How Much Will Sales be Affected by Downloads?

[Jon Seidman]

What do you think? 20%? 5% 50%? Think about it. If it were to sell 5 million copies if downloading did not exist, and they lose 20% to downloading, that's 1 million copies! Even if it's only 5% then that's 250,000 copies - still a lot. Many bands would give their collective right nuts to sell 250,000 albums.

 

[dan_smee]

U2 are the ind of band that a) big fans will download early, and then buy.

b) their music is gifted a LOT by people who don't know what to get someone, but they assume everyone likes U2. That gives them a fair few sales most bands dont get.

I dont think it effects U2 nearly as much as other artists because, 250,000 units is a lot to most, but to U2, 5 million vs 4.75 million doesnt seem a huge difference

 

[Niceman]

I think it will effect U2 a lot less than most bands. People don't just want to hear the catchy single, they want the experience. Not only will U2's album sell well, but the $100 collectors edition will sell well!!!!

Yeah, everyone here will download the album when it leaks, but then we'll be buying it, without question.

 

[Irishteen]

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

 

[Aardvark747]

U2 are the ind of band that a) big fans will download early, and then buy.

b) their music is gifted a LOT by people who don't know what to get someone, but they assume everyone likes U2. That gives them a fair few sales most bands dont get.

Agree

 

[Ellay]

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

You reckon?

 

[Gilead12]

I doubt the effect will be pronounced.

This isn't hip-hop.

 

[MMP]

Oasis' Dig Out Your Soul was leaked almost two weeks prior release. It went on to sell 200,000 copies on its first week, but fell to 70,000 on the next week. And despite having a higher spot, it sold less than Don't Believe the Truth on its first week on the U.S., selling 53,000.

I guess downloads won't affect "that" much, but they will have some impact in sales. But other factors are involved; if NLOTH is released and it starts to get praise and glowing reviews, the sales WILL increase. If the album produces a "Viva La Vida", sales WILL increase.

 

[stealthboy]

More bands should follow the latest Nine Inch Nails model... give away a basic download of the music, then charge for a physical CD, box sets, collector sets, etc.

 

[ndmaxfield]

What do you think? 20%? 5% 50%? Think about it. If it were to sell 5 million copies if downloading did not exist, and they lose 20% to downloading, that's 1 million copies! Even if it's only 5% then that's 250,000 copies - still a lot. Many bands would give their collective right nuts to sell 250,000 albums.

Do people really download an album and never buy an official copy? I feel like people who do this wouldn't have purchased the album in the first place, seriously. The flip side of the download debate is: Why doesn't the music industry let you return albums you don't like after you pay for them? Even with 30-second previews, I've been burned buying new music and finding out I don't like it. That's an expensive mistake. I feel like people who download illegally do so because they're not sure they'll like an album, so they get the free copy as a preview. If they like it enough to become a fan, I feel like money eventually gets spent, probably many times over the value of the illegally downloaded material. I'd like to see some hard data from the record industry about money they actually lose due to illegal downloading (anybody can project numbers using statistics, but hard data are a different story).

 

[Danny Boy]

Do people really download an album and never buy an official copy?

I think there's a real generation gap there. If you took a poll of teens and tweens, I'd bet many of them have never paid for an album in their life. They have very limited resources so why spend money on something you can get for free?

As for my grumpy old self, I've already pre-ordered the deluxe box set, a CD from Australia, and the deluxe iTunes version; so I'm covering for me and two freeloaders.

 

[Irishteen]

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.

 

[bathiu]

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.

What about LEGAL downloads? Those 10mlns for example are only CD sales?or do they also count full album downloads from iTunes and other stores?

 

[Irishteen]

What about LEGAL downloads? Those 10mlns for example are only CD sales?or do they also count full album downloads from iTunes and other stores?

Full legal download albums sales are still TINY, that format really isn't taking off like digital singles. The 10 million (closer to 11 now though) are downloads + CD sales

 

[U2opra]

Dowloading from iTunes or mp3s from sites like amazon, play.com etc don't interest me. I always want to have the physical CD and packaging to feel like I've got something. I'm guessing a lot of U2 fans are the same? I mean heck, if they're willing to buy the DVD's U2 release then sure as hell are gonna buy the CD albums - well, speaking for myself other U2 fans I know.

 

[ndmaxfield]

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.

Right, but these questions aren't enough. I don't think you can infer from the number of illegal downloads, alone, how much money was lost. I think you have to know how many of the same people would have purchased the album in the first place if the illegal download weren't available. IMO, you have to look at it in layers. Some people might just download rampantly and collect music because it's easy. Those people never would have purchased any of the albums they downloaded anyway (a key point!), and they might hardly listen to the stuff they've downloaded (another key point!). So is that money lost? Then I'm sure there is a subset of people who download illegally in order to experiment with music they're not sure about. The question to ask those people is: "How many of you eventually spend money on the band after you illegally download?" Then there are the established fans who pre-order stuff and want an early listen. It's that middle group that I think you really have to question. I think it's legitimate to give people in that group a chance to decide whether they like the music before making them purchase it, just as long as they pay-up when they like what they hear.

 

[Danny Boy]

Dowloading from iTunes or mp3s from sites like amazon, play.com etc don't interest me. I always want to have the physical CD and packaging to feel like I've got something. I'm guessing a lot of U2 fans are the same? I mean heck, if they're willing to buy the DVD's U2 release then sure as hell are gonna buy the CD albums - well, speaking for myself other U2 fans I know.

For me that's only true for a handful of bands, such as U2. For example, I think I have bought every Radiohead album to date, but I'm not all geeked out for them like I am for U2. When In Rainbows came out I downloaded it in FLAC (legally, from 7Digital) and I don't mind not having the CD. I was a pretty big Pearl Jam fan in college, but I was satisfied downloading their last album from iTunes.

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.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Right, but these questions aren't enough. I don't think you can infer from the number of illegal downloads, alone, how much money was lost. I think you have to know how many of the same people would have purchased the album in the first place if the illegal download weren't available. IMO, you have to look at it in layers. Some people might just download rampantly and collect music because it's easy. Those people never would have purchased any of the albums they downloaded anyway (a key point!), and they might hardly listen to the stuff they've downloaded (another key point!). So is that money lost? Then I'm sure there is a subset of people who download illegally in order to experiment with music they're not sure about. The question to ask those people is: "How many of you eventually spend money on the band after you illegally download?" Then there are the established fans who pre-order stuff and want an early listen. It's that middle group that I think you really have to question. I think it's legitimate to give people in that group a chance to decide whether they like the music before making them purchase it, just as long as they pay-up when they like what they hear.

Music sales are down by a tremendous amount. Music companies are going bankrupt. This was happening prior to the recession.
If you had asked a classroom of college students in 1992 how many had purchased a cd in the past few weeks well over half would have raised their hands.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle--illegal downloading is here to stay. But I'll never accept the argument that stealing a song encourages people to pay for it if they like it. It's nonsensical. It's wishful thinking.
If the person doesn't care about the physical cd and has already stolen a digital copy of the song why BUY one?
A car thief who steals a BMW M3 doesn't buy another one because they liked it and thinks BMW deserves their cash.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

For me that's only true for a handful of bands, such as U2. For example, I think I have bought every Radiohead album to date, but I'm not all geeked out for them like I am for U2. When In Rainbows came out I downloaded it in FLAC (legally, from 7Digital) and I don't mind not having the CD. I was a pretty big Pearl Jam fan in college, but I was satisfied downloading their last album from iTunes.

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.

Creepy. I could have written this exact post myself. Right down to the band names.

 

[tilen]

I think illeagal copies / or internet download will affect the sales... 10 million (physical) copies sold nowadays is almost impossible to reach. Maybe 5-7 million at their best..
I can't wait though, on the leak but I' ll buy it anyway, like the most of you around here!

 

[Danny Boy]

Creepy. I could have written this exact post myself. Right down to the band names.

 

[ramblin rose]

The university where my nephew attends includes a subscription to Napster just to avoid the whole illegal download issue, it's included as part of the tuition. I wonder how many universities in the states do this.

 

[bram]

Music sales are down by a tremendous amount. Music companies are going bankrupt. This was happening prior to the recession.
If you had asked a classroom of college students in 1992 how many had purchased a cd in the past few weeks well over half would have raised their hands.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle--illegal downloading is here to stay. But I'll never accept the argument that stealing a song encourages people to pay for it if they like it. It's nonsensical. It's wishful thinking.
If the person doesn't care about the physical cd and has already stolen a digital copy of the song why BUY one?
A car thief who steals a BMW M3 doesn't buy another one because they liked it and thinks BMW deserves their cash.

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.

 

[MMP]

Am I buying new U2 album? YES. (Box-set special ubber pimp version)
Am I buying new Aerosmith album? YES.
Am I buying new R.E.M. album? YES.

But that's it. I must admit that I've here on my pc complete discographys of artists that I LOVE and are in my top 10 and I never bought one single album of theirs. And I'm not planning to. It's sad cause there's a lot of other people like me. So, don't think that everyone who likes the music will buy it.

That said, yes, downloads will affect sales. But like I said, glowing reviews or/and a hit single can boost sales in ways you can't imagine. See Amy Winehouse's Back to Black. A worldwide hit and critical praise made the album sell over 10 million copies. Coldplay's (a band with a solid, but not that big, fanbase) Viva La Vida managed to sell 6-7 million copies around the world with a hit (that doesn't even come close to the sucess that "Rehab" had) and mixed to positive reviews.
Illegal download prevents albums from get over 15 million copies sold, but it's still very possible to reach numbers around 10 million.

 

[Pamelakellett]

I think there's a real generation gap there. If you took a poll of teens and tweens, I'd bet many of them have never paid for an album in their life. They have very limited resources so why spend money on something you can get for free?

As for my grumpy old self, I've already pre-ordered the deluxe box set, a CD from Australia, and the deluxe iTunes version; so I'm covering for me and two freeloaders.

I`ve also ordered the deluxe box set and deluxe itunes version as I`m going on hols the day after it is released and I don`t think my box set will have arrived by then.

Got to have something to listen to on the beach.....

 

[stealthboy]

I've ordered the box set and the LP, so the fact that I'm going to download the leak when it happens doesn't bother me in the slightest.

 

[Yahweh]

It will affect sales in the fact that U2 nor anybody else will ever sell the quantities of albums that they did in the 80s or 90s. 10 million in sales would be an achievement to be proud of.

They make the majority of their money touring, but if the album is a real classic album, the sales will be steady for quite some time. Zooropa reallty was the last album that wasnt affected by any type of Internet downloading to any extent.

 

[Danny Boy]

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... It's a combination of supporting deserving artists and the enjoyment of having the physical CD with physical liner notes in a physical case.

Not passing judgment or anything, but IMHO if you have an album in rotation for six months you've far exceeded the try-it-before-you-buy-it period. One or two listens, OK, but my CD cabinet contains dozens of CDs that were in heavy rotation for the first few months and haven't been played since.

 

[bram]

Not passing judgment or anything, but IMHO if you have an album in rotation for six months you've far exceeded the try-it-before-you-buy-it period. One or two listens, OK, but my CD cabinet contains dozens of CDs that were in heavy rotation for the first few months and haven't been played since.

Sorry, I wasn't being very clear. I meant that if I thought I liked it on first listen but didn't really go back and listen to it during the first 6 months on my hard drive, then I delete.

So there are 3 types here:

1) listen and delete right away
2) not sure about, think it might be a grower...6 months later (this is an estimate--could be 2 or 3 months) and I haven't felt the urge to listen to it, then delete
3) listen and like: could be immediate purchase, or a 2-6 month grower and I'll purchase

I just leave the window open sometimes, but I'm not actually using or sharing for this period.

Does that make sense?

I'm not really trying to defend myself, just clarifying. I do think, however, that this is the only way to be an empowered consumer and avoid being a straight up thief. If everyone did this, the music that record companies released would probably be better. Who knows. But there are many bands that never would have earned a purchase from me if I wasn't able to listen to the album first, even with pretty great reviews. I understand that I am probably in the extreme minorities as far as music downloaders go, however.

 

[Danny Boy]

Does that make sense?

I'm not really trying to defend myself, just clarifying.

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