Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 17:38:28 GMT -5
When was the last time they gave a top 15 2 days into an unfinished tracking week?
Billboard three days ago said Beyonce was "upwards of 250K", looks like that will hold true
Since HITS is not doing a building chart this week, this looks like what we get.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 17:39:09 GMT -5
So it's the 12/31 HITS chart? That is why I renamed the thread to say HITS 12/31?
|
|
|
Post by josh on Dec 31, 2013 17:42:26 GMT -5
I didn't realize Gaga finally was on sale on iTunes. About time. $15 or 16 is way too much.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2013 17:43:28 GMT -5
YOUR YEAR-END TOP 15: We sincerely hope you're fully occupied with chilling the bubbly, loading the confetti cannon and affixing the sex swing to the ceiling ahead of your New Year’s Eve festivities (and for safety’s sake, people, please secure that swing with toggle bolts). But in case you’ve got a hankering to see what next week’s retail action will look like, we present our final Top 15 of 2013. Note that an iTunes $6.99-$7.99 sale applies to Frozen, Katy Perry, Luke Bryan, Lorde, Imagine Dragons, Now 48, Lady Gaga and several others listed below, as the download emporium calls its gift cards home. Beyoncé (Columbia) 275-290k One Direction (SYCO/Columbia) 130-145k Eminem (Shady/Aftermath/Interscope) 125-140k Frozen (Walt Disney) 120-135k Katy Perry (Capitol) 90-100k Garth Brooks (Pearl) 90-100k Lorde (Lava/Republic) 75-85k Imagine Dragons (KidinaKorner/Interscope) 65-75k Now 48 (UMe) 55-65k The Robertsons (EMI Nashville) 50-60k Luke Bryan (Capitol Nashville) 50-60k Drake (YM/CM/Republic) 45-55k Florida Georgia Line (Republic Nashville) 45-50k Kelly Clarkson (RCA) 40-45k Lady Gaga (Interscope) 40-45k Happy New Year, everybody. We regret to inform you that we’ll be back in 2014. (12/31p) This may be in lieu of the usual top 50 chart we see from them on Tuesdays
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Dec 31, 2013 18:03:13 GMT -5
^Yes, but this is the part that confused me:
"what next week’s retail action will look like"
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Dec 31, 2013 18:25:36 GMT -5
There was no physical release for Bieber's album. Let's give him a break.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Dec 31, 2013 18:27:13 GMT -5
Let's be real here. Justin's music career was going to decline sooner than later anyway. Nobody thought he had enough substance to move beyond the image he had set for himself because he never made an effort to show such a side of him, if it exists.
|
|
Choco
Diamond Member
lavender haze
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 27,197
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by Choco on Dec 31, 2013 19:08:06 GMT -5
In all fairness, Justin Bieber has stayed relevant longer than most of these teen sensations.
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Dec 31, 2013 19:58:44 GMT -5
^Yes, but this is the part that confused me: "what next week’s retail action will look like"Just bad wording on their part... Like when someone says "next Friday" but they really mean the Friday that's two days away. Some updated totals for 2013 releases, with their ranking among 2013 releases: 2. Eminem (Shady/Aftermath/Interscope) 1,710-1,645k 3. Luke Bryan (Capitol Nashville) 1,518-1,528k 4. Drake (YM/CM/Republic) 1,343-1,353k 5. Beyoncé (Columbia) 1,264-1,281k 8. One Direction (SYCO/Columbia) 1,086-1,101k 9. Katy Perry (Capitol) 960-970k 11. The Robertsons (EMI Nashville) 799-809k 12. Garth Brooks (Pearl) 771-780k 13. Kelly Clarkson (RCA) 742-747k 17. Lorde (Lava/Republic) 683-693k 21. Lady Gaga (Interscope) 587-592k 30. Now 48 (UMe) 466-476k 41. Frozen (Walt Disney) 351-365k
|
|
smiley22
New Member
Joined: December 2013
Posts: 456
|
Post by smiley22 on Dec 31, 2013 20:07:46 GMT -5
In all fairness, Justin Bieber has stayed relevant longer than most of these teen sensations. And he's already worth more than Justin Timberlake.
|
|
¤ Matthea ¤
Gold Member
Joined: September 2009
Posts: 803
|
Post by ¤ Matthea ¤ on Dec 31, 2013 20:21:04 GMT -5
Let's be real here. Justin's music career was going to decline sooner than later anyway. Nobody thought he had enough substance to move beyond the image he had set for himself because he never made an effort to show such a side of him, if it exists. I'm not a Justin Bieber fan, but let's wait and see what his next album with proper singles (pushed to radio) does. Didn't "Believe" have 3 successful singles? His days of selling millions without a single on the radio are obviously long gone, but that doesn't mean his career is over. I've read his manager wants Justin to take a year off, we will see how that goes.
|
|
chartfreak
Diamond Member
Enter your message here...
Joined: December 2005
Posts: 10,316
|
Post by chartfreak on Dec 31, 2013 20:27:07 GMT -5
So just to clarify, these HITS numbers are from the sales week including Christmas? And if it holds true to Billboard, we will still see a Christmas album in the top 10.
Edit: Well I see there is quite a range for some of the albums, so maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Dec 31, 2013 20:27:31 GMT -5
Let's be real here. Justin's music career was going to decline sooner than later anyway. Nobody thought he had enough substance to move beyond the image he had set for himself because he never made an effort to show such a side of him, if it exists. I'm not a Justin Bieber fan, but let's wait and see what his next album with proper singles (pushed to radio) does. Didn't "Believe" have 3 successful singles? His days of selling millions without a single on the radio are obviously long gone, but that doesn't mean his career is over. I've read his manager wants Justin to take a year off, we will see how that goes. Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing him off because I don't like him. I mean, I don't. He's a douchebag. But I've done more than enough defending him in unlikely places, such as on Facebook and my blog. When credit is due for certain situations, I acknowledge it. But looking at his situation from where he stands now, in my opinion, his days of being a hitmaking pop star are numbered - unless he can do a convincing major switchup into something that people will want to support. He's not very well liked outside of his fanbase and unfortunately for him, his fanbase consists of fickle young girls who are growing up and moving on from him. I don't think he's been successful at increasing or making new fans over the last year (I do think his Believe album helped him out tremendously though...). I think a year out of the public eye would do him a lot of good.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Dec 31, 2013 20:55:56 GMT -5
So just to clarify, these HITS numbers are from the sales week including Christmas? And if it holds true to Billboard, we will still see a Christmas album in the top 10. Edit: Well I see there is quite a range for some of the albums, so maybe not. Yes, Christmas week. The new Billboard 200 will be out Thursday.
|
|
slamina
2x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
|
Post by slamina on Dec 31, 2013 22:00:30 GMT -5
YOUR YEAR-END TOP 15: We sincerely hope you're fully occupied with chilling the bubbly, loading the confetti cannon and affixing the sex swing to the ceiling ahead of your New Year’s Eve festivities (and for safety’s sake, people, please secure that swing with toggle bolts). But in case you’ve got a hankering to see what next week’s retail action will look like, we present our final Top 15 of 2013. Note that an iTunes $6.99-$7.99 sale applies to Frozen, Katy Perry, Luke Bryan, Lorde, Imagine Dragons, Now 48, Lady Gaga and several others listed below, as the download emporium calls its gift cards home. Beyoncé (Columbia) 275-290k One Direction (SYCO/Columbia) 130-145k Eminem (Shady/Aftermath/Interscope) 125-140k Frozen (Walt Disney) 120-135k Katy Perry (Capitol) 90-100k Garth Brooks (Pearl) 90-100k Lorde (Lava/Republic) 75-85k Imagine Dragons (KidinaKorner/Interscope) 65-75k Now 48 (UMe) 55-65k The Robertsons (EMI Nashville) 50-60k Luke Bryan (Capitol Nashville) 50-60k Drake (YM/CM/Republic) 45-55k Florida Georgia Line (Republic Nashville) 45-50k Kelly Clarkson (RCA) 40-45k Lady Gaga (Interscope) 40-45k Happy New Year, everybody. We regret to inform you that we’ll be back in 2014. (12/31p) Bey and Katy selling strong!
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Jan 1, 2014 1:24:48 GMT -5
I didn't realize Gaga finally was on sale on iTunes. About time. $15 or 16 is way too much. ARTPOP was $3.99 on AmazonMP3 for most of December. The price went up to $5.99 a few days ago. Still cheap.
|
|
|
Post by josh on Jan 1, 2014 1:27:53 GMT -5
I didn't realize Gaga finally was on sale on iTunes. About time. $15 or 16 is way too much. ARTPOP was $3.99 on AmazonMP3 for most of December. The price went up to $5.99 a few days ago. Still cheap. I know. I was talking specifically about iTunes.
|
|
rayjay96
New Member
Joined: April 2013
Posts: 43
|
Post by rayjay96 on Jan 1, 2014 16:48:22 GMT -5
ARTPOP was $3.99 on AmazonMP3 for most of December. The price went up to $5.99 a few days ago. Still cheap. I know. I was talking specifically about iTunes. Yes. iTunes is a much bigger seller than Amazon in terms of digital albums and singles.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jan 1, 2014 19:06:21 GMT -5
I didn't realize Gaga finally was on sale on iTunes. About time. $15 or 16 is way too much. ARTPOP was $3.99 on AmazonMP3 for most of December. The price went up to $5.99 a few days ago. Still cheap. Amazon should really stop this practice. Billboard needs to amend its rules so albums count when they are listed at a price of 7.99 or more....or what should happen is the actual money collected should be the basis for the top 200 and not the units sold. Units sold should be used for certification purposes only. How much someone is willing to pay is reflective of how much someone likes a product.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,884
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jan 1, 2014 20:15:14 GMT -5
Box office always has been based on dollars grossed, though one really has to adjust for inflation. I don't know if it's tougher to track music sales via how much is spent on the products, but there must be a reason it's not tracked via that method.
I also am for less expensive product- but, I don't see why Billboard just doesn't make $3.49 the standard price requirement to count for the charts- that's a pretty great deal for an album. Sure, 99 cents-$2.99 is better, but $3.49 already is such a low price point.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Jan 1, 2014 20:33:08 GMT -5
I for one favor amazon selling albums as cheaply as possible. This benefits the consumer which from my standpoint is the most important thing. I would rather pay less for something than more. Chart manipulation and other factors are secondary But again the price of something is as much a reflection of it's popularity as a sale is. People are willing to spend more for some products than others. Is it not logical to think that people will pay more for something they like more? That should be reflected in it's chart position. That's the point I was making. The other reason i am not for these schemes is because it still costs money it's just not coming directly out of the pocket of the consumer. Therefore consumers of other products from Amazon have to pay more as a result of discounting of some items. The cost doesn't just go away. It's easier to hide the cost when Amazon does this stuff. The consumer still pays though. Why cater to people who can't or won't afford it no matter what? It makes no business sense. The consumer benefits when products that are produced can make money so more product can be produced.
|
|
|
Post by areyoureadytojump on Jan 1, 2014 21:37:34 GMT -5
A sale is better than no sale.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 2, 2014 11:30:08 GMT -5
I understand your point but from the point of view of the consumer (most of us here) that is irrelevant. Let's take it not from the price of a CD but a gallon of milk. Everybody likes milk, it is found in most homes and is presumably popular. Would you rather pay 3 dollars for a gallon of milk or 2 dollars? Certainly makes good business sense to crank the price of milk up so that there can be more money available to produce more milk but the price tag on any product needs to be set just so, so that it will attract people. No one right now will pay 20 dollars for a gallon of milk (for example) Now moving the milk analogy to amazon. No one would pay 20 dollars for a gallon of milk and amazon might not be wise to sell it for 20 dollars but, amazon could sell milk for 15 cents a gallon if they believe it will draw people to their store to buy other more expensive products. Basically, cheaper the price the more people you will attract. You may or may not make money on it but the more people you draw in, the more you can sell of the more expensive, more profitable items. I will take the lower price any day. But how will cheap milk affect the Grocery Hot 100? Bread and Eggs will have an unfair disadvantage all because of Amazon's milk sale. Retailers and customers need to think about how this impacts the food charts!!
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jan 2, 2014 12:58:48 GMT -5
I was kidding! I think it's ridiculous to suggest that retailers shouldn't price things a certain way because of how it could affect Billboard's chart system. If Billboard doesn't like it, they can change. I think Amazon putting certain titles on for $3.49, or $0.99 or whatever is smart. If labels don't like *that*, they can easily respond by not giving those retailers those titles. They all influence each other in the end anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jj99$ - - LeLe on Jan 2, 2014 13:05:34 GMT -5
LOL the Grocery Hot 100...
|
|