NLOTH. Week 1

[Clean187]

DoctorWho,

When I said "Dinosaurs", I didn't mean as in, these guys are so old, they don't have it anymore. The best comparison I can make is, right before ATYCLB came out, people thought the popularity and relevance of the band might be waning. Perhaps similar to the decline in relevance that REM has experienced. There just wasn't total confidence this was a great band anymore that could sell a lot of records.
Now, it's different. You're fooling yourself if you said they were regarded just as highly in March of 2000 as they are in March of 2009.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

ATYCLB was release on Halloween in the USA....too early to attribute opening weekend numbers to the holidays.

The "4th Quarter" of the year, October, November and December, is consider to be the holiday season in terms of business.

They weren't established as the "biggest band in the world" then. A lot of people viewed them to be Dinosaurs, and they certainly weren't as big in 2000 as they are in 2009.

U2 were established as the "biggest band in the world" in the summer of 1987.

They have held on to that title since then, almost without question, except for the POP/POPMART period when it was seriously questioned.

It may be accurate that they are bigger now than they were in 2000, but you can't do exact number to number comparisons for first week album sales between 2000 and 2009. Selling 250,000 copies in one week in 2009 is the same as selling 500,000 copies or more in 2000.

To not surpass those ATYCLB opening totals would've been dissapointing.

No it wouldn't. Its actually a surprise that U2 were able to surpass ATYCLB numbers from the year 2000. Again, most people today obtain the album for FREE. Most people in 2000 still went to the store to buy the album or purchased the album online. The market in 2009 is only 40% of what it was in 2000.

 

[doctorwho]

DoctorWho,

When I said "Dinosaurs", I didn't mean as in, these guys are so old, they don't have it anymore. The best comparison I can make is, right before ATYCLB came out, people thought the popularity and relevance of the band might be waning. Perhaps similar to the decline in relevance that REM has experienced. There just wasn't total confidence this was a great band anymore that could sell a lot of records.
Now, it's different. You're fooling yourself if you said they were regarded just as highly in March of 2000 as they are in March of 2009.

I agree there wasn't that confidence.

That said, they still sold 1.5M copies of "Pop" (in the U.S.). Maybe not lots by U2's standards, but lots by many others - including some of the American Idol winners!

I just was saying AFTER the release of "Beautiful Day", which was about 2 months before the release of ATYCLB, it became clear "U2 was back". And that's why I was saying that ATYCLB was a tad weak for U2. But it was their best in the SoundScan era at the time.

But clearly after boatloads of sales and such for the past 8+ years, U2 are highly regarded again.

It is unfortunate that it is March. If this were November, U2 might have seen maybe 700K or more in sales. While not up to the pace of HTDAAB, it would still be a great number. Instead, they are a bit shy of 500K, which is impressive, but has the disadvantage of some journalists spinning as being "down". Most journalists don't consider the fact that overall CD sales are way down and that this is not Thanksgiving week.

 

[powerhour24]

Its going to look bad in the media to come up with nearly a 50% drop from the Bomb, but the circumstances make sense, GOYB wasn't the out-of-the-gate hit it needed, nor was the promotion turned on soon enough, and the leak didn't help matters. Too bad it couldn't have gotten to a round 500,000.

 

[Clean187]

I think it isn't the overall decline of the music industry that hurt their numbers, it was just the poor lead single.

I have no doubts it you put Magnificant in an I-Pod commercial, and released it right around Thanksgiving, this album would've done virtually the same opening weekend numbers.

Regardless, I think it's good that they sold roughly 30,000 more copies than HITS had estimated on the high end. I think the public realized from the Letterman performances that the whole album doesn't sound like "Boots".

 

[digitize]

Just for grins... how well did VLV sell in its first week in the US?

 

[Irishteen]

just for grins... How well did vlv sell in its first week in the us?

720,000

 

[MMP]

something between 700,000 - 750,000 I guess.

Edit: Irishteen beat me to it.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Its going to look bad in the media to come up with nearly a 50% drop from the Bomb, but the circumstances make sense, GOYB wasn't the out-of-the-gate hit it needed, nor was the promotion turned on soon enough, and the leak didn't help matters. Too bad it couldn't have gotten to a round 500,000.

Anyone that is knowledgable enough about the music industry will realize how impressive 479,000 copies is in todays market.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Anyone that is knowledgable enough about the music industry will realize how impressive 479,000 copies is in todays market.

We just need to inflate the numbers relative to the average annual decline from 2004. So, in 2005-2009, how much have record sales slipped each year? We then give U2 an extra __% of sales and see how that number stacks up against HTDAAB.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

I think it isn't the overall decline of the music industry that hurt their numbers, it was just the poor lead single.

I have no doubts it you put Magnificant in an I-Pod commercial, and released it right around Thanksgiving, this album would've done virtually the same opening weekend numbers.

Regardless, I think it's good that they sold roughly 30,000 more copies than HITS had estimated on the high end. I think the public realized from the Letterman performances that the whole album doesn't sound like "Boots".

Here are some raw numbers to consider:

Top 10 selling albums in the United States released in the year 2000:

'N SYNC - No Strings Attached : 11 million
EMINEM - The Marshall Mathers LP : 11 million
THE BEATLES - 1 : 10 million
BRITNEY SPEARS - Oops!...I Did It Again : 10 million
LINKIN PARK - Hybrid Theory : 10 million
NELLY - Country Grammar : 9 million
BACKSTREET BOYS - Black And Blue : 8 million
Various Artists - O BROTHER, WHERE ARE THOU ? (soundtrack) : 8 million
ENYA - A Day Without Rain : 7 million
SHAGGY - Hotshot : 7 million


Top 10 selling albums in the United States released in the year 2008:

LIL WAYNE - Tha Carter III : 3 million
TAYLOR SWIFT - Fearless : 2,4 million
COLDPLAY - Viva La Vida or Death And All His Friends : 2,2 million
AC/DC - Black Ice : 2 million
BEYONCE - I Am... Sasha Fierce : 1,7 million
T.I. - Paper Trail : 1,6 million
METALLICA - Death Magnetic : 1,6 million
Various Artists - MAMMA MIA (soundtrack) : 1,5 million
JACK JOHNSON - Sleep Through The Static : 1,5 million
NICKELBACK - Dark Horse : 1,4 million



Bottom line, you can't sell albums to people who no longer buy albums and obtain the album for FREE. A large percentage of people who purchased HTDAAB no longer purchase albums anymore. They obtain them for free. I know several die hard U2 fans who have not purchased a U2 album since 1998. Its become easier over the past 10 years for people to simply obtain the album for free. It has a HUGE impact on the total number of albums you can sell, as well as the number you will sell in your first week.

Sure, if this was thanksgiving week, I-Pod commercial or similar available, and they had a single as big as Vertigo, they would have sold more than 500,000 , but its highly unlikely they would have sold 840,000. No artist sold that much in their first week in 2008 except for Little Wayne.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

We just need to inflate the numbers relative to the average annual decline from 2004. So, in 2005-2009, how much have record sales slipped each year? We then give U2 an extra __% of sales and see how that number stacks up against HTDAAB.

Well, there has been a 60% drop in total since 2000. Since 2005 its probably been about a 30% drop. Again though, you have to remember that its March and NOT November that this album is being released in, so that makes a difference as well.

Given the market conditions, and the time of the year, this weeks sales for No Line On The Horizon are actually MORE impressive than BOMB's 840,000 copies in November 2004.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Just for grins... how well did VLV sell in its first week in the US?

Remember it had a song that was receiving #1 airplay in the United States. Boots peaked at #116 on the total airplay chart.

 

[CosmoKramer]

We just need to inflate the numbers relative to the average annual decline from 2004. So, in 2005-2009, how much have record sales slipped each year? We then give U2 an extra __% of sales and see how that number stacks up against HTDAAB.

No..no..no!! All we need to do is say this: In 1997, the music industry was near its peak and U2's opening week was 349k. 12 years later to the week in 2009, the music industry is in a massive free fall BUT U2 had opening week sales of 480k. Also, with regard to the "Bomb" comparison, that album was released during the holiday season (the biggest week of the year). So. this 480k is a Magnificent, , opening!

 

[dopper]

Limp Bizkit, Korn, Britney Spears, and N'Sync could not come anywhere near
U2's numbers in terms of selling concert tickets. In addition, All That You Can't Leave Behind outsold the biggest sellers by Limp Bizkit and Korn worldwide. N'Sync's only stadium tour of the United States had worse attendance and gross figures than most shows on POPMART back in 1997. Whats more, N'Sync was not popular enough outside North America to take that tour anywhere else.

Who is the biggest artist in the United States, the world etc, is not based on simply just album sales. Concert ticket sales are just as important as album sales.

The only artist who came close to U2 back in 2000 when considering current sales of the latest studio album and latest tour worldwide were Shania Twain and the Backstreet Boys.

It's really impossible to declare who the biggest in the world is. There are too many variables. My point was that in 2000 before ATYCLB was released, U2 were not "relevant". Obviously the album went on to be a big hit, but I'm talking about the time between Pop and its release. Pop Mart only averaged about 30-35k fans per show in the U.S. I'm fairly certain N' Sync had better attendance numbers. If you were to take away U2's five biggest markets, you're probably looking at about an average of 25-30k per show. If they had launched a tour in 2000, it would have done even less business. You can't tell me that those acts mentioned above couldn't sell out a couple arena shows per market back then (or at least come close). U2 did not have a concert ticket sales advantage and they certainly didn't have an advantage in album sales or airplay.

 

[doctorwho]

U2 were not the biggest in 2000. In the U.S., bands like Limp Bizkit and Korn were the rage and you also had Britney Spears and N'Sync at their commercial peaks. That's why U2 had to work so hard by doing any TV show that would have them. For the first time in years, they were not guaranteed a top music magazine cover. ATYCLB was projected by some analysts to only sell about 200k in its first week. Despite it's impressive opening, it fell out of the top 20 in week 4. Also, Beautiful Day, as someone else posted, was not an immediate smash.

I would aruge the following:

1) U2 were indeed not the biggest in 2000 - in the U.S. We were talking about the world here. None of the bands or artists you mentioned were the biggest in the world.

2) Yes, BD did take a while to catch on. But it was released over 2 months before the album came out. I recall hearing it on the radio in August 2000. The album was released on Halloween (Oct. 31st). By then, the song was fairly established. Yes, it kept growing, but that's also because it crossed-over into other formats and remained a staple on those formats. U2 rarely has a song that dominates Adult Contemporary stations like BD did (which I actually think is good - I'd rather U2 be a bit more edgy).

Regardless, at the time, ATYCLB was U2's best first week in the SoundScan era. 8.5 years later, when everyone has broadband, illegal downloads are nothing, GOYB was no BD, and CD sales are at their lowest yet, NLOTH still outsold ATYCLB in the first week. ATYCLB will readily surpass NLOTH (first, due to holiday sales, later due to the great staying power of ATYCLB), but I am happy to see NLOTH have such a strong first week.

If nothing else, NLOTH's first week, in spite of all I mentioned above, is proof of how big U2 are. So in a way, I guess this supports your argument that U2 is bigger now, at almost 50 years of age, than they were at 40!

 

[doctorwho]

No..no..no!! All we need to do is say this: In 1997, the music industry was near its peak and U2's opening week was 349k. 12 years later to the week in 2009, the music industry is in a massive free fall BUT U2 had opening week sales of 480k. Also, with regard to the "Bomb" comparison, that album was released during the holiday season (the biggest week of the year). So. this 480k is a Magnificent, , opening!

Actually, by 1997, the recording industry was already suffering. I recall numerous articles stating that the industry was hoping for U2 to "save the day". Of course, "Pop" didn't quite deliver.

The trouble is, the recording industry was living on borrowed time.

When CD's came out, people replaced their scratched up albums and ruined tapes with more durable CD's. Once CD's caught on in the late 80's, there was a boom. Not only were albums still being sold (and tapes), but CD's were purchased too. And people bought CD's of their favorite older albums. This led to a HUGE boom in sales, of both new and older (catalog) material.

But after a while, people finally had all their old albums on CD's. And now people were buying music at the same pace they did in the pre-CD era. Sales were good, but rare was the time of some monster first week. So for a few years, the recording industry felt they were in a "slump".

Still, as there were no illegal downloads, sales adjusted and big sales returned. Come the very late 90's, an artist could surpass 1M units sold in the first week! I think an N'Sync album sold a ridiculous 1.7M copies its first week - just in the U.S.!! Big sellers like these act the way blockbuster movies do. They attract people to the store to hear and hopefully buy other CD's (just like a big movie attracts people to a theater to see preview trailers for other movies).

Then along came illegal downloads.

Illegal downloads help and hurt business. They help those who are honest enough to truly "sample" an an artist and then later buy the CD. Or big fans like us who can't wait for the new music and get the illegal download, but then still buy multiple copies of the album. But they hurt those who download only.

The former is O.K. for small artists. The latter hurts the big artists (who really don't mind as most of their money comes from touring anyway).

Several sournces, including McGuinness, have stated that CD sales in the U.S. are down 14% from last year. This is not unique to 2008 vs. 2009. This decline has happened for a while.

If album sales dropped an average of 10% a year, one could argue that if an album in 2004 saw first week sales of 840K, then in:

2005 - 756K
2006 - 680K
2007 - 612K
2008 - 551K
2009 - 496K

And guess what? Based on HITS numbers, NLOTH sold 480K in 2009. That's awful close to matching that estimated 10% drop in sales per year since 2004. Add in the fact it's March and the world in in a recession and 480K is dang good!

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

It's really impossible to declare who the biggest in the world is. There are too many variables.

There are two variables, album sales and concert ticket sales around the world. Who ever has the best average of the two is the biggest in the world. That is the way its been determined since the late 1960s.

My point was that in 2000 before ATYCLB was released, U2 were not "relevant".

I don't have any evidence in terms of sales, or what most critics were saying that would indicate that.

Remember, that from October 1998 to October 2000, The Best Of 1980-1990 was a global smash hit selling over 10 million copies worldwide just in that time period. "Sweetest Thing", while not a hit in the United States, and just a slight remake of a B-side from the Joshua Tree, was able to chart well in other countries.

Whats your evidence that suggest they were not "relevant"?

Pop Mart only averaged about 30-35k fans per show in the U.S. I'm fairly certain N' Sync had better attendance numbers. If you were to take away U2's five biggest markets, you're probably looking at about an average of 25-30k per show.

Here are the statistic totals, averages for each leg of the POPMART TOUR as well as the totals and averages for the whole tour:

1ST LEG OF POPMART: 29 SHOWS
GROSS: $53,798,240 ATTENDANCE: 1,096,547
AVERAGE GROSS: $1,855,112 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 37,812

2ND LEG: EUROPE POPMART TOTALS
GROSS: $58,697,632 ATTENDANCE: 1,572,721
AVERAGE GROSS: $1,834,301 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 49,148

POPMART 3RD LEG: NORTH AMERICA 17 SHOWS TOTALS GROSS: $26,036,837 ATTENDANCE: 575,742 AVERAGE GROSS: $1,531,579 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 33,867

POPMART 4TH LEG: 15 SHOWS TOTALS
GROSS: $33,144,315 ATTENDANCE: 690,926
AVERAGE GROSS: $2,209,621 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 46,062


The Totals for the Entire 93 date POPMART TOUR are GROSS: $171,677,024 ATTENDANCE: 3,935,936 AVERAGE GROSS: $1,845,989.5 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE: 42,322

At $171,677,024, POPMART was the 3rd highest grossing tour in history as of October 2000, only surpassed by the Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge and Bridges To Babylon/No Security.

If they had launched a tour in 2000, it would have done even less business.

What evidence do you base this on?

You can't tell me that those acts mentioned above couldn't sell out a couple arena shows per market back then (or at least come close).

Limp Bizkit and Korn would struggle to fill arena's at bargain basement ticket prices of $25 dollars in 2000. Britney Spears at the time had only been known to the world for 18 months was also in the same boat. Yes, all of them had strong album sales, but when it came to concert ticket sales, there were dozens of stronger artist. Not surprising given how brand new the artist were at the time.

In fact, the 2003 Metallica tour that had both Limp Bizkit and Linkin Park as opening acts had smaller attendance in some cities than POPMART.

N'Sync's 2001 stadium tour is competitive with POPMARTs 1997 performance in North America, but N'Sync were not popular enough outside North America to take this tour other places. Because of POPMART's greater success around the world outside of North America, the POPMART tour outgrosses what N'Sync did in both 2001 and 2002 combined.

U2 did not have a concert ticket sales advantage and they certainly didn't have an advantage in album sales or airplay.

Worldwide, U2 had a concert ticket sales advantage by a considerable margin over the artist you named at the time. POPMART was the third highest grossing tour in history as of the year 2000. While the POP album only sold 6 million copies, those sales are not poor either.

 

[ChargedVT]

so, ANYWAY....

Germany #1 (apparently, double gold, 200k?)
Norway #1
New Zealand #1 (platinum)
Portugal #1 (platinum)
Switzerland #1

 

[mosquito]

Billboard hot digital songs - top 200


-- 67 u2 magnificent 22516 999 0 22516
-- 125 u2 no line on the horizon 11499 999 0 11499
-- 143 u2 moment of surrender 10469 999 0 10469

 

[thelaj]

Incidentally, I ran some numbers based upon some sketchy predictions that basically implies the following:

in 2004, Bomb sold 840,000 copies first week.
in "2008", Horizon would need to sell 596,000 copies to equal that level of performance in the current climate.

This is based on a linear trend (which is flawed) that 2000 was base year (max sales) with index 100, and 2008 with an index of 55 (implying a 45% drop in sales).

In response to those above.

 

[doctorwho]

Incidentally, I ran some numbers based upon some sketchy predictions that basically implies the following:

in 2004, Bomb sold 840,000 copies first week.
in "2008", Horizon would need to sell 596,000 copies to equal that level of performance in the current climate.

This is based on a linear trend (which is flawed) that 2000 was base year (max sales) with index 100, and 2008 with an index of 55 (implying a 45% drop in sales).

Can you clarify this?

If it's a direct 45% drop, then 55% of 840K is 462K (not 596K). And 462K is lower than NLOTH's first week (based on HITS' numbers).

In the example I gave, I assumed a 10% drop per year:

2004: 840K
2005: 840K - 84K = 756K
2006: 756K - 76K = 680K, etc.

Of course, this is assuming a whopping 10% linear decline in total sales every year, which I don't know is true. And, again, one can't directly compare Thanksgiving to March.

Still, given how the top selling albums in 2000 could sell 10M or more in the U.S. in one year, but in 2008 just one album sold over 3M and the rest were 2M, maybe this estimate isn't too far off.

 

[mosquito]

484,000 is the official US first week sales.

 

[ajax]

The Billboard.biz report:

FLASH POINTS

• Try to be shocked, but U2's "No Line on the Horizon" debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 with 484,000, giving the band its seventh chart-topping set. Among all groups, they are now tied with Led Zeppelin for the second-most No. 1s. Only the Beatles, with 19, have more.

• U2's entrance brings the Billboard 200 its best sales week since Britney Spears' "Circus" arrived at No. 1 in early December with 505,000. "Horizon" is the third album to debut at No. 1 this year following efforts from fellow rock acts Bruce Springsteen ("Working on a Dream") and the Fray ("The Fray"). A very sizable 32% of the first week for "Horizon" was made up of digital albums -- 155,000. That marks the second-biggest frame for a digital album since Coldplay's "Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends" entered with 288,000 downloads last June.

• The band had high visibility on U.S. TV last week, with a five-night stand on CBS' "Late Show With David Letterman" and a March 6 performance on ABC's "Good Morning America." It was the first time a musical guest had performed an entire week on "Letterman" and "GMA" marked U2's first live morning show performance.

• U2 first topped the Billboard 200 in 1987 with "The Joshua Tree," spending nine consecutive weeks at No. 1. That album remains the band's longest-running chart-topper. The group followed it with four No. 1s in a row: "Rattle and Hum" (1988), "Achtung Baby" (1991), "Zooropa" (1993) and "Pop" (1997). The band returned to No. 1 again in 2004 with "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb." And no, 2000's "All That You Can't Leave Behind" didn't hit No. 1. It peaked at No. 3 in its debut week, lodged behind debuts from Jay-Z and OutKast. But "Behind" did spend 94 weeks on the Billboard 200, the longest chart run of any U2 album going back to "Achtung Baby's" 97-week stay.

• The band's last studio album, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb," was released during Thanksgiving week of 2004 and bowed with an impressive 840,000. Those eager to complain about the handsome start of "Horizon" in comparison to the bow for "Bow" should be reminded that the always-busy shopping frame of Thanksgiving week undoubtedly helped the latter set's big debut.

 

[beLIEve]

Stats n Stuff

Dr. Who,

I just can't buy comparisons between NLOTH sales in March 2009 with ANYTHING that was sold in 2000, 2004, or any year other than this one we're in right now.

1) The U.S. economy is in the worst recession since the Great Depression...and some would argue we're in a depression now.
2) Illegal downloads are at an all-time high and growing infinitely. Knowing just how much is complete guesswork. I don't remember the site or source, but I did read an article that does use a method to determine how many illegal downloads occur for a give album...some way of measuring plays on the internet...and NLOTH was estimated to have already surpassed 1M
3) For the above two reasons, historical comparisons are really, really tough to make. Then you have the whole Fall/Holiday shopping release strategy, which is a proven sales multiplier, that U2 missed out on with NLOTH.

So, I know I'm restating what others have pointed out, so on to my other topic: Pop and Popmart. When this album came out, I remember clearly reading every review I could find, as I was excited to hear it, and I had already learned from AB and Zooropa that first singles from U2 were not going to be the best songs on the album. Still, Discoteque was probably a bigger hit single than many other, much better U2 songs.

Anyway, the album came out to critical acclaim...almost universal. SPIN gave it a 9/10. USA Today loved it. I know the opener in Las Vegas was sub-par, and that ABC special with Dennis Hopper was an embarrassment.

But as you've shown with the revenues and attendance, Popmart was a success and so was Pop, although U.S. album sales were down from prior releases. Still, I'd argue that U2 was by far still the biggest band in the world when ATYCLB was released.

What really aggravates me is that, IMO, Pop and Popmart were only deemed as "failures" or "mistakes, missteps, blunders" by MANY folks AFTER U2's tremendous success with ATYCLB, Elevation tour, HTDAAB, Vertigo tour, etc. Even U2 have basically helped put down Pop and Popmart by joining in on the conversations about the "mistake" that Pop was...helping promote the idea that the '00's has been the decade of U2's comeback.

To me, it's mostly fabricated - after the fact - stories about U2's demise in the 90's that has given Pop such a disservice. Critics are the MOST guilty on this front, as POP was one of the most critically acclaimed album U2 has ever put out, and many of those same critics changed their tune simply because the album "only" sold 6.5M copies. What is your take on this...do you agree at all?

 

[fedeu2]

Can you clarify this?

If it's a direct 45% drop, then 55% of 840K is 462K (not 596K). And 462K is lower than NLOTH's first week (based on HITS' numbers).

In the example I gave, I assumed a 10% drop per year:

2004: 840K
2005: 840K - 84K = 756K
2006: 756K - 76K = 680K, etc.

Of course, this is assuming a whopping 10% linear decline in total sales every year, which I don't know is true. And, again, one can't directly compare Thanksgiving to March.

Still, given how the top selling albums in 2000 could sell 10M or more in the U.S. in one year, but in 2008 just one album sold over 3M and the rest were 2M, maybe this estimate isn't too far off.

The 45% decline is for the period 2000-2008 according to what others have stated in previous posts. Thus, allowing for a linear trend, the sales decline between 2004 and 2008 should be around 22% percent. Following this rationale, adjusted sales of Horizon, had it been released in March 2004, would be in excess of 600 K. Add Thanksgiving effect to this and you´re not that far from bomb's first week sales.
Then again, a recent article reported that sales have declined by about 12% in 2009 as compared 2008 so the assumed linear trend may be indeed flawed.

 

[hey you]

nloth n.1 in rep. cze. great.

 

[jon6113]

NLOTH #1 in Khazakstan.....yes very nice, sexy time!

 

[buzzkill27]

Then along came illegal downloads.

Illegal downloads help and hurt business. They help those who are honest enough to truly "sample" an an artist and then later buy the CD.

Several sources, including McGuinness, have stated that CD sales in the U.S. are down 14% from last year. This is not unique to 2008 vs. 2009. This decline has happened for a while.

If album sales dropped an average of 10% a year, one could argue that if an album in 2004 saw first week sales of 840K, then in:

2005 - 756K
2006 - 680K
2007 - 612K
2008 - 551K
2009 - 496K

And guess what? Based on HITS numbers, NLOTH sold 480K in 2009. That's awful close to matching that estimated 10% drop in sales per year since 2004. Add in the fact it's March and the world in in a recession and 480K is dang good!

It can also be argued that if NLOTH was released before Christmas it would have sold over 500,000 copies in its first week

 

[cjboog]

NLOTH #1 in Khazakstan.....yes very nice, sexy time!