How Much Will Sales be Affected by Downloads?

[bram]

Yep. And like I said, not judging, just opining.

Gotcha. I guess it's the "just in case I end up liking it" strategy. Usually for more experimental records that are outside of my usual music zone.

 

[Danny Boy]

Am I buying new R.E.M. album? YES.

Are you referring to the Murmurs reissue or is there another new album that I don't know about?

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

This isn't quite right. I download lots and lots of albums and I listen to them all at least once. I don't share them with anyone. If I'm not into it after giving it a fair shot, I'll discard it. If I like something ok, I might leave it around for a while, but I'll eventually discard it if I'm not interested in it after 6 months or so. Albums that end up resonating with me get purchased. I use downloading as a way of filtering/finding the music I like. It takes the risk out of purchases for me, so perhaps I buy less than I would otherwise, but I still buy albums that I think are deserving of support. I think that's the group of people ndmaxfield was talking about above.

It's definitely not "wishful thinking" or "nonsensical". It's a combination of supporting deserving artists and the enjoyment of having the physical CD with physical liner notes in a physical case.

This is a classic, "but that doesn't apply to me!" response to evidence of an undeniable trend. There are exceptions to any rule. You are the exception, not the rule. If everyone was like you album sales wouldn't be down.

p.s.- I rarely meet anyone who will admit that they only steal music and never buy it. And yet...

 

[bram]

This is a classic, "but that doesn't apply to me!" response to evidence of an undeniable trend. There are exceptions to any rule. You are the exception, not the rule. If everyone was like you album sales wouldn't be down.

p.s.- I rarely meet anyone who will admit that they only steal music and never buy it. And yet...

That may be so, but your comments before implied that there were no exceptions to the rule...and I imagine that they are more numerous than you think. Do you really think that all the guys browsing around the local, hip, last-of-a-dying-breed record shops only listen to physical albums and never download?

p.s. Do you really meet a lot of people and ask them whether they buy or steal music?

Also-keep in mind that stolen/illegally downloaded music has helped more than one band rise to prominence and wealth in recent years. Fleet Foxes would be the most recent one--their album leaked something like 6 months early. Everyone had heard that thing before it was out, and now they're featured in music mags from LA to France.

 

[Utoo]

Are we talking only illegal downloads? If legal downloads don't count in the total number of album sales, I propose that that should be fixed. Mark my words, you heard it here, that should be fixed.

 

[MMP]

Are you referring to the Murmurs reissue or is there another new album that I don't know about?

Oh, I meant that if they were releasing any new album, they are one of the bands that I would actually buy the album.

 

[Irishteen]

I also go with the download and then buy if I like it pattern. I mean there are bands I'd buy the album no matter what U2, Morrissey etc. But only because I want all their albums, for most other bands unless they make a good album I don't want it. I listen to plenty of artists who barely sell any albums, if no one buys these artists albums they might not get to make another one. Maybe one euro won't make a difference to the artist, maybe one sale won't convince the record label to give them another album. Most artists aren't rich and I find it just unfair to not pay for an album if they release something great. The artist deserves it

The problem is a lot of people just download and don't buy, even if they love the album. And that really affects sales

Unless you're Amy Winehouse of course

 

[bram]

I also go with the download and then buy if I like it pattern. I mean there are bands I'd buy the album no matter what U2, Morrissey etc. But only because I want all their albums, for most other bands unless they make a good album I don't want it. I listen to plenty of artists who barely sell any albums, if no one buys these artists albums they might not get to make another one. Maybe one euro won't make a difference to the artist, maybe one sale won't convince the record label to give them another album. Most artists aren't rich and I find it just unfair to not pay for an album if they release something great. The artist deserves it

The problem is a lot of people just download and don't buy, even if they love the album. And that really affects sales

Unless you're Amy Winehouse of course

Great post. This also summarizes the way I feel.

I actually think some bands should be punished with illegal downloading (Nickelback, etc.). I'm only half-joking.

 

[Irishteen]

Also-keep in mind that stolen/illegally downloaded music has helped more than one band rise to prominence and wealth in recent years. Fleet Foxes would be the most recent one--their album leaked something like 6 months early. Everyone had heard that thing before it was out, and now they're featured in music mags from LA to France.

I definitely agree with this, a lot of bands do benefit from downloading. I mean how many of the big indie bands would of been big if there was no illegal downloading?

 

[ShipOfFools]

U2 have enough fans that will purchase, even if they download a leak. I don't think sales will be affected that much, as long as you take Itunes and Amazon downloads sales into account.

 

[bram]

I definitely agree with this, a lot of bands do benefit from downloading. I mean how many of the big indie bands would of been big if there was no illegal downloading?

Yes, precisely. Free music plus crazy internet buzz equals lots of promotion. If your music is good, this promotion will far outweigh money lost on downloading because you'll end up getting more albums purchased than you would have otherwise AND you get to make bank from touring.

No stolen music: 500 albums sold. Stolen music: 347,000 albums stolen and 120,000 albums purchased. Which would you rather have?

All in all, I'd argue that this has led to better music quality in recent illegal-downloading years. Music corporations may suffer but the cream is rising to the top and good bands are rewarded.

So instead of bands getting rewarded just because Universal pushes the living shit out of the album, bands are more likely to get rewarded on quality. This also explains the rise of the indie label to some degree.

 

[Niceman]

I'm in college, one of the questions in class was
"Who here has illegally downloaded an album in the last few weeks?"
Nearly everyone raised their hands
"Who here's bought a cd in the last few weeks?"
Two people raised their hands

Downloading definitely does affects sales. The best selling album of the last three years sold 10 million, albums could sell that in the US 10 years ago.

But who is to say that those downloads would have equaled sales otherwise? Those kids might just have not heard anything new....

 

[Danny Boy]

But who is to say that those downloads would have equaled sales otherwise? Those kids might just have not heard anything new....

I don't buy that argument. I was in college in the early nineties and I didn't have much money, but I still made a weekly pilgrimage to Sound Warehouse and the local indie store (which were right next door to each other) and I usually came away with something.

 

[Irishteen]

But who is to say that those downloads would have equaled sales otherwise? Those kids might just have not heard anything new....

Well put it this way you have a class of people who are obviously interested in or at least like music (they download it illegally)

But barely anyone buys anything; the odds are if you had a group of people that big who like music 10-15 years ago at least more than two of them would of bought something.

This isn't the first time this has come up, I'm doing Commerce (Business) and the the death of the record industry has become a popular topic in class (as well as Radiohead)

 

[Danny Boy]

Irishteen, if you haven't read it yet, check out Appetite for Self-Destruction by Steve Knopper. It's an excellent review of how mismanagement and short-sightedness ran the record business aground.

(Several references to U2 being one of the labels "bulletproof" assets as well.)

 

[Irishteen]

Irishteen, if you haven't read it yet, check out Appetite for Self-Destruction by Steve Knopper. It's an excellent review of how mismanagement and short-sightedness ran the record business aground.

(Several references to U2 being one of the labels "bulletproof" assets as well.)

That actually sounds interesting, I'll probably check it out in the summer when I can read things that aren't for college again

 

[doctorwho]

Downloads will affect it like any other release and the album will be lucky to sell anything close to three quarters what the Bomb sold. Due to downloads, no matter what it will probably sell less than Pop did

The peak of the illegal download years was around 1999/2000, before iTunes really got going as well as it is today. ATYCLB sold 4.2M copies in the U.S.

Illegal downloads were operating with ease come 2004. HTDAAB sold 3.1M copies in the U.S.

Legal downloads and online sales count towards actual sales. U2 already had NLOTH hit #1 just due to pre-orders on iTunes and Amazon.com.

So your point about NLOTH selling less than "Pop" (1.5M in sales in the U.S.) isn't logical as U2 sold more in the download era than they did in '93 (with "Zooropa") and '97 (with "Pop"), just before illegal downloading took off.

If NLOTH sells poorly, it's to do with it either not finding an audience or the quality of the work. "Pop" sold poorly - when compared to other U2 albums - only because it didn't connect well with non-diehard fans.

 

[Irishteen]

But record sales are a lot lower now than in 2000 or 2004. Illegal downloading is still huge. Did the best selling album in the US last year even sell 3 million?

And there's more to the worldwide than the US, I honestly think album sales worldwide for the album will struggle to match Pop. Worldwide sales are just too low lately

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

That may be so, but your comments before implied that there were no exceptions to the rule...and I imagine that they are more numerous than you think. Do you really think that all the guys browsing around the local, hip, last-of-a-dying-breed record shops only listen to physical albums and never download?

p.s. Do you really meet a lot of people and ask them whether they buy or steal music?

Also-keep in mind that stolen/illegally downloaded music has helped more than one band rise to prominence and wealth in recent years. Fleet Foxes would be the most recent one--their album leaked something like 6 months early. Everyone had heard that thing before it was out, and now they're featured in music mags from LA to France.

Now you're just being silly. Of course I don't ask strangers about illegal file sharing. That doesn't mean that it doesn't come up.
Hell, I've probably been involved in a dozen threads similar to this one just on Interference. Rarely does anyone admit to ONLY stealing music
and never purchasing it.

Good point about Independent bands but it applies only to them.
Offering music for free when no one is buying your records is just advertising. It's no different from a brand new coffee shop offering free latte's when they open. The assumption is that you'll try the lattee and like it enough to buy another. That model doesn't work if your customers can continue to show up and get a free latte in perpetuity.

Again, I'm not naive, nor am I a saint. I have stolen music before.
I'm aware that illegal file sharing is here to stay and it's the artists and labels perogative to adjust to the times.
That doesn't mean that we're not theives. No amount of nonsense about
going back and paying for the music that YOU deam worthy justifies it.
You still stole it.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Yes, precisely. Free music plus crazy internet buzz equals lots of promotion. If your music is good, this promotion will far outweigh money lost on downloading because you'll end up getting more albums purchased than you would have otherwise AND you get to make bank from touring.

No stolen music: 500 albums sold. Stolen music: 347,000 albums stolen and 120,000 albums purchased. Which would you rather have?

All in all, I'd argue that this has led to better music quality in recent illegal-downloading years. Music corporations may suffer but the cream is rising to the top and good bands are rewarded.

So instead of bands getting rewarded just because Universal pushes the living shit out of the album, bands are more likely to get rewarded on quality. This also explains the rise of the indie label to some degree.

If free music encouraged album sales why have sales of music plummeted since free music became so readily available?

 

[doctorwho]

But record sales are a lot lower now than in 2000 or 2004. Illegal downloading is still huge. Did the best selling album in the US last year even sell 3 million?

And there's more to the worldwide than the US, I honestly think album sales worldwide for the album will struggle to match Pop. Worldwide sales are just too low lately

It's true, sales continue to slide. However, a hot release can still sell close to 1M copies in the first week. Coldplay's latest saw sales of around 750K in the U.S. in its first week.

In other words, while sales were down for some years, they can rebound. A few hit songs can keep an album going.

Also, as U2 appeal to multiple generations, they will sell actual CD's. People a bit more hip will buy the album on iTunes. Collectors will get all versions released. And all of this adds up. In contrast, an artist that appeals to pre-teens or teens may see a sales loss due to that market being more willing to illegally download material and "test it out".

Worldwide, "Pop" sold 6-7M copies. Without having heard NLOTH and having no idea if there will be a few big hit songs on it, it's difficult to predict total sales. But I'd say U2 are probably still good for Double Platinum in the U.S. and 5-6M internationally. So at worst, probably 7-8M total. Add in a big tour and a few hits, and that number increases, even if illegal downloads are there.

 

[U2opra]

Maybe I am just weird, but I really love owning a physical copy of any album, for example the recent Killers album Day & Age I bought was again the actual CD, even though I could've probably purchased a cheaper digital copy...

The thing I also I dislike about digital albums and downloads is the fact they are compressed and very often in mp3 format. Not all of them are, I have seen a few .wav options on some sites but quite a lot are mp3 or some alternative compression. I suppose my argument is, on the CD they aren't compressed and stored to those formats and because my ears are sensitive I can immediately hear the difference - especially with a decent set of headphones. I think I am just fussy.

 

[Niceman]

I imagine that album sales would be better if the economic situation were better in general. How can so many people without jobs justify spending it on music? The industry isn't in a vaccuum.

 

[Marien]

Record sales in my country have fallen by 42% in the last four years (I remember figures because a survey about it was published yesterday), most of the people I know, and above all of them my teenager students, never buy any music and don't consider downloading it from torrents as stealing, while they will never get an album from a shop without paying, getting it from the net seems to be fine with them, as a result the insdustry here is almost bankrupt, people who buy albums are paying almost the double than in other European countries and there's very little investment on new artists.
I would like someone could explain to me why stealing music is considered more appropiate than stealing other things, I mean I can understand stealing food if you can't afford it, but if you can't afford music you can always have it on the radio for free, it isn't necessary to have every published album and I really think any person in a Western country can afford an album a month.

 

[digitize]

But record sales are a lot lower now than in 2000 or 2004. Illegal downloading is still huge. Did the best selling album in the US last year even sell 3 million?

And there's more to the worldwide than the US, I honestly think album sales worldwide for the album will struggle to match Pop. Worldwide sales are just too low lately

I doubt Bomb had sold 3m copies within a year in 'merica, either.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Again, I think it will be a generational change, where kids that are just now starting to buy (or steal) music won't mind not having anything tangible because that's not been their experience. I wouldn't be surprised if physical media was completely dead in 15 years, maybe even sooner.

15 years? Try 5. The economic downturn will slow down techno-uptake, perhaps significantly and that if anything will make the difference, but I’d still expect that within 5 years there’ll be no brick and mortar CD stores (some big mass merchant chains will stick stock CD’s… maybe) and DVD/Blu Ray will be well on the way out. And I work in one of these industries. The expectation is that physical media will be in a clear minority within 5-10.

And yeah, my sister is 21, and while she still buys physical products (along with both legal and illegal downloads), you can tell she has absolutely no connection with the physical. Once it's loaded on her iPod, that's all the physical CD is needed for. It's just another carrier, just the more convenient one at the time. She'll then lend the CD out and doesn't really care if you don't return it. In her mind, why would she need it back? It's on her laptop, it's on her iPod, why would she need to carry it around in clunky CD form?

 

[digitize]

I am scared of the day when it will be hard to get something physical to go along with an album; it ruins a major part of the visual art of the album.

I'm even more scared of the day when it will be hard to get lossless (preferably uncompressed) audio in any format.

There's a reason I like to support Waterloo Records (an awesome local record store) here in Austin.

 

[U2opra]

It's sad really, because the internet really has become the end for a lot of stores and purchasing of some physical items. I actually enjoy walking to the shops or driving (depending on how far) and browsing a store - I like to pick up the item inspect it and decide whether to buy it or not. But now we have the internet giving us all these new options, we simply see the picture of the said item and add it to our virtual basket and download it. So then, that simple inspection of the item becomes irrelevant and well gone...Which is sad and quite upsetting for those of us who enjoy this ritual (and I am not old either).

Sorry needed to vent a little.

 

[Danny Boy]

I'm even more scared of the day when it will be hard to get lossless (preferably uncompressed) audio in any format.

There's no reason that legal downloads can't be lossless, especially with storage capacity and bandwidth increasing all the time. I've bought a couple of albums in FLAC format, and Apple has their own lossless format that's compatible with iPods, Apple TV, AirTunes, etc. I'm hoping that downloads are actually better than CD quality at some point. My receiver can handle a 24-bit, 192-kHz digital signal.

 

[Danny Boy]

It's sad really, because the internet really has become the end for a lot of stores and purchasing of some physical items.

I was just thinking the other day that this will probably be the last U2 album for which they release physical singles.