Week 17 - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong > Peeling off those Dollar Bills
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-04-2009, 05:12 PM   #46
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishteen View Post
I'm not using a shipping estimate I'm using a sales estimate. Sales in Australia were estimated to around 110k, I gave a really light estimate.
Well, 70,000 is platinum in Australia, so that really seems like a shipment figure and not a sales estimate.


Quote:
And if we are only going to use real figures then we have to stop using mediatraffic, as that site is based on estimates!
I never said anything about using only "real figures". I said the following, its more accurate to stick with what we know and be consistent in comparisons. It is equally important that you stick with the CURRENT year, 2009, do to the huge changes in the economic environment from 2008, and the continuing natural decrease in album sales which has been seen in every year since 2000.


Quote:
And even if we use only 2009 figures Lady GaGa will still be outselling them in a few weeks, you're just putting off her getting the lead for a couple of extra weeks
Everyone compiling the most successful albums of 2009 are going to be using 2009 figures. Digging up album sales from 2006, 2007, or even 2008, in order to compare them to what an album is selling in 2009 in an attempt to measure how successful that 2009 album is, will simply be inaccurate do to the rapid decline of the music industry year after year since 2000, and the recession caused by the fall 2008 financial crises, the worst since the 1930s.

The earliest possible date that Lady GaGa could pass NLOTH sales with The Fame is a month and half from now, but that could increase to two or more months easily.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-04-2009, 06:11 PM   #47
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoilbheannacht View Post
Well, 70,000 is platinum in Australia, so that really seems like a shipment figure and not a sales estimate.




I never said anything about using only "real figures". I said the following, its more accurate to stick with what we know and be consistent in comparisons. It is equally important that you stick with the CURRENT year, 2009, do to the huge changes in the economic environment from 2008, and the continuing natural decrease in album sales which has been seen in every year since 2000.




Everyone compiling the most successful albums of 2009 are going to be using 2009 figures. Digging up album sales from 2006, 2007, or even 2008, in order to compare them to what an album is selling in 2009 in an attempt to measure how successful that 2009 album is, will simply be inaccurate do to the rapid decline of the music industry year after year since 2000, and the recession caused by the fall 2008 financial crises, the worst since the 1930s.

The earliest possible date that Lady GaGa could pass NLOTH sales with The Fame is a month and half from now, but that could increase to two or more months easily.
It was certified platinum, sales estimates are higher than that ranging from 100-130,000 copies sold; these are estimates from people who are usually pretty good at doing it

Listen I'm sick of arguing, if all you want to consider is 2009 that's fine, but I think 2008 figures should not be discounted. The drop from 2008 to 2009 doesn't happen when the year suddenly changes it's constant throughout the year, sales are constantly dropping technically you shouldn't compare now to any other time, because sales are never the same overall.

But...I'm not gonna keep arguing
__________________

__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 03:38 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,360
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Micheal Jackson will be #1 for sure next week when his music actually has a full week to compile sales. I am sure it will be charting for quite some time as well.

U2s album overall whether it has sold the most in the world or not to me is doing poorly. But I attribute that to a lot of things mainly their age as well as lack of promotion. The tour should help but overall this album will likely be the lowest selling in U2s catalogue since the early 80s....IE October. You can make all the excuses you want some of them more valid then others but overall this album in U2 terms isnt exactly burning the charts up.

It is barely managing to hang on in the Amazon.com top 100 albums and that is pretty sad.
__________________
Yahweh is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 09:15 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
KUEFC09U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,195
Local Time: 10:59 AM
IMO one of the top 5 biggest sellers of 2009 isnt "poor".
__________________
KUEFC09U2 is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 01:52 PM   #50
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishteen View Post
It was certified platinum, sales estimates are higher than that ranging from 100-130,000 copies sold; these are estimates from people who are usually pretty good at doing it
Sales estimates by WHO, based on WHAT? Initially, shipments are out in front of sales. Notice, you'll consider this non-mediatraffic figure for Gaga 2008, but won't do the same for U2 when it comes to non-mediatraffic estimates. Thats not how you make consistent accurate comparisons.

Quote:
Listen I'm sick of arguing, if all you want to consider is 2009 that's fine, but I think 2008 figures should not be discounted.
When looking at the top selling albums of 1987, do you use sales figures from 1986, 1985?

Quote:
The drop from 2008 to 2009 doesn't happen when the year suddenly changes it's constant throughout the year, sales are constantly dropping technically you shouldn't compare now to any other time, because sales are never the same overall.
Thats actually false. There was a dramatic drop in sales from the 4th quarter of 2008 to the 1st quarter of 2009. But sales since the first quarter of 2009 have increased, and 2009's highest sales figures will come from the 4th quarter of 2009.

There is not a sustained week after week drop, or even a sustained month after month drop. But there is a sustained year after year drop that has been happening since the year 2000.

The financial crises that started in the fall of 2008 and has created the worst recession since the 1930s in 2009 makes sales comparisons between the two years simply inaccurate.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 02:02 PM   #51
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahweh View Post

U2s album overall whether it has sold the most in the world or not to me is doing poorly. But I attribute that to a lot of things mainly their age as well as lack of promotion.
Here are the current sales for 2009:


Best Selling Albums in 2009 WORLDWIDE as of WEEK 27

1. U2 No Line On The Horizon 3,013,000

2. Lady Gaga The Fame 2,600,000
3. Eminem Relapse 2,098,000
4. Kings Of Leon Only By The Night 1,955,000
5. Beyoncé I Am... Sasha Fierce 1,907,000
6. Taylor Swift Fearless 1,914,000
7. Soundtrack Twilight 1,818,000
8. Soundtrack Hannah Montana: The Movie 1,730,000
9. Green Day 21st Century Breakdown 1,610,000
10. Pink Funhouse 1,536,000

You can't refer to the sales of the biggest selling album in the world as being poor. If anything, the sales are proof that they have successfully defied their age and other things in a way that no one has ever done before. They have just launched a 100 date tour that will be the highest grossing and highest attended tour in history. When was the last time U2 had the biggest selling album worldwide for a given year as well as having a tour for that album that will break every concert industry record in history?


Quote:
The tour should help but overall this album will likely be the lowest selling in U2s catalogue since the early 80s....IE October. You can make all the excuses you want some of them more valid then others but overall this album in U2 terms isnt exactly burning the charts up.
Its the biggest selling album of the year. Again, you can't compare sales from an era when the internet, illegal downloading, CD burning and other forms of obtaining music for free did not exist, to sales in 2009!

Since having the biggest selling album of the year is not enough, what exactly would NLOTH have to sell in order for you to consider its sales not to be poor?

Quote:
It is barely managing to hang on in the Amazon.com top 100 albums and that is pretty sad.
Why would that be a serious accurate gauge of success? When people look back at the best selling albums of 2009, no one is going to care where the album was at a particular time 4 months after its release on the Amazon.com website.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 07:03 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
Irishteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 29,624
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maoilbheannacht View Post
Sales estimates by WHO, based on WHAT? Initially, shipments are out in front of sales. Notice, you'll consider this non-mediatraffic figure for Gaga 2008, but won't do the same for U2 when it comes to non-mediatraffic estimates. Thats not how you make consistent accurate comparisons.

When looking at the top selling albums of 1987, do you use sales figures from 1986, 1985?

Thats actually false. There was a dramatic drop in sales from the 4th quarter of 2008 to the 1st quarter of 2009. But sales since the first quarter of 2009 have increased, and 2009's highest sales figures will come from the 4th quarter of 2009.

There is not a sustained week after week drop, or even a sustained month after month drop. But there is a sustained year after year drop that has been happening since the year 2000.

The financial crises that started in the fall of 2008 and has created the worst recession since the 1930s in 2009 makes sales comparisons between the two years simply inaccurate.
Non-mediatraffic estimations for U2 are not important as the album has been on mediatraffic since it was released, Lady GaGa's wasn't therefore the non-mediatraffic data is actually important. The sales from Australia are an estimation (to the best of my knowledge) based on the year end positions or figures, the album was easily over 70,000 and at least closer to 100,000. With known

When looking up the top selling of 1987, people care about total sales of albums released in that year a lot more than what it sold in the year of its release

But it's not a calander year thing, if you compared the year as March to Feb you'd get the exact same result as you would if you compared January to December. You can't judge it based on years it has to be based on TIME PAST. Lady GaGa's album has been out for nearly a year now, if the sales from 2008 are irrelevant then we have to start arguing sales from January-March are irrelevant come December of this year.

Your argument is not based on sales going down, it's based on the christmas sales increase because using your logic if Lady GaGa came out in January and U2 came out in July you could compare them because they were released in the same calander year.

No matter what you argue The Fame will have outsold NLOTH starting next week based on overall sales (whether you think it's a fair to compare them or not), in about 6 weeks the Fame will have outsold NLOTH in 2009. NLOTH is at present the biggest selling album in 2009, no one is arguing against this. If you want to ignore GaGa's 2008 then do so, no one is forcing you to acknowledge that she will be outselling them. All I posted was overall figures, if you only care about 2009 then ignore the overalls
__________________
Irishteen is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 11:37 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,360
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Downloading of MP3s has been going on for over 12 years now and infact that is how this site got the majority of its initial traffic was by posting an illegal mp3 that they obtained from the studio sessions for POP....an unfinished version of Discotheque.

One could argue that it has gotton worse over time as people have become more computer savvy and that I will agree with however I will also say that the majority of U2's sales on this album were from the hardcore U2 fan only....I would be very interested to see how many people that had never heard of U2s music before actually went out and bought this record because of something they heard off it...probably very few....Bomb and ATYCLB had substancial radio play with the singles, this album in comparison has not.

U2 have one of if not the biggest hardcore fanbase out of any band going and thats what will keep them going but if 18 Singles outsells this record (which barely anybody on this forum thought was a good idea), then it is clearly a failure no matter if it ends up being the biggest selling album of the year or not (which I dont think it will be).

The tour itself can be summed up as a success but as of right now the album is not. U2 could go on tour without an album and sell out most cities.

Lets face the facts most people that are going to a U2 show probably know less then 5 songs and the majority of those songs are from the 80's early 90's and maybe Beautiful Day....the rest of it is a mystery to them. U2 benefits from having a very large hardcore fanbase that no other band currently has that is making music, outside of possibly Springsteen and AC/DC.

I can hear the same speeches starting to come out when they hit America that they did on the Popmart Tour "If it interests us it should interest you" well unfortunatly that isnt the case for the most part unless you write music by the numbers these days.

This album will be considered by me as an artistic success but a sales failure. It will sell 4 million albums total at a maximum and to me that is a failure. The album is crashing and burning in the UK, will barely reach platnum in the US and isnt exactly burning up the charts elseware either.

I wouldnt be shocked if U2 quit after this tour either and that wont be popular around here but I can see it as well.

The music industry definately has its problems but to quote Bono from the Pop time period "the music industry is in a slump not because of the Internet but because the records are boring" I believe that has a lot to do with the overall slump of the industry.

U2 will outsell 95 percent of artists for the entire year within the 1st week and always have since the mid 80's this is not a good marker to go by for a legendary band. A better one to go by is consistancy of the record selling and the fact is this album has consistantly been sliding down the charts since its release.

Grammy's dont count on it this time.

The question is this will U2 continue to make music for the art of it for arts sake or are they more concerned with how the album sells. I think we will find that out next album (if their is one). At this time I would be suprised to see "Songs of Ascent" come out in its original form. I believe they will throw in a few formula U2 hits to try and drive album sales up unfortunatly.
__________________
Yahweh is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 12:24 AM   #54
War Child
 
fedeu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 548
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishteen View Post
Non-mediatraffic estimations for U2 are not important as the album has been on mediatraffic since it was released, Lady GaGa's wasn't therefore the non-mediatraffic data is actually important. The sales from Australia are an estimation (to the best of my knowledge) based on the year end positions or figures, the album was easily over 70,000 and at least closer to 100,000. With known

When looking up the top selling of 1987, people care about total sales of albums released in that year a lot more than what it sold in the year of its release

But it's not a calander year thing, if you compared the year as March to Feb you'd get the exact same result as you would if you compared January to December. You can't judge it based on years it has to be based on TIME PAST. Lady GaGa's album has been out for nearly a year now, if the sales from 2008 are irrelevant then we have to start arguing sales from January-March are irrelevant come December of this year.

Your argument is not based on sales going down, it's based on the christmas sales increase because using your logic if Lady GaGa came out in January and U2 came out in July you could compare them because they were released in the same calander year.

No matter what you argue The Fame will have outsold NLOTH starting next week based on overall sales (whether you think it's a fair to compare them or not), in about 6 weeks the Fame will have outsold NLOTH in 2009. NLOTH is at present the biggest selling album in 2009, no one is arguing against this. If you want to ignore GaGa's 2008 then do so, no one is forcing you to acknowledge that she will be outselling them. All I posted was overall figures, if you only care about 2009 then ignore the overalls
I really don´t see the need for this lenghty discussion. It´s very simple: taking into account only 2009 sales U2 have sold 400,000 more units than Lady Gaga but taking into account total sales of the two albums, Lady Gaga is the winner (or she´s going to be next week or so). Besides, unless the current trend reverts due to U2 touring or Crazy being a big hit Lady Gaga 2009 sales will match U2´s in a matter of two months or so.

So I guess that, in a sense, both of your are right.
__________________
fedeu2 is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 12:43 AM   #55
War Child
 
fedeu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 548
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahweh View Post
Downloading of MP3s has been going on for over 12 years now and infact that is how this site got the majority of its initial traffic was by posting an illegal mp3 that they obtained from the studio sessions for POP....an unfinished version of Discotheque.

One could argue that it has gotton worse over time as people have become more computer savvy and that I will agree with however I will also say that the majority of U2's sales on this album were from the hardcore U2 fan only....I would be very interested to see how many people that had never heard of U2s music before actually went out and bought this record because of something they heard off it...probably very few....Bomb and ATYCLB had substancial radio play with the singles, this album in comparison has not.

U2 have one of if not the biggest hardcore fanbase out of any band going and thats what will keep them going but if 18 Singles outsells this record (which barely anybody on this forum thought was a good idea), then it is clearly a failure no matter if it ends up being the biggest selling album of the year or not (which I dont think it will be).

The tour itself can be summed up as a success but as of right now the album is not. U2 could go on tour without an album and sell out most cities.

Lets face the facts most people that are going to a U2 show probably know less then 5 songs and the majority of those songs are from the 80's early 90's and maybe Beautiful Day....the rest of it is a mystery to them. U2 benefits from having a very large hardcore fanbase that no other band currently has that is making music, outside of possibly Springsteen and AC/DC.

I can hear the same speeches starting to come out when they hit America that they did on the Popmart Tour "If it interests us it should interest you" well unfortunatly that isnt the case for the most part unless you write music by the numbers these days.

This album will be considered by me as an artistic success but a sales failure. It will sell 4 million albums total at a maximum and to me that is a failure. The album is crashing and burning in the UK, will barely reach platnum in the US and isnt exactly burning up the charts elseware either.

I wouldnt be shocked if U2 quit after this tour either and that wont be popular around here but I can see it as well.

The music industry definately has its problems but to quote Bono from the Pop time period "the music industry is in a slump not because of the Internet but because the records are boring" I believe that has a lot to do with the overall slump of the industry.

U2 will outsell 95 percent of artists for the entire year within the 1st week and always have since the mid 80's this is not a good marker to go by for a legendary band. A better one to go by is consistancy of the record selling and the fact is this album has consistantly been sliding down the charts since its release.

Grammy's dont count on it this time.

The question is this will U2 continue to make music for the art of it for arts sake or are they more concerned with how the album sells. I think we will find that out next album (if their is one). At this time I would be suprised to see "Songs of Ascent" come out in its original form. I believe they will throw in a few formula U2 hits to try and drive album sales up unfortunatly.
As it is the case with all artists, it´s true that the vast majority of people attending U2's concerts know only a few songs, i.e. the classics (by the way, Vertigo is already a classic). But did you get to listen to the Barcelona boots? The new songs have been received extraordinary well and I´m not talking about the fans here. Magnificent and Unknown caller are set to be future classics and the Crazy remix is sending the crowds ballistic.

Name another band that after 30 years is capable of producing such an effect with new songs?

I´m confident the album will sell in excess of 4 million by March 2010 which, taking into account the numerous factors which have already been discussed will put it in a similar position than Bomb in terms of commercial success.
__________________
fedeu2 is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:54 AM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
KUEFC09U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,195
Local Time: 10:59 AM
U2 are not going to "quit" after this tour, why would you sign a 12 year contract if you where only planning on seeing out 3 years? (if this tour even goes that long!), that wouldnt make any sense.
__________________
KUEFC09U2 is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 12:08 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,239
Local Time: 10:59 AM
yahweh, u need to see my thread in GD. what washed up really is. i should have posted it in this thread .
__________________
allbecauseofu2 is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 01:16 PM   #58
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishteen View Post
Non-mediatraffic estimations for U2 are not important as the album has been on mediatraffic since it was released, Lady GaGa's wasn't therefore the non-mediatraffic data is actually important.
Doesn't matter. Your choosing to use a non-mediatraffic sales figure which is NOT exact, and very debatable, while at the same time excluding non-mediatraffic sales for U2.


Quote:
The sales from Australia are an estimation (to the best of my knowledge) based on the year end positions or figures, the album was easily over 70,000 and at least closer to 100,000. With known
Initially shipments typically outnumber actual sales figure, especially when were dealing with the 4th quarter of the year and Christmas sales. Its more likely that the album did not pass the 70,000 mark in Australia until some time in 2009. Retailers stock up big time on product and if actual sales were 100,000 at the time as you allege, shipments would have been over 140,000 and and the album would be certified double platinum.


Quote:
When looking up the top selling of 1987, people care about total sales of albums released in that year a lot more than what it sold in the year of its release
People concerned with determining ACCURATELY what the most popular album of 1987 was, are not going to be concerned with sales from 1985 or 1995, they will be concerned with how the album sold in 1987 period.

So again, would you use sales from 1985 or 1986 to determine the biggest selling album of 1987?

Quote:
But it's not a calander year thing, if you compared the year as March to Feb you'd get the exact same result as you would if you compared January to December.
Actually you wouldn't as any look at total soundscan results would show.

Quote:
You can't judge it based on years it has to be based on TIME PAST.
Thats absurd, especially in this environment where albums sales have been declining each year since 2000. The vast majority of people make their purchases, vacation plans, etc. on the Calander year. Taxes are paid in the Spring, a possible vacation in the summer, Christmas in December.

Given the decline of the music industry year after year, its simply inaccurate to be comparing albums from 2006, 2007, and yes even 2008, to what an album is selling in 2009.

Albums released in 2008 had a much stronger market to sell in. Most of the year had taken place before the financial crises of late 2008.

It is grossly inaccurate to be comparing albums from the sales environment of 2006, 2007, or even 2008 to 2009.

Be consistent, given the rapidly declining market, and simply compare 2009 sales TO 2009 sales.

NLOTH and virtually any other album released in 2009, would have higher sales at the moment if it had been released in 2008!

Quote:
Lady GaGa's album has been out for nearly a year now, if the sales from 2008 are irrelevant then we have to start arguing sales from January-March are irrelevant come December of this year.
January-March sales are relevant to 2009's total sales, July to December 2008 is NOT. Its a different year, and a enormously different economic environment. ANY artist who was lucky enough to release an album in 2008 has a built in sales advantage because of the better economic climate in 2008 as well as a music market that had not declined to levels currently seen in 2009.

The year starts out generally with low sales in the 1st quarter, fluctuates during the 2nd and 3rd quarters, before ending on a very high note in the 4th quarter. Top 100 albums of the year, and other year end list are based on the calander year, or something very close to it because that is the general economic cycle.

If the market continues to decline year after year in 2010, 2011, it won't be accurate to be comparing the sales of NLOTH in 2009 to the sales of an album released in 2011.

Quote:
Your argument is not based on sales going down, it's based on the christmas sales increase because using your logic if Lady GaGa came out in January and U2 came out in July you could compare them because they were released in the same calander year.
There has been a widely reported annual decrease in album sales each and every year since 2000. The music industry has been in decline since 2000. Every week Billboard magazine compares sales to the same week in the year before and there is a substantial decrease shown. It also compares sales to the recent past week, and sales are sometimes up, sometimes down. A few weeks or a few months in the same calander year can of course be compared because the albums are selling in the same general economic environment.

The Chirstmas sales season of the year before is definitely a factor, but its also because its a different economic cycle from 2009 in which on average sales were higher, regardless of the season.

Quote:
No matter what you argue The Fame will have outsold NLOTH starting next week based on overall sales (whether you think it's a fair to compare them or not),
There is no evidence of that at all. In fact, if we just went with hard sales figures, no estimates, NLOTH is out in front.

Again, your creating a figure that highly debatable. Your then being inconsistent by adding this created figure to mediatraffic numbers without considering non-mediatraffic sales figures for NLOTH. Its totally inaccurate and inconsistent and you will never see mediatraffic, Billboard, soundscan, or any other sales tracking organization use such logic in comparing sales.

Quote:
If you want to ignore GaGa's 2008 then do so, no one is forcing you to acknowledge that she will be outselling them.
There is no evidence that whatever she sold in 2008, something you don't really know, will have put her sales ahead of NLOTH this week. Its simply inaccurate and inconsistent to be making a comparison using created 2008 sales figures which are highly debatable while at the same time restricting what sales figures for NLOTH to only 2009 figures mediatraffic sales figures.

If one is concerned about relevant and accurate figures, you use what is known from the same sources, in the same economic cycle, to make the comparison.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:08 PM   #59
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahweh View Post
Downloading of MP3s has been going on for over 12 years now and infact that is how this site got the majority of its initial traffic was by posting an illegal mp3 that they obtained from the studio sessions for POP....an unfinished version of Discotheque.
For those doubting the decline in the music industry do to more and more people having the ability to obtain music without actually paying for it, consider these facts:

Top 10 selling albums of 2000 in the United States

1. No Strings Attached / 'N Sync ~ 9,936,104
2. The Marshall Mathers LP / Eminem ~ 7,921,107
3. Oops!... I Did It Again / Britney Spears ~ 7,893,544
4. Human Clay / Creed ~ 6,587,834
5. Supernatural / Santana ~ 5,857,824
6. Beatles 1 / The Beatles ~ 5,068,300
7. Country Grammar / Nelly ~ 5,067,529
8. Black & Blue / Backstreet Boys ~ 4,289,865
9. 2001 / Dr Dre ~ 3,992,311
10. The Writing's on the Wall / Destiny's Child ~ 3,802,165


Top 10 selling albums of 2008 in the United States

1. Tha Carter III / Lil Wayne ~ 2,874,420
2. Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends / Coldplay ~ 2,143,928
3. Fearless / Taylor Swift ~ 2,112,179
4. Rock N Roll Jesus / Kid Rock ~ 2,017,905
5. Black Ice / AC/DC ~ 1,915,172
6. Taylor Swift / Taylor Swift ~ 1,597,316
7. Death Magnetic / Metallica ~ 1,565,078
8. Paper Trail / T.I. ~ 1,522,103
9. Sleep Through The Static / Jack Johnson ~ 1,492,466
10. I Am... Sasha Fierce / Beyoncé ~ 1,458,853


As you can see, there has been over a 70% sales decline in the top selling albums from 2000 to 2008.


Quote:
One could argue that it has gotton worse over time as people have become more computer savvy and that I will agree with however I will also say that the majority of U2's sales on this album were from the hardcore U2 fan only....I would be very interested to see how many people that had never heard of U2s music before actually went out and bought this record because of something they heard off it...probably very few....Bomb and ATYCLB had substancial radio play with the singles, this album in comparison has not.
When has U2 NOT had a hardcore fanbase? As for airplay success in the United States, check out the following:

Peak position on the HOT 100 AIRPLAY ONLY chart:

POP
Discotheque #22
Staring At The Sun #16
Last Night On Earth #74


All That You Can't Leave Behind
Beautiful Day #19
Stuck In A Moment.. #56


How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb
Vertigo #30


No Line On The Horizon


As you can see from above, POP had more radio airplay than any of U2's last three albums because of the success of that albums singles in penetrating the Hot 100 airplay chart which considers airplay on all stations regardless of format. Despite receiving greater airplay, the album only finished at #45 for the year back in 1997. No Line On The Horizon by contrast will finish in the top 10 or top 15.

Quote:
U2 have one of if not the biggest hardcore fanbase out of any band going and thats what will keep them going but if 18 Singles outsells this record (which barely anybody on this forum thought was a good idea), then it is clearly a failure no matter if it ends up being the biggest selling album of the year or not (which I dont think it will be).
Well, if it was just a matter of having a hardcore fanbase, why did POP finish at #45 for the year in 1997 and not in the top 10 or top 15 like No Line On The Horizon will in the USA for 2009. POP certainly was not the biggest selling album worldwide of 1997 and in fact barely made the top 20.

18 Singles is a GREATEST HITS album which means people will be buying it year after year because it has the bands most popular songs from its entire career on it. If you look at the top 200 catalog albums in the USA, most of them tend to be Greatest Hits albums or some type of compilation. These albums are built to sell year after year, decade after decade and its absurd to compare the sales of any greatest hits album to the sales of an artist single studio album. 18 singles outsells the Joshua Tree every week by a wide margin.

Quote:
The tour itself can be summed up as a success but as of right now the album is not. U2 could go on tour without an album and sell out most cities.
That certainly was not the experience on POPMART. The fact is, the success of any U2 tour has always be closely tied to the success of the album. Plus, this, time U2 are playing in the round in stadiums which makes it 50% more difficult to sellout because of all the additional seats that can be sold.

Quote:
Lets face the facts most people that are going to a U2 show probably know less then 5 songs and the majority of those songs are from the 80's early 90's and maybe Beautiful Day....the rest of it is a mystery to them.
Thats probably one of the most inaccurate things I've seen said in this forum. Most people going to the show have NLOTH(purchased or obtained for free) as well as much of the rest of U2 catalog. You might be able to say that most people only know a few songs from NLOTH, but that was no different than the situation with Achtung Baby and ZOO TV, at least on the first legs of the tour.

Quote:
I can hear the same speeches starting to come out when they hit America that they did on the Popmart Tour "If it interests us it should interest you" well unfortunatly that isnt the case for the most part unless you write music by the numbers these days.
Well, you obviously don't accurately understand how U2 sold in 1997 as well as how their selling in 2009.

Quote:
This album will be considered by me as an artistic success but a sales failure. It will sell 4 million albums total at a maximum and to me that is a failure. The album is crashing and burning in the UK, will barely reach platnum in the US and isnt exactly burning up the charts elseware either.
Guess what: MOST ARTIST CAN'T SELL 4 MILLION COPIES OF AN ALBUM ANYMORE! How can you call not selling x amount of copies a "failure" when almost nobody can sell that much anymore do to changes in the market?

There were only 5 albums in 2008 that actually sold 4 million copies or more. Does that mean that the other 99.99% of albums were all sales failures? You can't claim a certain sales level is a failure, if almost no one else in the industry is able to sell that much.

Quote:
I wouldnt be shocked if U2 quit after this tour either and that wont be popular around here but I can see it as well.
There is always a group of people who say this with every new album and tour. Its been happening since 1987!!!!!

The current tour is projected to gross somewhere between $600 million and $750 million with the band pocketing over 70% of that figure! In terms of making money, this is overwhelmingly the most successful time of the bands career.


Quote:
The music industry definately has its problems but to quote Bono from the Pop time period "the music industry is in a slump not because of the Internet but because the records are boring" I believe that has a lot to do with the overall slump of the industry.
Well, that most be a quote YOU created because the music industry was not in a slump in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 etc. It has been in a slump every year since 2000 though and have the statistics that show that.

Quote:
U2 will outsell 95 percent of artists for the entire year within the 1st week and always have since the mid 80's this is not a good marker to go by for a legendary band. A better one to go by is consistancy of the record selling and the fact is this album has consistantly been sliding down the charts since its release.
Well, you obviously forgot how POP finished in 1997. It finished at #45 in the United States. Compare that to the top 10 finish of HTDAAB or the projected top 10 or top 15 finish of NLOTH in 2009. The last time U2 had the biggest selling album worldwide was in 1987. In 2009, this is the closest they have ever been to having the biggest selling album of the year since that time.

Every album that U2 has ever released since 1991 slides down the chart after the first week. Thats normal chart performance!

The only accurate way to caculate how well an album has done is how well it has sold VS the other albums selling in the same year. You CANNOT sell more than what the overall market will bear in a given year. In 2009 it is extremely difficult for ANY album to sell over 4 million copies.

Quote:
The question is this will U2 continue to make music for the art of it for arts sake or are they more concerned with how the album sells. I think we will find that out next album (if their is one). At this time I would be suprised to see "Songs of Ascent" come out in its original form. I believe they will throw in a few formula U2 hits to try and drive album sales up unfortunatly.
Someone has made a similar prediction with every single album release since the Joshua Tree.

The fact is, the band has never changed its goals since DAY 1. Ever since they became a band, they have always strived to make the best music possible while selling it to as many people as possible.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:14 PM   #60
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 10:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fedeu2 View Post
As it is the case with all artists, it´s true that the vast majority of people attending U2's concerts know only a few songs, i.e. the classics (by the way, Vertigo is already a classic). .
From what I have seen, that is definitely not the case. The vast majority of people at the show tend to be people who not only own the new album, but a wide portion of the rest of the bands catalog as well.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Week 70 edge3 Peeling off those Dollar Bills 35 04-01-2006 05:23 AM
Week 39 edge3 Peeling off those Dollar Bills 76 08-27-2005 04:30 PM
Week 95 (and more) Popmartijn Peeling off those Dollar Bills 5 09-06-2002 06:01 PM
Week 89 Popmartijn Peeling off those Dollar Bills 6 07-20-2002 02:09 PM
Week 45- 47 Chart News doctorwho Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 13 09-29-2001 07:15 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com