's not promo but that's still money out of the label's pockets to record a song that they plan on working with down the road as a single.
Things like making ads, pushing a song to radio, etc, probably cost additional tens of thousands, if not in the 6-digit figures.

Speaking of GaGa, I have often wondered how much money was put into promo for her Born This Way album because I have never seen that type of promo for anything before. It was incredible but must have cost many millions of dollars considering it was on a worldwide scale.

I think your example of Gotye is an exception though. Word of mouth is a very powerful tool and of course it's free but it still has to start from somewhere. I think in the case of Gotye, the word of mouth was extremely powerful and successful because the song did seem to take off on its own before any other aspect of it. At least in the case of fun., that song became popular after Glee and the SuperBowl.

I think when comparing album sales to single sales, you simply need to add up the total amounts sold.

If a song sells 2 million copies digitally, it's a pretty big success. Assuming a label put standard amounts of money into promoting it (I don't know how much money is standard), they probably still make money from that one song. But each subsequent single from that artist still requires a certain amount of promo.
Whereas a ten-track album that sells half a million copies is equal to selling 5 million individual tracks. Promo went into the album as well, likely more than went into an individual single but the end result is more $ per unit sold.
I guess my point for this example is that when it comes to making money off of an act, a label is better off promoting the act rather than the individual song. Because once that act becomes recognizable, people will begin seeking out newer singles by them which means less money needs to be put into promoting future singles. The first single will likely be the one to get the most promotion put into it because the label is attempting to break the artist in. Making an artist a singles artist might almost be like doing that over and over again because people have to be convinced each time that this artist's song is worth checking out.

I guess to use Flo Rida as an example here. Whenever I hear there's a new Flo single, I never really rush to check it out because I know that while I've enjoyed Flo singles in the past, he's never really given me a reason to keep tabs on him. He's a hit or miss guy for me. However, since I liked his two most recent hits, I admit I have been tempted to consider getting his album whenever it comes out because in the last 6 months, I've been convinced that maybe there's more to him than the occasional decent song.

Artists like Flo Rida have made a name for themselves selling singles. He's never going to sell albums. It's not what the public wants from him. Albums are a waste of money and time for the label as it relates to Flo Rida. People seem increasingly content to simply buy his singles and not his albums. If I were an artist I would never even consider releasing albums outside of the model I talked about until my profile was at a certain level. If an artist has had 5 hits then release their first album.

I would love to see what it costs the labels to promote a single by itself as in detached from promoting an album. I think the labels should try to release 10 hit singles then put out a GH album plus a 2 new tracks. Or release 2 hit singles then an EP with 4 or 5 tracks on it. Then we can have the BB 200 EPs.

[ListenToItTwice]

Apr 26, 2012 17:36:30 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

The money is in tours, endorsement deals, etc. Without artist development, no one wants to see your tours or have you endorsing their products... I see this as a major issue with the way the industry rarely develops new artists anymore and just throws a new artist out there with a hot song and expects that to jump start a career.

I couldn't agree more.. There's certainly money to be made from a smash single, but once that song's gone, there's no 'artist' left, you know? There just aren't enough artists out there that the public really cares about. T-Swift and Gaga (though maybe not for long on the latter :x) are the biggest exceptions we've got, and of course there's Adele, but she's not open to endorsements or pimping out her image.

[esoteric76]

Apr 27, 2012 10:13:09 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

I think your example of Gotye is an exception though.

It definitely is. A song crossing over like that, it's a perfect storm of luck. It can't be predicted otherwise it would happen a lot more!

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Apr 27, 2012 10:50:13 GMT -5 ListenToItTwice said:

Apr 26, 2012 17:36:30 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

The money is in tours, endorsement deals, etc. Without artist development, no one wants to see your tours or have you endorsing their products... I see this as a major issue with the way the industry rarely develops new artists anymore and just throws a new artist out there with a hot song and expects that to jump start a career.

I couldn't agree more.. There's certainly money to be made from a smash single, but once that song's gone, there's no 'artist' left, you know? There just aren't enough artists out there that the public really cares about. T-Swift and Gaga (though maybe not for long on the latter :x) are the biggest exceptions we've got, and of course there's Adele, but she's not open to endorsements or pimping out her image.

There is an artist who just had a hit. Keep releasing material from them. We are eventually going to get to a point where even the low end of the Top 40 is profitable. If you are on an indie label the low end of the Top 40 is profitable. Its the big record companies who need to adjust their model so they can be profitable no matter what the chart position.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2012 10:53:46 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Apr 27, 2012 10:50:13 GMT -5 ListenToItTwice said:

I couldn't agree more.. There's certainly money to be made from a smash single, but once that song's gone, there's no 'artist' left, you know? There just aren't enough artists out there that the public really cares about. T-Swift and Gaga (though maybe not for long on the latter :x) are the biggest exceptions we've got, and of course there's Adele, but she's not open to endorsements or pimping out her image.

There is an artist who just had a hit. Keep releasing material from them. We are eventually going to get to a point where even the low end of the Top 40 is profitable. If you are on an indie label the low end of the Top 40 is profitable. Its the big record companies who need to adjust their model so they can be profitable no matter what the chart position.

But for each song they release, they need to put money into the recording and promotion of the song. I'm not seeing where releasing more and more material necessarily leads to a greater profit.

[Agent Yoncé]

10 million tracks = a platinum album.

I don't even think there's a handful of people that have sold that many singles in an era for it to be equivalent to a platinum album.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

Apr 27, 2012 10:56:25 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

Apr 27, 2012 10:53:46 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

There is an artist who just had a hit. Keep releasing material from them. We are eventually going to get to a point where even the low end of the Top 40 is profitable. If you are on an indie label the low end of the Top 40 is profitable. Its the big record companies who need to adjust their model so they can be profitable no matter what the chart position.

But for each song they release, they need to put money into the recording and promotion of the song. I'm not seeing where releasing more and more material necessarily leads to a greater profit.

I'm not sure what you are talking about or how it has to do with the point I was making. Can you explain further?

I was saying that if indie labels can make record buying profitable even when they aren't selling that much product, what is stopping the major labels from doing the same....while at the same time making the point that singles sales are still on the upswing for the foreseeable future. A rising tide can lift all boats.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Apr 27, 2012 10:29:18 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Apr 27, 2012 10:13:09 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

I would guess that it takes a few million for a label to legitimately attempt to get an artist on the radio and in places for people to take notice of them. This is based on various news stories I've read in the last few years that gave costs and stuff. Like that one from last year that said it cost however many thousands of dollars for Rihanna to record Man Down for the writers and recording and the like. Of course that's not promo but that's still money out of the label's pockets to record a song that they plan on working with down the road as a single.
Things like making ads, pushing a song to radio, etc, probably cost additional tens of thousands, if not in the 6-digit figures.

Speaking of GaGa, I have often wondered how much money was put into promo for her Born This Way album because I have never seen that type of promo for anything before. It was incredible but must have cost many millions of dollars considering it was on a worldwide scale.

I think your example of Gotye is an exception though. Word of mouth is a very powerful tool and of course it's free but it still has to start from somewhere. I think in the case of Gotye, the word of mouth was extremely powerful and successful because the song did seem to take off on its own before any other aspect of it. At least in the case of fun., that song became popular after Glee and the SuperBowl.

I think when comparing album sales to single sales, you simply need to add up the total amounts sold.

If a song sells 2 million copies digitally, it's a pretty big success. Assuming a label put standard amounts of money into promoting it (I don't know how much money is standard), they probably still make money from that one song. But each subsequent single from that artist still requires a certain amount of promo.
Whereas a ten-track album that sells half a million copies is equal to selling 5 million individual tracks. Promo went into the album as well, likely more than went into an individual single but the end result is more $ per unit sold.
I guess my point for this example is that when it comes to making money off of an act, a label is better off promoting the act rather than the individual song. Because once that act becomes recognizable, people will begin seeking out newer singles by them which means less money needs to be put into promoting future singles. The first single will likely be the one to get the most promotion put into it because the label is attempting to break the artist in. Making an artist a singles artist might almost be like doing that over and over again because people have to be convinced each time that this artist's song is worth checking out.

I guess to use Flo Rida as an example here. Whenever I hear there's a new Flo single, I never really rush to check it out because I know that while I've enjoyed Flo singles in the past, he's never really given me a reason to keep tabs on him. He's a hit or miss guy for me. However, since I liked his two most recent hits, I admit I have been tempted to consider getting his album whenever it comes out because in the last 6 months, I've been convinced that maybe there's more to him than the occasional decent song.

Artists like Flo Rida have made a name for themselves selling singles. He's never going to sell albums. It's not what the public wants from him. Albums are a waste of money and time for the label as it relates to Flo Rida. People seem increasingly content to simply buy his singles and not his albums. If I were an artist I would never even consider releasing albums outside of the model I talked about until my profile was at a certain level. If an artist has had 5 hits then release their first album.

I would love to see what it costs the labels to promote a single by itself as in detached from promoting an album. I think the labels should try to release 10 hit singles then put out a GH album plus a 2 new tracks. Or release 2 hit singles then an EP with 4 or 5 tracks on it. Then we can have the BB 200 EPs.

I too would love to see numbers behind promotions for singles and albums. Both for this conversation and for my own curiosity.

I also agree that some acts should be singles acts. I was mostly just saying that I think it's possible that it might be better in the shorter-long run to do an album than just a bunch of singles but at the same time, it might be better to get the artist established before an album anyway. I think they have been doing that anyway since most pop albums have two or more singles before a release anyway. Plus more and more newcomers are starting off with multiple singles or even EPs before albums as well. Methods of testing the waters without devoting too much efforts to full album promo.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Apr 27, 2012 12:32:46 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

Apr 27, 2012 10:56:25 GMT -5 @jazzysoul47 said:

But for each song they release, they need to put money into the recording and promotion of the song. I'm not seeing where releasing more and more material necessarily leads to a greater profit.

I'm not sure what you are talking about or how it has to do with the point I was making. Can you explain further?

I was saying that if indie labels can make record buying profitable even when they aren't selling that much product, what is stopping the major labels from doing the same....while at the same time making the point that singles sales are still on the upswing for the foreseeable future. A rising tide can lift all boats.

I think indie labels tend to do everything on a much smaller scale, geographically and otherwise. When something on an indie label takes off, it's probably because of some other factor.

[Love Plastic Love]

Indie acts or labels do stuff a lot more cheaply than major ones for the most part. You cannot compare the budgets. A lot of money is thrown into major label artists in a variety of ways. You can be millions in the hole before even releasing a song.
You have to sell a lot of singles to make up for not selling albums OR you have to click with touring and endorsements. PitBull is a great example-endorsements, touring, features, and single sales make up for him not selling tons of albums. I feel like someone like Jason Derule may struggle a bit more because I am not sure his income other than sales outweighs the money put into him. It just depends.

[reidster]

Apr 27, 2012 10:13:09 GMT -5 Devil Marlena Nylund said:

a label is better off promoting the act rather than the individual song. Because once that act becomes recognizable, people will begin seeking out newer singles by them which means less money needs to be put into promoting future singles.

I really don't think there is a difference between promoting the act and promoting the song. You do these things together. You don't go on the talk show tour without showing your face. Your adds on AllAccess, etc., all have your picture on them. I think it's the artists responsibility (and personal likability) that determines their success rather than their songs. A quick example that comes to mind is One Direction and The Wanted. I feel like One Direction are going to end up being a more successful act while The Wanted is more of a singles artist (so far). I don't think the labels did much differently. It just worked out that way because of the artists themselves.

[Adonis the DemiGod!]

If people like a song it'll sell. If the music is not liked it won't sell no matter how much people like the person.

[Deleted]

This explains the growing need for product placement in videos also. Some may get turned off by it but from the artist/label's perspectives, if a company is going to sponsor you a music video at the cost of plugging a few "cheesy" shots, of course they're going to do it.

Now that I think about it, Flo-Rida's recent videos have sort of reeked of this. "Club Cant Handle Me" and especially "Good Feeling" which seems like a 5 minute infomercial/ad for something. B.o.B also has an impressive Adidas campaign and flogs their clothing in all his videos.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

Apr 28, 2012 12:17:37 GMT -5 Adonis the DemiGod! said:

If people like a song it'll sell. If the music is not liked it won't sell no matter how much people like the person.

Also not necessarily true. An artist with a major following will more reliably sell albums and singles from the beginning. I know I for one will buy an album on the day of release from someone I know I like whether I've heard one song, two songs or no songs from. If one of my favourites puts out a new single, I'd buy it before I heard it anywhere else just because. Making a name and image for an artist is very important. It creates a fan base to ensure future success.