CookyMonzta
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 1,362
|
Post by CookyMonzta on Apr 28, 2012 21:50:29 GMT -5
No surprise to me. The first-ever example of this in the age of MP3 is Daniel Powter. His single "Bad Day" was the first digital single to go double-platinum, the first double-platinum single since Cher's "Believe" in 1999 (it has since sold over 3 million); yet, his 2nd album, when last I checked, only sold 350,000 copies.
Remember Mims? He had a number 1 single on the Hot 100 in 2007, "This Is Why I'm Hot". I assume it went platinum, but his album, Music Is My Savior, when last I checked, sold only 250,000.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 30, 2012 10:35:57 GMT -5
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. In terms of making a song a hit if people don't like it you won't sell well no matter how much marketing is behind it. Look at Madonna and the Super Bowl. She has a reliable fan base and she release a song no one liked. The song got an initial boost and then the next week it was a dead single. Again people actually get to hear the music before hand. There is not nearly as much buying a CD unheard because you are a fan as there was before. It's more about the songs. Album sales plunged for a reason. Singles sales is a way to get people to buy product they like rather than have them download it for free or worse find some other way to entertain themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 30, 2012 10:46:39 GMT -5
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. In terms of making a song a hit if people don't like it you won't sell well no matter how much marketing is behind it. Look at Madonna and the Super Bowl. She has a reliable fan base and she release a song no one liked. The song got an initial boost and then the next week it was a dead single. But it still debuted at #13, went to #10 the next week on the Hot 100 and hit #24 or so on CHR/Pop. If that song were by a newcomer, or someone that didn't have the popularity that Madonna had, it would have gone unnoticed. I do strongly agree with you that if a song is something that people don't like, it won't do well in the long run. My point is that name and image can still make a big difference. If that Madonna song was something that everyone loved (let's say it was something as epic as Ray Of Light) and eventually went to #1, it would get the initial kickstart because it's a comeback single for Madonna. Again, if it were by a no-name, chances are, unless the right promo cards were played, the song could go unnoticed. Having a reliable name could make or break a song. Having a good song keeps that song going in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 30, 2012 11:06:41 GMT -5
In terms of making a song a hit if people don't like it you won't sell well no matter how much marketing is behind it. Look at Madonna and the Super Bowl. She has a reliable fan base and she release a song no one liked. The song got an initial boost and then the next week it was a dead single. But it still debuted at #13, went to #10 the next week on the Hot 100 and hit #24 or so on CHR/Pop. If that song were by a newcomer, or someone that didn't have the popularity that Madonna had, it would have gone unnoticed. I do strongly agree with you that if a song is something that people don't like, it won't do well in the long run. My point is that name and image can still make a big difference. If that Madonna song was something that everyone loved (let's say it was something as epic as Ray Of Light) and eventually went to #1, it would get the initial kickstart because it's a comeback single for Madonna. Again, if it were by a no-name, chances are, unless the right promo cards were played, the song could go unnoticed. Having a reliable name could make or break a song. Having a good song keeps that song going in the long run. It really only helps to have name value in the beginning and that's it. It's the equivalent of getting radio stations to play your song when it's first released. Look at those artists where people actually liked the song. Gotye had a great start without radio support or name value. I think being able to hear the music before you purchase has a lot to do with that. Before, when there wasn't the hearing music before you buy like you can now, people relied on name value. Now they rely on their ears and the music itself to determine if they like it enough to buy it and they buy exactly the amount of product they want to buy and not a penny more. The Madonna song wouldn't have gone unnoticed if done by a unknown act. It was performed at the SB. It was going to sell a certain amount based on the SB alone. The Madonna fans bought her record the first week. The non fans bought it the second because of the SB. There was nothing left after that. A big label can help you find your audience if there is one to be found.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 30, 2012 18:46:01 GMT -5
If her song was by an unknown act, they wouldn't have made it on the Super Bowl. The super bowl is for big names only. And Gotye can hardly be used as the norm for any example. His song was big from word of mouth.
I'm not trying to argue or disagree with you just because but from my limited knowledge with marketing and the like, having a well-known name in music is important. If it wasn't, labels wouldn't put so much effort into building artists up as a whole and instead just do it song by song. Image is important the same way brands are important for products. Labels brand the artists to make them reliable for buyers of music and concert tickets. It's a basic concept.
|
|
reidster
2x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2004
Posts: 2,234
|
Post by reidster on Apr 30, 2012 19:08:22 GMT -5
And Gotye can hardly be used as the norm for any example. But you feel like Flo Rida can be used as the norm? Trying to use these extremes as what is the norm doesn't properly represent what is really going on. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 30, 2012 21:56:48 GMT -5
When it comes to what people expect and want from Flo Rida, he is very much a singles artist. Some artists are singles and some are albums artists. People very likely want and prefer one-off singles from him so his singles do quite well on their own but his albums don't. He fits perfectly into compilation-style playlists and setlists. Same with a lot of producer-based music like David Guetta. I don't think his albums have sold all that well but the singles do. I think it's mostly that genre of music where people are more interested in the song rather than the name and face behind the song. But even still, songs by Flo and David still do have an edge because their names are recognizable so people, and stations, are likely still going to give these songs a chance anyway because they've been reliable before.
I feel like this topic has veered off course anyway. I guess my point is is that artists still need to make a name for themselves in order to ensure continued success. It's like getting a foot in the door and it makes it easier for future efforts by that person. Think of it like an Apple product. If you love past Apple products and you consider them a reliable company that makes good things, chances are you probably keep an eye on what they're working on and when they release a new product, you might be apt to pick it up even if there might be a better version of a similar thing by another company out there.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Apr 30, 2012 22:22:06 GMT -5
If her song was by an unknown act, they wouldn't have made it on the Super Bowl. The super bowl is for big names only. And Gotye can hardly be used as the norm for any example. His song was big from word of mouth. I'm not trying to argue or disagree with you just because but from my limited knowledge with marketing and the like, having a well-known name in music is important. If it wasn't, labels wouldn't put so much effort into building artists up as a whole and instead just do it song by song. Image is important the same way brands are important for products. Labels brand the artists to make them reliable for buyers of music and concert tickets. It's a basic concept. I get the label has to build a brand but it's hard to continue to build a brand around music that no one wants to buy. Having a well known name is helpful. I am not saying its not helpful but the music triumphs over name value. Name value helps but it isn't the music itself.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Apr 30, 2012 22:49:32 GMT -5
If her song was by an unknown act, they wouldn't have made it on the Super Bowl. The super bowl is for big names only. And Gotye can hardly be used as the norm for any example. His song was big from word of mouth. I'm not trying to argue or disagree with you just because but from my limited knowledge with marketing and the like, having a well-known name in music is important. If it wasn't, labels wouldn't put so much effort into building artists up as a whole and instead just do it song by song. Image is important the same way brands are important for products. Labels brand the artists to make them reliable for buyers of music and concert tickets. It's a basic concept. I get the label has to build a brand but it's hard to continue to build a brand around music that no one wants to buy. Having a well known name is helpful. I am not saying its not helpful but the music triumphs over name value. Name value helps but it isn't the music itself. Yeah, that's true. But if an artist makes a crappy song, it does bring down their value a bit. Just like if Apple were to create a crappy product after months of hype, they'd have to work to redeem themselves. The product would still sell to those so-called "fanboys" but word of mouth would be strong enough to cease sales in the long run. It's the same thing with a new single by a big-named artist. Both aspects go hand-in-hand and I don't think you can really simplify it down to just one or the other.
|
|
tiggs
New Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 9
|
Post by tiggs on May 7, 2012 12:26:32 GMT -5
For artists who've grown to be my favorites, I buy the new album unheard (and I prefer physical CD to digital download), because I know I consistently like the music these artists make. For artists new/newer to me, I'll buy the whole album, after listening, if I like enough songs on it, case by case basis. I appreciate the ability to buy singles for artists/genres I don't usually listen to, when I happen to really like a particular song here and there.
I know some artists speak out against single-buying, but I have to say that, in my own lifetime, I've noticed a difference in general album quality.
For example, I grew up listening to the Eagles. Today, I can look at my parents' old Eagles (and plenty of other artists') albums and every song on the album is "hit song" quality...absolutely no filler. The artists then had time to write/find the best songs between albums and weren't constantly in danger of being dropped from their label. Nowadays, an artist better have a mega hit out of the box, and every single release (decided by the labels rather than the artists in most cases) better sell well, or at the slightest sign of poor sales, the artist gets dropped. And albums must come out fast, as soon as there are one or two tracks available the suits think will be hits...it's sell, sell, sell, and, in my opinion, much of the artists' integrity has been lost. Because of this, listeners now know to pretty much "expect" a couple of hits and a few album fillers and are becoming less and less likely to shell out for an entire album.
I think, in a lot of ways, the industry is doing this to itself.
|
|
Kishi KCM
Diamond Member
Work In Progress
Joined: March 2007
Posts: 11,324
|
Post by Kishi KCM on May 9, 2012 10:16:25 GMT -5
^ GREAT post with excellent points, especially the second paragraph!
|
|