Best Of 1990-2000: Officially A Commercial Failure?

[jick]

Alleged chart experts in this forum have always said that the sales would pick up in the holidays and after the release of Gangs of New York. Now both events have happened, the smoke has cleared, and nothing has still happened to U2's Best Of 1990-2000.

After only 9 weeks in the Billboard Charts, it is all the way down to #94, down from 88 a week ago. After 9 weeks, it has failed to reach gold in the USA. I cannot remember the last time U2 had an album fail to reach gold after 9 weeks (maybe the last time was two decades ago in the early 80's).

In chart rankings, while Sweetest Thing in the 1980-1990 release made somewhat of a cameo appearance on the Billboard Hot 100, Electrical Storm has even failed to make its presence felt in the Modern Rock Charts.

So much for the quantifiable and objective items like chart positions and record sales. Even in the subjective standpoint, based on my own experiences (and naturally my own biases), Electrical Storm is hardly played in MTV, if it is even played at all. Unlike Sweetest Thing which was played much during its time.

I think U2 failed with the song selection which was much more arbitrary. They had too many non-singles, and the new mixes confused the public as to why there needed to be new mixes. Also, the fact that the 90's were so recent and that most fans had the song in CD made the demand less, whereas most of the early 80's U2 fans had their respective albums in cassette or vinyl, so the Best Of 1980-1990 created more of a demand to upgrade their versions.

Well, just about every magazine write-up has described the 90's as a troubled and turbulent period for U2. Living up to its source, the Best Of 1990-2000 represents a troubled direction for U2. Coming of the heels of a commercially successful album and tour, U2 follow it up with a not-so-successful compilation and singles that did not quite stir up the public.

So now after all the smoke has cleared, is it already ripe to declare that the Best Of 1990-2000 will never match is predecessor and that it is a mild failure considering U2's lofty standards and expectations?

I just hope this minor setback will not be aggravated by a commercially unappealing follow-up studio album to ATYCLB. U2 should always aim for commercial success because that is what Bono's ego feeds on. And as he said in Larry King, it's two crap albums and you're out. I don't want U2 to leave the ballgame anytime soon yet.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

I have little to no time to seriously react to all the wrong statements here (why am I replying at all), but I'll try (and be brief...)

After only 9 weeks in the Billboard Charts, it is all the way down to #94, down from 88 a week ago. After 9 weeks, it has failed to reach gold in the USA. I cannot remember the last time U2 had an album fail to reach gold after 9 weeks (maybe the last time was two decades ago in the early 80's).

AFAIK, The Best Of 1990-2000 has sold more than 500,000 copies (making it eligible for a Gold Record) while the version with the B-Sides disc is eligible for a Platinum Record. However, this certification isn't done automatically. The record company has to apply for this (in the USA that is). In Europe the IFPI certifies automatically. It is there already 2x Platinum (meaning over 2 million sales)

In chart rankings, while Sweetest Thing in the 1980-1990 release made somewhat of a cameo appearance on the Billboard Hot 100, Electrical Storm has even failed to make its presence felt in the Modern Rock Charts.

IIRC, Electrical Storm reached #77 on the Billboard 100, outperforming Elevation and Walk On.

So now after all the smoke has cleared, is it already ripe to declare that the Best Of 1990-2000 will never match is predecessor and that it is a mild failure considering U2's lofty standards and expectations?

Well, if you want to feel good that you can whine about it, OK. But please remember that it's only in your mind as the fact tell it isn't a failure (here in the Dutch charts the album is still in the top 10)

I don't want U2 to leave the ballgame anytime soon yet.

Hmm... Your posts tell otherwise...

Marty (who needs his weekend!)

 

[MrBrau1]

Nice job Popmartijn.

 

[jick]

I forgot to add that the release of the Best Of DVD may actually make the CD a harder sell. For the same price, you get all the videos (including all the songs that didn't make the album), alternate versions of the videos, bonus features, and virtually the same sound quality as CD. So some people might just prefer to buy only the DVD. The Best Of 1980-1990 did not have to deal with this problem since it did not have a DVD and its accompanying video did not carry many bonus songs (only One Tree Hill).

While the Best Of with the bonus CD may have gone platinum, at the same timeframe, the first Best Of had already gone double platinum.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

it'll be hard for the cds to make a decent dent in the charts because the american charts don't want to combine the one disc and two/three disc versions. so they're competing against each other, instead of working together. i'm sure if they were combined, they'd be double platinum.

 

[MrBrau1]

Aren't overall CD sales at their lowest level in the soundscan age? That may help explain it. The economy was much better in 1998 than it is now.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

I am curious how the technological advancement and globalization of downloading music and, more specifically, how the popularity of mp3s may have impacted the sales figures of this Best Of compared to the last Best Of (4/5 years ago). I don't think that could be easily answered, but in a nutshell, I think more people burn their music these days. I find that sales charts don't really tell the whole story like they used to.

 

[typhoon]

I don't know, but hundreds of thousands of CDs in a month or so is pretty good for just two new songs.

 

[mike63]

5 million sales =commercial failure ?

I don't often agree with J, but in respect of the US Sales (rather than copies shipped) of Best Of 90-2000 , he has a point. But we should not only look at US Sales. Music Week (UK bible on sales) reports that Best Of has `sold' 5 million copies worldwide outside of the UK by end of 2002- so probably 5.5m incl UK sales. ATYCLB & Best of 80-90 also sold more than 1m copies outside of the UK last year - not bad going !

Mike

 

[Nate Dogg]

I could care less how many other people buy U2's CDs.....as long as I still can!!

 

[jick]

I am curious how the technological advancement and globalization of downloading music and, more specifically, how the popularity of mp3s may have impacted the sales figures of this Best Of compared to the last Best Of (4/5 years ago). I don't think that could be easily answered, but in a nutshell, I think more people burn their music these days. I find that sales charts don't really tell the whole story like they used to.

Well, Elvis' and the Rolling Stones' latest compilations have hit triple platinum in the BIllboard charts while the Best Of 1990-2000 has failed to be certified gold as of yet. Even Paul McCartney's live album has gone double platinum, while Nirvana's latest compilation has gone platinum. Keep in mind that Nirvana is also 90's music, just as recent as U2's. While it may be accurate to say that the Best Of 1990-2000 has sold around 5 million worldwide, this would still pale in comparison to U2's Best Of 1980-1990's worldwide sales. And even with the declining economy worldwide, fans have still flocked to buy Elvis, Nirvana, The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney.

Even before the Best Of 1990-2000 was released, I had predicted that when the smoke clears the first Best Of would have sold much more. Many chose to disagree. Now they do know where they stand. And I am not talking simply about the plain vanilla versions, if you add up the sales of the limited editions and the regular versions, the Best Of 1980-1990 still wins by a mile.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[doctorwho]

Well, Elvis' and the Rolling Stones' latest compilations have hit triple platinum in the BIllboard charts while the Best Of 1990-2000 has failed to be certified gold as of yet. Even Paul McCartney's live album has gone double platinum, while Nirvana's latest compilation has gone platinum. Keep in mind that Nirvana is also 90's music, just as recent as U2's. While it may be accurate to say that the Best Of 1990-2000 has sold around 5 million worldwide, this would still pale in comparison to U2's Best Of 1980-1990's worldwide sales. And even with the declining economy worldwide, fans have still flocked to buy Elvis, Nirvana, The Rolling Stones and Paul McCartney.

As stated in an earlier post, labels have to request an audit in order for any album to receive certification or recertification. This is why many times you will see reports in Billboard or from the RIAA showing a 30 year old album just being certfied as Multi-Platinum.

For example, I know for a fact that ATYCLB has sold over 4 million copies to actual consumer in the U.S. However, a quick glance at RIAA.com shows that the album has only been certified as 3x Platinum.

When U2's label decides to do the audit, the single CD version of the 90's "Best Of" will receive Gold status, just like the 80's "Best Of" did. The single CD version of the 80's "Best Of" was not certified as Platinum until nearly 3 years after its release! Then, due to the success of ATYCLB, it quickly obtained 2x Platinum status and continues to sell well on the U.S. Catalog charts. I believe that the single CD version of the 90's "Best Of" will follow a similar path.

The double CD version for the 90's "Best Of" will definitely receive Platinum status upon certification. While it admittedly has not sold quite as well as the double CD version for the 80's "Best Of", the double CD version of the 90's "Best Of" isn't that far behind. Therefore, I envision that it too will eventually obtain 2x Platinum status.

Even before the Best Of 1990-2000 was released, I had predicted that when the smoke clears the first Best Of would have sold much more. Many chose to disagree. Now they do know where they stand. And I am not talking simply about the plain vanilla versions, if you add up the sales of the limited editions and the regular versions, the Best Of 1980-1990 still wins by a mile.

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

I'm not sure who on this web site predicted the 90's "Best Of" will sell better than the 80's "Best Of". While some of us are optimistic, the numbers don't lie. We all know that U2 sold better in the mid- and late-80's than they did throughout the mid- and late-90's. At best, we figured the 90's "Best Of" releases would mirror that of the 80's "Best Of". But I do not recall anyone predicting the 90's "Best Of" would outsell the 80's "Best Of".

The fact that the 90's "Best Of" sold less is not shocking, but I think over the long term, both "Best Of" releases will be strong sellers over the years.

Also, keep in mind that the 90's "Best Of" sold 5 million copies OUTSIDE of the U.K. in 2002 alone! Add in the U.K. sales and that's over 5.5 million copies. By now, I'm sure the total has crossed 6 million worldwide. And remember - this is a "Best Of" release. I think most artists would give anything for sales like that for their old material.

In other words, while U2 may not be the powerhouse they once were, they are hardly "weak" in terms of album or DVD sales.

 

[STING2]

I predicted early on that the best of 1990-2000 would do about 50% of the business of the 1980-1990. The chief reason is that half of the material from the best of 1990-2000 comes from albums (POP and Zooropa) that are only of interest to hardcore fans and not the general population. Only Achtung Baby songs and two songs from an album just released two years ago (ATYCLB) are of interest to casual fans. Most casual U2 fans already have Achtung Baby.

So far, I would say the best of 1990-2000 has generally done as well or better than I expected. As long as it ends up at 50% or more of the sales of 1980-1990, I would definitely consider it a success.

The Rolling Stones and Nirvana compulations contain ALL of their most popular songs, while U2s best of 1990-2000 is simply just their 90s material with only two mega popular albums represented in any way. I'd like to see how well a Rolling Stones 1980-2000 would sell!

 

[bonoman]

Exavtly Sting, you really cant compare the stones and elvis and nirvana to U2. The stones cd has their 40 top hits. Elvis cd has all his hits and he is dead and has no new material and he has one of the biggest followings, Nirvana cd, IMO, did horible. How could a band that aparently changed the music in the 90's sell so little?

 

[mike63]

More

Exavtly Sting, you really cant compare the stones and elvis and nirvana to U2. The stones cd has their 40 top hits. Elvis cd has all his hits and he is dead and has no new material and he has one of the biggest followings, Nirvana cd, IMO, did horible. How could a band that aparently changed the music in the 90's sell so little?

Even if we do compare The Stones & Nirvana to U2 - on a worldwide sales basis U2 has still outsold both of these in 2002 - lets not get hung up with just US sales !". In terms of `old school' artists then only Elvis did better last year - his comiplation of No 1s selling over 8 million copies, his best ever seller (which is some way behind a number of U2 albums!

If we estimate Best Of 90-2000sales at around 6m, this isn't bad after just over 2 months sales - is has taken over 4 years for Best Of 80-90 to rack up 14m sales.

Sting/Doctorwho - the info from Island Record UK (quoted in Music Week) puts sales of ATYCLB outside the UK of 11m. This equates to over 12m incl the UK.

Mike

Mike

 

[jick]

I'd like to see how well a Rolling Stones 1980-2000 would sell!

If it would sell at all! Hahahaha ...actually a very witty reply!

Cheers,

J
The King Of POP

 

[doctorwho]

Re: More

Sting/Doctorwho - the info from Island Record UK (quoted in Music Week) puts sales of ATYCLB outside the UK of 11m. This equates to over 12m incl the UK.


Mike

Jick - what Mike just wrote is an excellent example of U2 still being a dominant force in the music industry. In an age of free downloading, piracy, overpriced CD's and overall sluggish music sales, U2 still managed to release an album of new material that sold over 4M copies in the U.S. and 12M copies worldwide. While artists like Britney Spears, N'Sync or many country artists have strong U.S. sales, their worldwide sales are comparatively very low.

U2 are in a very elite market. Group them with Madonna, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Eminem and a few others that have strong national and international sales. Eminem, however, is a relatively new artist. I'd love to see how well one of his new albums sells in 20 years! U2 had a break-out in '87 with JT. Yet 13 years later, they released an album that is a huge commercial success and is critically acclaimed. While Bon Jovi made a "comeback" with their latest album, they are still quite far from their hey-day of '86/'87. Their last album and tour did not receive anywhere near the critical praise or commercial support that U2's last tour and album did. As I wrote, few artists have enjoyed such longevity in terms of both critical and commercial popularity - U2 are one of those artists.

For all the flack you give U2 about sales, the fact is, U2 are going strong. For all the hassle U2 received about the PopMart tour, the fact is that it outsold and outgrossed the highly regarded Elevation tour. You can try to interpret the numbers in a negative light by isolating individual statistics, but that would be erroneous.

That said, are U2 as popular as they were during 1987-1992? Of course not. But it's very difficult for any artist to keep up those types of sales for an extended period. Nonetheless, the fact that ATYCLB sold ~12M copies worldwide, while not quite as strong as JT or AB, clearly shows that U2 is a dominant force in the music world.

 

[Laura M]

If your a U2 fan you buy the cd and enjoy it

You dont like a band because of how well they do in the charts imo

 

[STING2]

Lara Mullen,

"If your a U2 fan you buy the cd and enjoy it"

"You dont like a band because of how well they do in the charts imo"

Thats certainly true. But no one here likes U2 because they do well in the charts. We like U2 obviously because of their music. We enjoy seeing great music do well in the music industry and our favorite band be successful in such an industry. Its also interesting to observe the industry and what is selling well or not well and to debate why? Thats what marketing executives often do at many of these record companies.

 

[womanfish]

I also have to mention that although The Stones have been certified triple platinum, I think 40 Licks is a 3 CD set, which would equate to only 1 million shipped. I may be wrong, it might only be a 2 CD, but I think it's 3.

 

[Popmartijn]

I also have to mention that although The Stones have been certified triple platinum, I think 40 Licks is a 3 CD set, which would equate to only 1 million shipped. I may be wrong, it might only be a 2 CD, but I think it's 3.

Womanfish...

You are wrong!
Forty Licks is a 2CD set and a great set it is, I might add. I got it at a discount and I have to say I'm not disappointed with it (many great songs from the 60's and early 70's and all their great songs from '75-02). Anyway, that still means that, yes, The Rolling Stones only had to sell 1.5 million copies to have it certified as 3x platinum.

(The same goes with Shania Twain. Her new album is actually a double album, one CD with the songs in a pop arrangement, the other with the same songs in a 'country' arrangement. This will probably increase her chances of having the best selling album in the USA ever (didn't her last, Come On Over, sell 19 million copies in the USA?) as the RIAA counts every copy sold as 2 copies shipped)

Anyway, womanfish, you were wrong



C ya!

Marty (who still cannot find out the certifications of U2's albums in the Netherlands, yuck!)

 

[womanfish]

There's no way Shania will sell enough copies of this album to surpass Come On Over. Even if it is counted twice on certification. I would say that she will probably sell around 5 million copies, which would put her certification at 10 million - about half of the absolutely enormous sales of Come On Over.

But hey, I've been wrong before. Right Popmartijn

 

[verte76]

I could care less how many other people buy U2's CDs.....as long as I still can!!

I feel the same. But the last time I checked U2 had sold more albums in 2002 than any other band in the British Isles. I'll be damned if they need to fret over their sales figures.

 

[doctorwho]

I doubt U2 "fret" over their sales... but I do think it's something they at least consider.

An actor will make a film. He/she hopes it does well both commercially, and ideally critically as well. One never wants to hear how their latest film was "the flop of the year" or "under-performed". It does take a toll on the ego.

Likewise, I think U2 feel the same. To see an album not do well suggests many things. Are they in decline? Is the "hey-day" over? Was the album just that poor? Was it too experimental for mainstream? Was it not experimental enough? All of this creates doubt and I think most artists, despite egos that superficially suggest otherwise, do have considerable doubt.

That said, I do believe this is a moot point. U2's back catalog and current releases have sold very well. After 20+ years, U2 continue to be a force in the music world. Are they as dominant? No... but few bands can hold dominance for long. Still, as I wrote above, in an age of downloads and piracy, U2 still managed to release an album of new songs that sold over 4M copies in the U.S. Most artists would LOVE half of those sales! Therefore, I agree - no "fretting" on U2's part.

 

[STING2]

Honestly,

Worldwide, U2 is the most popular band on the planet. Nearly 12 million in sales of their last studio album of origional material and concert attendance and Gross higher than any other artist except maybe the Rolling Stones. These two factors combined make them the hottest artist commericially in the world.

 

[verte76]

I agree, sales of 12 million is nothing to sneeze at, especially in a weak economy and market. I also agree about giving a damn about sales figures when I can buy a U2 album myself. I'm just curious and I'm not a cat.

 

[Hawkmoon1021]

I predicted early on that the best of 1990-2000 would do about 50% of the business of the 1980-1990. The chief reason is that half of the material from the best of 1990-2000 comes from albums (POP and Zooropa) that are only of interest to hardcore fans and not the general population. Only Achtung Baby songs and two songs from an album just released two years ago (ATYCLB) are of interest to casual fans. Most casual U2 fans already have Achtung Baby.

So far, I would say the best of 1990-2000 has generally done as well or better than I expected. As long as it ends up at 50% or more of the sales of 1980-1990, I would definitely consider it a success.

The Rolling Stones and Nirvana compulations contain ALL of their most popular songs, while U2s best of 1990-2000 is simply just their 90s material with only two mega popular albums represented in any way. I'd like to see how well a Rolling Stones 1980-2000 would sell!

Well put.

ATYCLB was also still selling pretty well at the time of the BO's release. Some casual fans (and possibly some bigger fans) may have had enough of U2 for a while after so much media exposure for the 2 years leading up to the BO. On the other hand, there was little promotion in the US for the BO. Perhaps playing ES on Letterman or Leno may have sparked sales a bit. THTBA on the Oscars may help if people realize it's on the BO.

 

[Strato Edge]

Didn't the thing hit number 1 over Eminem's "8 Mile" soundtrack?

 

[Bunbury]

Sales don't matter......

 

[TheDaddy]

In a way U2's 1990-2000 best of is similar to Madonna's Greatest Hits Volume 2.

Both haven't sold anywhere near as well as the previous one and both are based on part of their careers in which their sales were lower.

e.g. Madonna's GHV2 was based on the low selling Erotica and Bedtime Stories albums and everyone already had the higher selling Ray of Light and Music albums.

U2's Best of 1990-2000 is likewise based on 2 lower selling albums - Zooropa and Pop - and 2 big selling albums - ATYCLB and AB - which most casual fans already own.

So IMHO there isn't really much for U2 to worry about.