Rolling Stone: U2, EM Can't Save 2004

[u2head]

Mods: Feel free to move/merge if this has been posted before.



Em, U2 Can't Save 2004

Despite two blockbusters, CD sales slump continues



Two new CDs cannot save a sinking holiday season. U2's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and Eminem's Encore have sold a combined total of more than four million CDs since they came out in November, but the rest of the music market continues its dismal decline, with sales down for twelve weeks in a row compared with the same time last year.
Despite massive label layoffs and store closings, record executives had been optimistic for much of 2004 that a three-year slump was over. Sales rose about seven percent during the first half, and execs were upbeat about early smashes such as Norah Jones' Feels Like Home and Usher's Confessions. Many in the industry claimed that lawsuits against file-sharers had worked, driving music fans back to the record stores. But with just one big holiday-shopping week remaining, industry reps feared 2004 will end up with a disturbingly small one or two percent increase over last year.

So why did sales drop this fall despite the big business of U2, Eminem and other post-Thanksgiving blockbusters such as Clay Aiken's Merry Christmas With Love and Destiny's Child's Destiny Fulfilled?

"Although the big hits are bigger, there were fewer records released by superstars this Christmas than any Christmas in memory," says Jim Urie, president of Universal Music and Video Distribution. Many of the biggest discs came out on just two dates -- November 16th and November 23rd -- while 2003's top fall album, OutKast's Speakerboxxx/The Love Below, came out in September and sold strongly through Christmas. Also, this year's dramatic Thanksgiving-week discounts at Target, Circuit City and Best Buy on Top Ten albums drew shoppers to buy $7.99 hits but left many scoffing at paying $14.99 for everything else.

During the past few weeks, according to a Rolling Stone analysis of Nielsen SoundScan CD-sales data, more people bought Top Ten albums than at this time last year, but fewer bought other discs. Sales for Top Ten albums jumped sixteen percent from a year ago in the week of November 16th and 6.8 percent in the week of November 23rd. But overall sales dropped during the same period by a total of 7.9 and 5 percent, respectively. "Music has just been a little bit too compacted into three weeks," says Dave Alder, chief marketing officer of the Virgin Entertainment Group. "Customers only have so much money in their pockets, so congestion in the release schedule tends to stifle sales."



STEVE KNOPPER
(Posted Dec 16, 2004)

 

[doctorwho]

I think it's also a case of some not very good music out there.

Look who is selling big: Eminem, U2, Shania Twain, NOW (That's What I Call Music), Clay Aiken, etc. These are all established artists or compilations. People trust the NOW series (this is the 17th CD). People trust Eminem and U2. They know Twain and Aiken. In other words, people seem to be buying music they know (like NOW or Twain's "Best Of" or Aiken's Christmas songs) or from artists they know and trust (U2 and Eminem).

When it comes to other artists, they might have a decent debut week, with 200-350,000 copies (Jay-Z/Linkin Partk, Kelly Clarkson, Lindsay Lohan), but then either fall fast or sell at lower levels. And many other artists can't even hit the Top 50 (Diane DeGarmo's CD, e.g.). That is, people don't really trust these artists or CD's. They might get a good week or two, but not enough to sell 2M or more.

Why is this? Lack of trust is one reason. Some of these artists are still unproven. Also, the abundance of rap and R&B artists, who now all sound exactly the same, has weakened the market. It was like when disco hit it super big in the late 70's. Early on it was fresh and fun music - a nice change from the opera rock of the early 70's. But by '79, all the artists started sounding a like. All the top hits were disco - and ultimately, people turned away from it. I'm thinking this might happen with some R&B and rap soon. The big artists will still survive, but maybe with some decrease in sales. However, any new or smaller artist will be turned away. Not a good thing - it's just too much of the same ol' - same ol'. This is why U2 can succeed. In 1987 U2 stood out. It appears they are doing so again - which is one reason for their continued strong sales.

 

[U2@NYC]

Clay Aiken is an established artist?

 

[Axver]

Clay Aiken is an established artist?

An established twit, yes.

 

[doctorwho]

Clay Aiken is an established artist?

Not established, but people "trust" him for some reason. They know his music is "safe" (ala Josh Groban). More importantly, though, this is a Christmas CD from him. So even if people don't trust Aiken, they do trust classic Christmas songs. Most likely they trust Aiken enough not to screw them up.

 

[Popmartijn]

Good points doc. I also want to add another reason: the disappearance of the single.
Yes, there are many that argue that singles were canabalising album sales. And maybe they were a bit. But they also had a positive function (apart from promoting an album release). They enabled those without a lot of money to buy the songs they liked. I'm thinking about kids, etc. How many of you have saved your pocket money for a few weeks when you were young, so you could buy that single? You bought some music and you liked it, playing it over and over. And when you had enough pocket money again, you'd buy another single. Later, when you were older and had more money, you'd save for an album. By then, you had developed the habit of buying music. (And of course, most albums weren't just 2 good songs and a lot of filler)
Now, the kids don't have that opportunity, because there is no single. Instead, they learn that music can be downloaded for free from the Internet. Despite its success (with more than 200 million downloads to date), I think the rise of iTunes is still too early to show any effect.

You may wonder 'but many of those artists are aimed at the youth market'? I think that most of the albums from those artists are bought by parents (or other family members) for their kids, not by the kids themselves. They know better...

C ya!

Marty

 

[STING2]

I say its file sharing and CD burning. In this climate, veteran artist have some immunity, but if one is unsure about a certain new artist, one finds away to burn the CD for free instead of paying 15 or 20 bucks for the CD.

Its interesting to note though, out of 10 friends of mine that are big U2 fans, only 4 have purchased the album and the other 6 have burned it for free.

 

[anitram]

The thing is, CD burning is even more widespread than file sharing, I think, because in the last couple of months, I can't tell you how many CDs were exchanged among just the people I work with, burned and returned.

People are simply unwilling to pay $15-$20 for a CD anymore. Right or wrong, that's where we are.

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Well, to be honest, I hear lots of new albums...

but I only bought the U2 album this year.....I think people who are fans of an artist will buy that artist's release and simply get a copy or download some newer artist's work.

 

[zoo tv mcg]

There are definite long term trends of file sharing and cd burning that will continue to affect sales - heck U2 know this and that is why they have jumped into bed with Apple.

But this Christmas is just miserable for new releases and I think that is really helping U2's cause at the moment. The number of greatest hits albums out at the moment around the world is just ridiculous. In Australia, we had a young girl (remember that young girl from the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics) who released a handful of songs and at 15 or 16 has released a greatest hits album already. It used to be 15 or 20 years until you could do this - now it is 5 or 10 years or even less. I think that also helped Best of 80-90 sell so well as it was a relection of a decade long since passed.

 

[doctorwho]

But the reason for the downloading or CD burning is what I stated - a lack of trust of many artists.

People are unwilling to pay $13-18 for a CD when there might only be one or two songs they like. Years ago, 45 rpm singles were $1 or less - so if a person was "unsure" of a new artist but liked a song, he/she could just get the 45 rpm record - and then maybe get the album at a future point. With no singles available, the only option is to buy the entire CD, and people aren't willing to spend that $$ on someone they don't trust. We've all been "burned" this way before and we are unwilling to do it again.

iTunes helps a lot - there's a reason why they've had 200 million downloads. But even I think they are too expensive - I think songs should be 50 cents. After all, there's no art work or tangible item to hold and if I lose the song (hard drive crash) I have to repurchase it. But at least with iTunes (and similar online music stores), people now have this option to legally sample a new artist. Paying $1 for a song is great compared to $15 for a CD which might not be very good.

This, again, is why we are seeing strong sales only from "trusted" artists or those deemed "safe". Kelly Clarkson is "safe" - so while she may not be eating up the charts with huge numbers, I bet her CD will sell well for a while. In contrast, people don't really know Fantasia - so her CD is falling fast (and Diana DeGarmo's never really got going for the same reason). Clay's Christmas CD is about as safe as you can get - hence big sales. U2's ATYCLB sold 4.2M copies in the U.S. and the Elevation DVD went 2x Platinum. HTDAAB is similar in sound to ATYCLB and people like "Vertigo" - hence, U2 is a trusted, "safe" purchase. Had U2 changed dramatically in appearance or sound again, we might not be seeing huge sales as U2 would have to prove that this new sound and style is worthwhile - as U2 had to do with AB. Eminem is more of the same ol'-same ol', but this is what people like and know, hence big sales.

Of course, U2 and Eminem both know that if they continue to sound the same for too long, sales will drop. In U2's case, given their numerous shifts in sound and style over the years, this is not a problem. In fact, U2 will probably release one more album with the sound they now have as they tend to group in 3's ("Boy"-"War"; UF-R&H; AB-"Pop"). But the album after that will have to sound different if U2 still care about big sales at that point in their careers. As for Eminem, I think the same is true. He can probably get away with another album sounding the same as all the rest (as he's a rapper, it's really his themes that are the same). But he's going to have to change *something* if he wants to stay on top with huge sales.

Of course, U2 and Eminem have sold SO well over the years that they can afford a smaller selling album. This is especially true for U2. A couple of albums from now, when the band are close to 50 (or past), it might not matter if they have a #1 debut or quadruple-selling CD. They might be happy to see "Pop" type sales in the U.S. But, as of this moment, I see precious few other artists to take their place. Sure, there are a few rock artists, like Creed, who had big sales for a while. But even Creed was starting to fade - and, now, they've disbanded. Radiohead doesn't make very accessible music. Unless they change, they'll always be around the Platinum mark. Not bad, but not monstrous. Coldplay might break out - but again, unless someone new comes along and really surprises us with a SUSTAINED career, I have a feeling music sales will continue to be slow.

And it's really the record labels' faults. They aren't taking chances with young acts. U2 wouldn't survive today with the soft sales of "Boy" and "October" (while those albums have gone on to Platinum+ levels, this was due to subsequent U2 albums - the initial sales for "Boy" and "October" were not strong). Yet, U2, through incessant touring, built up their audience and are now one of the biggests artists ever. Labels just don't do this. They want instant success. If a sophomore release isn't as strong as the debut album, they get dropped. If an artist doesn't have a marketable Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson look, they aren't signed. If they don't sound like the abundance of R&B artists already overwhelming the charts, they aren't given a chance. Look at how fast many of the rap aritsts drop - one strong week and then a quick departure. This is because there's just an abudnance of rap music that all sounds the same. Eminem's craziness is what sets him apart, just like U2's "heart on their sleeve" approach. Labels, who are already suffering, should just sit back, sign some intriguing talent, then PROMOTE them and let the audience find the artist. The U2 approach was very successful - I don't know why more labels and artists don't follow it.

 

[tkramer]

Keane will save the world. Mark my words.

 

[U2 addict]

An established twit, yes.

So true!

 

[Acrobat_Al]

Keane will save the world. Mark my words.

No, Franz Ferdinand will save the world
Mark my words...

BTW, Keane rocks too!