|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 23, 2010 15:40:59 GMT -5
It's a singles market now and artists should be focused on singles. Albums just don't sell. Albums are just a way to get people to spend money on stuff that's not worth buying anyway. If you take the hit singles off the albums, most people wouldn't even be interested in listening to the rest of the album.
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on Aug 23, 2010 18:07:12 GMT -5
It's just today's technology, a lot of people don't want to take the time to listen to a proper album, listening to a 3-4 minute song on their iPod or making their own playlists or cherrypicking the songs they want to download from an album rather than buying a complete album is much more idealistic to people with how digital music works these days.
|
|
speeddial
New Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 338
|
Post by speeddial on Aug 23, 2010 19:29:44 GMT -5
It's a singles market now and artists should be focused on singles. Albums just don't sell. Albums are just a way to get people to spend money on stuff that's not worth buying anyway. If you take the hit singles off the albums, most people wouldn't even be interested in listening to the rest of the album. The sales of singles were on a major decline during the early to mid-200s. Itunes changed a lot of things.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2010 20:18:45 GMT -5
Sales of singles were on major decline because the labels took the availablility away from the retailers. If labels took availability away from online retailers again (which isn't happening any time soon but I am thinking could at some point in the future) you would again see a decline
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 23, 2010 22:00:02 GMT -5
Sales of singles were on major decline because the labels took the availablility away from the retailers. If labels took availability away from online retailers again (which isn't happening any time soon but I am thinking could at some point in the future) you would again see a decline At that point no one would buy the albums either. In fact I think they should drop releasing albums and just focus on singles. People would buy more singles than ever before.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2010 22:07:38 GMT -5
Missing my point, I think
Singles have been intentionally stripped from the market before. This meant to get your favorite song you have to buy the album. (Late 90's - early 2000s)
If singles were to get stripped from the market again (because labels can make more money from albums than 1.29 singles) - then singles volume would decline and to get your songs legally, you would need to buy the album
Not saying this would happen any time soon but I don't think it is impossible.
Labels have tried and failed to get itunes to do 'album-only' sales before and failed. Perhaps someday they could be successful. Hypothetical situation only....
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 23, 2010 22:31:10 GMT -5
Missing my point, I think Singles have been intentionally stripped from the market before. This meant to get your favorite song you have to buy the album. (Late 90's - early 2000s) If singles were to get stripped from the market again (because labels can make more money from albums than 1.29 singles) - then singles volume would decline and to get your songs legally, you would need to buy the album Not saying this would happen any time soon but I don't think it is impossible. Labels have tried and failed to get itunes to do 'album-only' sales before and failed. Perhaps someday they could be successful. Hypothetical situation only.... I'll tell you why that wouldn't happen. People would just download the one song they want and by pass the album altogether accept this time they would do it illegally rather than legally. There are plenty of sites and people and software to help people get the songs they want without having to buy the whole album. That's the reason Itunes came about in the first place is so people had a legal way to buy SINGLES. You aren't going to force people to make a bigger investment than they want to make in a song or an artist or an album. That's why file sharing and napster came to prominence in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Aug 23, 2010 22:47:44 GMT -5
Kid Rock didn't make his album available digitally and he was able to scan over 2.5 million with just one Pop hit.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 23, 2010 23:21:41 GMT -5
Kid Rock didn't make his album available digitally and he was able to scan over 2.5 million with just one Pop hit. I would say he's not the normal circumstance. He may not even be able to replicate that success. I am just going by what happened the last time record companies tried to go album only. People are now willing to buy downloads in droves. There is no need to waste all that money trying to keep stores stocked up with CDs go through the drama of putting a full CD together when there are only 3 good songs on it and it's only going to sell about 30 or 40k a week and that's if it's a top 10 album. If you sold the one song you could generate even more money. I think you could get people hooked on buying singles and maybe save money on things like recording time etc...
|
|
CookyMonzta
Platinum Member
Joined: March 2006
Posts: 1,362
|
Post by CookyMonzta on Aug 24, 2010 2:26:36 GMT -5
It's a singles market now and artists should be focused on singles. Albums just don't sell. Albums are just a way to get people to spend money on stuff that's not worth buying anyway. If you take the hit singles off the albums, most people wouldn't even be interested in listening to the rest of the album. The sales of singles were on a major decline during the early to mid-200s. Itunes changed a lot of things. iTunes wasn't around in 1999 and 2000. That's when the record companies were in collusion to strip the (physical) single from the market. By 2002, the majority of the singles on the racks were imports, many of which were from independent labels.
|
|
|
Post by neverduplicated on Aug 24, 2010 3:47:41 GMT -5
Everyone saying that they should get of albums is missing two major points.
One, lots of people, myself included, still prefer albums over singles. I buy the odd single every now and then, but a hot song just doesn't compare to the experience of listening to an entire album that I love, and I know I'm not the only one who feels this way. I think the best way to boost album sales is just lower the price already, especially for digital sales considering it doesn't cost anything in materials or shipping, just a fee for the online music store. I buy albums on amazon.com all the time because they're regularly on sale for $5-8 which is a pretty reasonable price for an album I really want. I would be very upset if artists just started releasing singles only and forgot about albums. I definitely would stop liking those artists as much.
Two, albums are still way more profitable than singles. Think about it - a single costs about $1, meaning one million copies translates to $1 million spent. However, an album on average will cost about $10, maybe even more. Even if an album sells only 100,000 copies, that's just as much money as that single that sold a million copies. Yes, it took more effort to make the album, but with a somewhat high profile artist, even an artist who's not selling so well, they can expect to sell well over 100,000 copies over time. Even acts like Lady Gaga, The Black Eyed Peas, and Taylor Swift who have sold tons of singles have no doubt made much more money from their album sales.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2010 11:41:03 GMT -5
The future of the album is really the EP. Major pop artists will be releasing 1 or 2 albums with 8 or so tracks a year. They can sell them for cheaper.
|
|
|
Post by Adonis the DemiGod! on Aug 24, 2010 13:49:41 GMT -5
Albums are a way for record companies to package horrible songs with good songs and still be able to sell them and for a higher price. No one would buy half of the songs if not most of the songs that are on albums if it weren't for the one or two songs they liked in the first place.... I think EP is the way to go if you really want to go down that path but I still think we are headed for a singles market and the more quickly record companies embrace this the more money there is to be made with a single.
|
|
|
Post by Love Plastic Love on Aug 24, 2010 14:27:50 GMT -5
Its easy just to say FOCUS ON THE SINGLE but singles do not make as much money as albums. That is why artists and the label are not going to just let go. A 5 million+ selling single by itself makes less money than an album that "just" sells a million. They are trying to offset it by increasing single prices, but it isn't enough to make as much as even a mildly successful album. It is interesting to see how all of this will play out.
|
|
Diego
New Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 362
|
Post by Diego on Aug 24, 2010 14:56:19 GMT -5
Agreed with neverduplicated - even if albums are declining at frightening rates, I would never want companies to cease their release to focus solely on singles. Of course, we all do the cherrypicking thing, i.e. only buy a few singles that we like from an album or just download the entire album illegally, but I want to have the OPTION to buy albums that I do like from artists I do want to support. There's nothing like that feeling of having a tangible copy of an album you've been dying to get your hands on, from that artist you're so in love with.
Also, if only singles were released, a lot of high-quality "album tracks" wouldn't be heard. Labels would only want to release commercial, radio-friendly songs to make sure that it sells, and we'd get less of the "underrated" treasures that never get released to radio because they belong as appreciated album tracks, and are often even better than the hits released from the album.
|
|
|
Post by dbt88 on Aug 24, 2010 14:58:28 GMT -5
I disagree with record companies releasing albums as singles+horrible songs to make more profit. The main reason to even make an album is to put together a solid output from single worthy songs to album fillers of good quality, and alot of albums have done that in the past and up to now. I agree that most people would bypass buying an album, 'cause most people would just like to hear singles, then again some of the best songs on the albums are not the ones that get released. It's all hypothetical. We won't be seeing 8xp albums anytime soon or ever probably but even then when sales were at an all time high, having such was already a huge accomplishment. You still have alot of artists that sell relatively well ( Beyonce, Britney, Carrie, A Keys, Eminem, BEP etc. ) There are still people out there who are willing to shelve out ten dollars for an album. So stop trying to sensationalize this album sales are down because we've heard that year after year now.
|
|
tsw2008
2x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 2,673
|
Post by tsw2008 on Aug 24, 2010 15:46:28 GMT -5
Its easy just to say FOCUS ON THE SINGLE but singles do not make as much money as albums. That is why artists and the label are not going to just let go. A 5 million+ selling single by itself makes less money than an album that "just" sells a million. They are trying to offset it by increasing single prices, but it isn't enough to make as much as even a mildly successful album. It is interesting to see how all of this will play out. you're right, from the label's point of view albums are still more profitable than singles but it might be closer than you think. There is less overhead in selling singles, no packaging costs, etc. If a million selling album produces two 4 million selling singles and a 3 million selling single for a total of 11 Million singles, the profits will be far greater than from the sale of a million selling album, and singles are far easier to sell. It's not uncommon for a big hit these days to hit 4 Million. Even the example you cited, 5 million singles vs 1 million albums could be closer than you might think. The wholesale price of a CD is about what 6$ on a $10 album at retail and there are albums selling for $7.99 what's the wholesales price on those ? Selling 1 million albums is getting pretty hard to do while it's easier than ever to sell millions of singles.
|
|
|
Post by dbt88 on Aug 24, 2010 17:55:01 GMT -5
Its easy just to say FOCUS ON THE SINGLE but singles do not make as much money as albums. That is why artists and the label are not going to just let go. A 5 million+ selling single by itself makes less money than an album that "just" sells a million. They are trying to offset it by increasing single prices, but it isn't enough to make as much as even a mildly successful album. It is interesting to see how all of this will play out. you're right, from the label's point of view albums are still more profitable than singles but it might be closer than you think. There is less overhead in selling singles, no packaging costs, etc. If a million selling album produces two 4 million selling singles and a 3 million selling single for a total of 11 Million singles, the profits will be far greater than from the sale of a million selling album, and singles are far easier to sell. It's not uncommon for a big hit these days to hit 4 Million. Even the example you cited, 5 million singles vs 1 million albums could be closer than you might think. The wholesale price of a CD is about what 6$ on a $10 album at retail and there are albums selling for $7.99 what's the wholesales price on those ? Selling 1 million albums is getting pretty hard to do while it's easier than ever to sell millions of singles. Not entirely true. When record labels promote a single, it's because they're promoting the album. That's why back then, when a song becomes a hit, there is a spike in sales. Also, it's still pretty rare to have a four or five million selling single. Mind you, there are already 20 songs to have sold 4 million and above but those song had to be really massive in order to attain those sales. That's why it's very impressive to have artists like Lady GaGa, Taylor Swift and Beyonce, who have multiplatinum albums that yielded multiplatinum selling singles as well
|
|
legend1982
New Member
Joined: July 2006
Posts: 346
|
Post by legend1982 on Aug 24, 2010 19:17:07 GMT -5
Its easy just to say FOCUS ON THE SINGLE but singles do not make as much money as albums. That is why artists and the label are not going to just let go. A 5 million+ selling single by itself makes less money than an album that "just" sells a million. They are trying to offset it by increasing single prices, but it isn't enough to make as much as even a mildly successful album. It is interesting to see how all of this will play out. Who cares if singles don't make more money than albums? - none of it is really going to the artist anyway (revenue from albums or singles). I understand this is a business, but these record companies have been ruthless for years in their pursuit of making (and keeping) a dollar. They have been unfair to the fans and the artists. Their accounting practices are worse than the movie business. So, I feel no sympathy about the death of the CD. Artists have to tour to make money. Or, if you're a rapper (a group that doesn't make money from touring), you have to do endorsement deals or other ventures. Even ASCAP and BMI pay games with paying for radio play. As 50 Cent said, albums and singles are just promotion for the tour and the other ventures. But, with Universal and Warner Bros. only signing people to 360 deals now, new artists may have a problem even getting that money. I don't need Soundscan figures to tell me that the CD is dying, the record companies' move into 360 deals says everything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2010 19:18:57 GMT -5
The CD isn't dying, the CD is becoming less popular
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on Aug 24, 2010 21:35:21 GMT -5
^^Yeah I think the CD format won't be officially "dying" until there is an actual alternative format to it that isn't digital downloading. As many people that are changing to digital, a lot of music buyers still swear by the CD. I'd like a mainstream USB format, to compromise with the digital revolution but also to offer something new and exciting to the music market.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2010 21:37:04 GMT -5
And you gotta have something to play in your car, mainstream is still CD here
|
|
pnobelysk
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 10,116
|
Post by pnobelysk on Aug 25, 2010 10:35:29 GMT -5
"If a million selling album produces two 4 million selling singles and a 3 million selling single for a total of 11 Million singles, the profits will be far greater than from the sale of a million selling album, and singles are far easier to sell. It's not uncommon for a big hit these days to hit 4 Million."
^ An album with two 4million selling singles and a 3 million single will almost never lead to just a platinum album. Usually double platnium (this could change in a few years)
|
|
weaver
4x Platinum Member
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 4,095
|
Post by weaver on Aug 25, 2010 23:31:21 GMT -5
Hmm...not sure what to say about this. I think what is happening is really the demise of the major label. At a certain point, can't artists just market their music directly to iTunes? I still like listening to albums, and I don't think they are going to just give way to singles. I just think, much like television, the market is vastly more fragmented, and a lot of people DO just cherry pick the songs they like from an album. This, perhaps, does come from that time period of late 90s/early 00s when we were forced to buy an album just to get a song. The majors, more or less, indirectly created the demand for Napster et. al. with this greedy gouging of the public- albums were typically $ 18.99 in those days. If they want to stoke album sales, under the current system, I agree with those calling for a price cut, and I think to some degree we've already seen that. I've gotten albums on iTunes for 7.99, and in stores for like $ 10.99. At a regular retailer in, say, 1998, you could not get any album outside of the bargain bin for less than like 18 bucks. That's a lot of money for the main music consumers- kids and teenagers.
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on Aug 26, 2010 14:00:57 GMT -5
How about this:
Labels make non-singles/album tracks 'album only' purchases while the consumer can still buy as many singles as they want, but if they want Ke$ha's "Kiss 'N Tell" for example, they have to purchase the whole album (or 'complete' it, by iTunes phrasing). Also this way when a record label decides to officially 'release' their single to iTunes it goes from 'album only' eligible to an individually available song.
It won't necessarily hurt single sales (sales for an individual song will be held back until it's officially released as a single) and if people want to cherrypick non-singles they will have to buy the actual digital album.
I know it's not as user-friendly but instead of just making everything album only as some are suggesting, make singles all able to be downloaded individually but make non-singles only available as album packages. It's win-win I think, if they decide to take that route anyway.
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on Aug 26, 2010 14:02:40 GMT -5
^^ I think it at least should be experimented with a few popular albums and see how it works
|
|
Jay D83
4x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2006
Posts: 4,505
|
Post by Jay D83 on Aug 26, 2010 14:18:22 GMT -5
How about this: Labels make non-singles/album tracks 'album only' purchases while the consumer can still buy as many singles as they want, but if they want Ke$ha's "Kiss 'N Tell" for example, they have to purchase the whole album (or 'complete' it, by iTunes phrasing). Also this way when a record label decides to officially 'release' their single to iTunes it goes from 'album only' eligible to an individually available song. It won't necessarily hurt single sales (sales for an individual song will be held back until it's officially released as a single) and if people want to cherrypick non-singles they will have to buy the actual digital album. I know it's not as user-friendly but instead of just making everything album only as some are suggesting, make singles all able to be downloaded individually but make non-singles only available as album packages. It's win-win I think, if they decide to take that route anyway. Not only that, but after the single goes recurrent, I think it should be taken off of the "single" format and go back to being "album only." Trust me, the people who download from iTunes are usually people who can't be bothered to download inferior tracks from Limewire or tracking down torrents. If singles were released like the way they were in the past, those same singles buyers would buy albums, ESPECIALLY if digital albums were $6.99.
|
|
Honeymoon
3x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2006
Posts: 3,256
|
Post by Honeymoon on Aug 26, 2010 15:35:38 GMT -5
How about this: Labels make non-singles/album tracks 'album only' purchases while the consumer can still buy as many singles as they want, but if they want Ke$ha's "Kiss 'N Tell" for example, they have to purchase the whole album (or 'complete' it, by iTunes phrasing). Also this way when a record label decides to officially 'release' their single to iTunes it goes from 'album only' eligible to an individually available song. It won't necessarily hurt single sales (sales for an individual song will be held back until it's officially released as a single) and if people want to cherrypick non-singles they will have to buy the actual digital album. I know it's not as user-friendly but instead of just making everything album only as some are suggesting, make singles all able to be downloaded individually but make non-singles only available as album packages. It's win-win I think, if they decide to take that route anyway. Not only that, but after the single goes recurrent, I think it should be taken off of the "single" format and go back to being "album only." Trust me, the people who download from iTunes are usually people who can't be bothered to download inferior tracks from Limewire or tracking down torrents. If singles were released like the way they were in the past, those same singles buyers would buy albums, ESPECIALLY if digital albums were $6.99. It's makes a lot of sense indeed. Lower the prices of albums while not changing the price of a single, you will see more digital buyers opting to buy the album instead of an individual song because they will see that they get more for their money. Some people are complaining that digital albums are not quite totally catching on the way singles are. It's because the whole FORMAT of digital downloading allows a consumer to pick and choose whatever individual tracks they want instead of buying an album as a package deal. This concept I put forth really isn't any different at all to how music was sold back before the digital revolution. The label releases their official "singles", which the consumer can choose to buy or they can buy the full album with all the tracks included for one set price.
|
|
|
Post by Nic (Britney Spears) on Aug 26, 2010 15:41:58 GMT -5
How about this: Labels make non-singles/album tracks 'album only' purchases while the consumer can still buy as many singles as they want, but if they want Ke$ha's "Kiss 'N Tell" for example, they have to purchase the whole album (or 'complete' it, by iTunes phrasing). Also this way when a record label decides to officially 'release' their single to iTunes it goes from 'album only' eligible to an individually available song. It won't necessarily hurt single sales (sales for an individual song will be held back until it's officially released as a single) and if people want to cherrypick non-singles they will have to buy the actual digital album. I know it's not as user-friendly but instead of just making everything album only as some are suggesting, make singles all able to be downloaded individually but make non-singles only available as album packages. It's win-win I think, if they decide to take that route anyway. I was essentially going to suggest the same thing. And I agree, it should at least be tested.
|
|
lugus15
Gold Member
Joined: April 2009
Posts: 790
|
Post by lugus15 on Aug 29, 2010 1:34:56 GMT -5
May I just ask what was the retail price of an album in 99-00 (say Britney Spears debut album)???
What is the retail price of TheFame/FameMonster album???? What is the price of The Fame Monster EP???
And what was the retail price of a single in 99-00????
|
|