NLOTH. Week 1

[zoocarolina]

I saw Michael Jackson had sold over 750 million albums worldwide today when he announced his farewell dates, can that be right??? U2 has an incredible # with 145 mill+, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to Michael!

 

[04072511]

I saw Michael Jackson had sold over 750 million albums worldwide today when he announced his farewell dates, can that be right??? U2 has an incredible # with 145 mill+, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to Michael!

Of course its not true. Thriller is the biggest selling album of all time with 60 million approx. Bad and Dangerous are at about 30 million and the rest all below that! Its pure bullsh1t that 750 million. Same with the Beatles selling 1 Billion. People who believe that clearly know nothing about the music industry. The Beatles have sold between 300-400 million albums and no more!

Abba at 350 million? Dont make me laugh! Its all propaganda to help promote tours/ greatest hits albums etc!

 

[Yahweh]

Anything put out before 1991 tends to have inflated sales totals. It would be nice to have more accurate numbers but we dont.

 

[ChargedVT]

USA I-TUNES TOP 100 ALBUMS

1/ NLOTH
2/ NLOTH - Deluxe
43/ Live From Paris
58/ Joshua Tree Deluxe
60/ 18 Singles
65/ Best of 80-90
68/ Achtung Baby

Looks like a lot of people are checking out the back catalogue too. And in the top 100 ROCK albums there is also ATYCLB, HTDAAB, 90-00, UF, Rattle, War, Zooropa, and Pop!

 

[Tallarico]

from mediatraffic.de:

U2's new album 'No Line On The Horizon' starts at no.3 with 100.000 copies. The sales are generated primarily by two countries, France (65.000) and Japan (33.000). All other countries follow a week later. Therefore it's no secret, that U2 will lead next week's list

only 2 countreies... poor music market...

 

[BigMacPhisto]

The Beatles have sold between 300-400 million albums and no more!

I'm a Beatles nut and I can tell you that the 1 billion estimate is likely correct. The lowest it could be, in my mind, is 800 million. I totaled up some albums that I had numbers for but weren't certified, singles that sold far more than they're certified for, along with all the albums....the US total alone would come out to about 300 million (and that's a conservative estimate)...and this band has sold about double worldwide for all of their albums (example, 1 has sold over 30 million copies, 10 in the United States...while Abbey Road and the others all have similar spreads).

 

[04072511]

I'm a Beatles nut and I can tell you that the 1 billion estimate is likely correct. The lowest it could be, in my mind, is 800 million. I totaled up some albums that I had numbers for but weren't certified, singles that sold far more than they're certified for, along with all the albums....the US total alone would come out to about 300 million (and that's a conservative estimate)...and this band has sold about double worldwide for all of their albums (example, 1 has sold over 30 million copies, 10 in the United States...while Abbey Road and the others all have similar spreads).

http://www.u2interference.com/forum...ling-albums-of-all-time-worldwide-125720.html

Check out this here. Its a few years old but its close enough.

The biggest selling beatles albums are:

1) Sgt Pepper - 32m
2) Abbey Road - 29m
3) One - 28m
4) The Beatles 1967-1970 - 21m
5) The Beatles 1962-1966 - 20m
6) White Album - 19m

Those 6 albums total 149m. Impressive Numbers yes. But how is it possible that all their remaining albums would have sold 850 million considering none of those albums would have sold more than 15m (All albums over 15m are on that list).

300-400 million albums is a reasonable estimate.

Thriller has sold 60m and is the biggest selling album of all time. Even if all Beatles albums sold 59 million, it still wouldnt add up to 1 Billion.

I appreciate that if you add singles to this you will get a much greater number. But 1 Billion? Hardly. Its just marketing. "The Beatles have sold 1 Billion" sounds more impressive to the general public than "The Beatles have sold 700million albums and singles combined"

 

[ChargedVT]

Ireland

NLOTH #1 (gee what a shock)
18 SINGLES #6!!!!!
Joshua Tree #76

Boots #7
Magnificent #42!!!!

 

[Tallarico]

Belgium #1 and #1 ( wallonia and flanders)
Hungary #1
Sweden #2 (after only...2-3 days...)
France #1 (after 2-3 days only with near 65-70k)
Japan #4 (after only 4 days)
Italy #1
Ireland #1
Finalnd #3 (after only 3 days)
Poland #1 (40k)
New Zeland already platinum (15k)
Netherlands 60k shipped immediatly
Brazil 60k shipped immediatly

and i think sure Usa (between 400 - 500k), Uk (near 70k in the first day, 4 times the second in the second day...) and Germany (near 70-100k?) also #1 ...

not too bad for 4 irish 50's boys...

 

[bathiu]

Poland #1 (40k)

and that's No1 in a 23.02.2009 - 01.03.2009 week, so officialy only from 3 day sales
Where did you get the 40k number? That's 2x platinum BTW - if true.

 

[Tallarico]

on ukmix.org forum chart analysis!
http://www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=58751&start=300

 

[Irishteen]

NLOTH was the fastest selling album in Ireland since Bomb

 

[doctorwho]

I'm a Beatles nut and I can tell you that the 1 billion estimate is likely correct. The lowest it could be, in my mind, is 800 million. I totaled up some albums that I had numbers for but weren't certified, singles that sold far more than they're certified for, along with all the albums....the US total alone would come out to about 300 million (and that's a conservative estimate)...and this band has sold about double worldwide for all of their albums (example, 1 has sold over 30 million copies, 10 in the United States...while Abbey Road and the others all have similar spreads).

The one billion number is valid only if singles are counted.

Remember, back in the 60's (especially early 60's), it was all about the 45 rpm (or record). The goal was to have hit singles. The album was just viewed as a way of placing all the hits in one accessible format. But albums were not big sellers - at least for pop music. Singles were. So the Beatles did not have monster selling albums back then, but they did have monster selling singles.

As the 60's wore on, the appeal of albums took over and this stayed true throughout the 90's.

Of course, with iTunes and other downloadable services, we are once again back in the era of singles. For example, Kelly Clarkson sold over 200K downloads of her "My Life Would Suck..." song in just one week. While I may be wrong, it wouldn't surprise me if the first week's sales of her album are about the same or even lower. INXS was another band that, back in their prime, would have Top 10, even #1 hits, yet their albums wouldn't reach #1 and sell relatively softly for an album that had huge hits. In other words, these days, some artists are just singles aritsts.

U2 is more of an album artist, which explains why NLOTH can still sell 400K+ in March with a comparatively weak first single.

Regardless, I don't think 1B in sales for Beatles' albums is possible.

And Michael Jackson may have those numbers ONLY if every little thing he's ever done is counted - including his time with Jackson 5 and his various duet appearances.

 

[MMP]

^I was about to post that. Beatles sold 1 billion, but when singles are counted.

 

[hey you]

nloth n.1 on holland sold more than 5 times on the second.boots up to 7 from 9.

 

[04072511]

AB only saw sales of 295K its first week in the U.S., just enough to get to #1. This was during U2's "peak" too! Based on that info., I bet many of us would have wondered if AB would flop. Yet, it went on to be certified as 8x Platinum in the U.S. and is U2's second biggest selling album.
QUOTE]

You have to realise though that in 1991 Soundscan only covered approximately 40% of the market. In reality Achtung Baby's sales were around 750k.

 

[rollingbob]

The 1 billion figure for the Beatles is only because their record company used to use a singles equivalent method to calculate their sales (1 album = 6 singles, 1 EP = 2 singles and 1 single = 1 single). Chart expert MJDangerous at UKMIX explains it all here,

Here are some Beatles figures through the years:

- 80 million records (Aug 1964)
- 100 million records (Fev 1965)
- 150 million records (Aug 1966)
- 188 million records (Feb 6 1967)
- 200 million records (May 1 1967)
- 300 million records (1969)
- 545 million records (Oct 1972)
- 1200 million records (1985)

Those figures are CORRECT, but as I said, they count each LP/Album as 6, each EP as 2 and each single as 1.

Beatles top sellers by 1972:
#1 Abbey Road 7.6 million
#2 Sgt Pepper 6.3 million

Top selling single:
Hey Jude 7.5 million

By that time, they had 21 strong selling albums. With an average of 3+ million copies each, they sold around 65 million copies. Multiplying them by 6 gives a figure of 390 million. Adding around 130 million singles, the count jumps to 520 million, plus the remaining 10-15 million multiplied by 2, we reach the figure of 545 million records sold.

In the same way, they sold around 25 million albums when the claim of 200 million came out, that was 25 million x6, 125 million, plus singles and EPs.

From 1967 to 1972 the count increased faster and faster, due to sales moving from singles to albums through the years.

By 1985, their 60's album sales basically doubled (even a bit more than doubled) compared to figures of the same albums in 1972.
That's 135 million albums sold. Add around 40 million for releases between 1972 and 1985 (Red/Blue around 25 million together at the time, plus 4 more relevant releases and many more minor ones). The figure is 175 million albums, x6 gives 1050 million copies sold. Add the 130 million singles and 10 million EP x2, you reach the 1,2 billion records sold figure claimed by EMI.

RCA have done the same as EMI by posting Elvis figures in singles equivalent too. They have even gone further, by giving each individual album sales figure in singles equivalent. They claimed he sold 2.75m albums in 1956 in the US. The fact is that he released only 2 albums in that year, his first one was the best selling album of the year selling 300,000 copies. The second sold about half of that, 150k, the total is 300k + 150k * 6 = 2.75 million.
From that point, all figures they claimed were always factored, even if fans refuse to admit it.

RCA claimed a figure of 600 million records by his death in 1977. Then they claimed one billion record sold by 1983. This figure was made by around 120 million singles sold, 15 million EPs (that count as 30 million) and 135 million albums (counted as around 850 million units). Since then he sold around 35 million albums in the US and the same internationaly, pushing him to 200+ million albums sold.

 

[rollingbob]

The 1 billion figure for the Beatles is only because their record company used to use a singles equivalent method to calculate their sales (1 album = 6 singles, 1 EP = 2 singles and 1 single = 1 single). UKMIX chart expert MJDangerous explains it all here,

Here are some Beatles figures through the years:

- 80 million records (Aug 1964)
- 100 million records (Fev 1965)
- 150 million records (Aug 1966)
- 188 million records (Feb 6 1967)
- 200 million records (May 1 1967)
- 300 million records (1969)
- 545 million records (Oct 1972)
- 1200 million records (1985)

Those figures are CORRECT, but as I said, they count each LP/Album as 6, each EP as 2 and each single as 1.

Beatles top sellers by 1972:
#1 Abbey Road 7.6 million
#2 Sgt Pepper 6.3 million

Top selling single:
Hey Jude 7.5 million

By that time, they had 21 strong selling albums. With an average of 3+ million copies each, they sold around 65 million copies. Multiplying them by 6 gives a figure of 390 million. Adding around 130 million singles, the count jumps to 520 million, plus the remaining 10-15 million multiplied by 2, we reach the figure of 545 million records sold.

In the same way, they sold around 25 million albums when the claim of 200 million came out, that was 25 million x6, 125 million, plus singles and EPs.

From 1967 to 1972 the count increased faster and faster, due to sales moving from singles to albums through the years.

By 1985, their 60's album sales basically doubled (even a bit more than doubled) compared to figures of the same albums in 1972.
That's 135 million albums sold. Add around 40 million for releases between 1972 and 1985 (Red/Blue around 25 million together at the time, plus 4 more relevant releases and many more minor ones). The figure is 175 million albums, x6 gives 1050 million copies sold. Add the 130 million singles and 10 million EP x2, you reach the 1,2 billion records sold figure claimed by EMI.

RCA have done the same as EMI by posting Elvis figures in singles equivalent too. They have even gone further, by giving each individual album sales figure in singles equivalent. They claimed he sold 2.75m albums in 1956 in the US. The fact is that he released only 2 albums in that year, his first one was the best selling album of the year selling 300,000 copies. The second sold about half of that, 150k, the total is 300k + 150k * 6 = 2.75 million.
From that point, all figures they claimed were always factored, even if fans refuse to admit it.

RCA claimed a figure of 600 million records by his death in 1977. Then they claimed one billion record sold by 1983. This figure was made by around 120 million singles sold, 15 million EPs (that count as 30 million) and 135 million albums (counted as around 850 million units). Since then he sold around 35 million albums in the US and the same internationaly, pushing him to 200+ million albums sold.

 

[Popmartijn]

AB only saw sales of 295K its first week in the U.S., just enough to get to #1. This was during U2's "peak" too! Based on that info., I bet many of us would have wondered if AB would flop. Yet, it went on to be certified as 8x Platinum in the U.S. and is U2's second biggest selling album.
QUOTE]

You have to realise though that in 1991 Soundscan only covered approximately 40% of the market. In reality Achtung Baby's sales were around 750k.

No, it's not true to say that, since Soundscan only covered a % of the market, that the actual sales were a lot higher. The data collected by Soundscan is extrapolated to get the sales figure.
Taking AB as an example (and Soundscan covering 40% of the market), the sales of AB as recorded by Soundscan were probably around 120,000. Extrapolate it to 100% and you get 295,000.

 

[04072511]

No, it's not true to say that, since Soundscan only covered a % of the market, that the actual sales were a lot higher. The data collected by Soundscan is extrapolated to get the sales figure.
Taking AB as an example (and Soundscan covering 40% of the market), the sales of AB as recorded by Soundscan were probably around 120,000. Extrapolate it to 100% and you get 295,000.

I dont think its extrapolated. Achtung Baby's soundscan total is about 5.4 million or something close to that. We know right well it had sold 8 million by 1997 and more than likely over 9 million by now. The extra 3.5 million not covered in soundscans total couldnt have all been club sales. no way.

 

[rollingbob]

But they didn't cover the Music Club sales (& whatever else) - hence AB, for example, going 8xP on SS sales of only about 4.5m in Aug '97

 

[04072511]

But they didn't cover the Music Club sales (& whatever else) - hence AB, for example, going 8xP on SS sales of only about 4.5m in Aug '97

How could club sales make up 3.5 million though?

 

[CosmoKramer]

on ukmix.org forum chart analysis!
UKMIX - Forums - Chart Analysis - U2 . No Line On The Horizon . Charts/Sales (page 13)

Tallarico.... thank you for the link. I like finding random forums like this discussing u2 and u2 sales. It brings a different perspective and sometimes new information. From time to time I go to the Velvet Rope forums but they are huge U2 haters, especially when Boots came out. However, they seem to have really liked the new album (aside from the typical U2 haters who say they are "overrated", "old" or "Irrelevant"). I always find it funny when people ask if U2 are irrelevant.... if they were, they wouldn't be talking about them on an internet forum, right?

 

[doctorwho]

How could club sales make up 3.5 million though?

It does seem like a lot, but remember, back then SoundScan didn't account for every single store or every source selling albums. This is why there is such a disparity.

To get an estimate for a week, early on SoundScan would extrapolate based on the data they had. STING2 would go into detail about this. He never felt that the 295K sales number was right for the first week of sales. But that's what we have, so we use it.

SoundScan finally showed the world that country music sold big (it was often assumed that country was limited, when in fact some of the first top sellers in the SoundScan era were country albums). This was also the bias of the old-fashioned way. Having record stores report data led to a lot of fudging. Albums rose up for a while (JT did not debut at #1 nor did R&H - given the huge success of JT, it's ridiculous to think that R&H didn't debut at #1), peaked - often remaining at the top for weeks or months, then slowly fell. Now, an album often peaks its first week and lingers if it's a hit or plummets fast. Record stores could be biased and report false data. Stores could be bribed too. Charts were used in marketing ("The #1 album for the last month!"). These days, few albums stay at #1 for a period of longer than 3 weeks - and if they do, it's usually because it's a slow period (the same reason why a so-so movie can stay #1 for a while, even with low grosses - no real competition to knock it down).

So it's very possible to see that millions of albums were sold that SoundScan did not capture back then. Add in catalog sales, record clubs and you can see how 8x Platinum is possible. That was certified in 1995, so it's not as if stores over-ordered the album. If they did, they'd ship it back. So the RIAA number is legit.

No, it's not true to say that, since Soundscan only covered a % of the market, that the actual sales were a lot higher. The data collected by Soundscan is extrapolated to get the sales figure.
Taking AB as an example (and Soundscan covering 40% of the market), the sales of AB as recorded by Soundscan were probably around 120,000. Extrapolate it to 100% and you get 295,000.

With my above comments in mind, you see I agree.

However, that wasn't the point of my post. I was just trying to say that if those same nay-sayers saw that U2 only sold 295K copies of AB in its first week, after the huge success of JT and R&H, they'd probably declare AB a flop. But clearly that wasn't the case as the album went on to become U2's second best selling album. In other words, don't put too much into first week's sales or chart positions. ATYCLB didn't even open at #1, while "Zooropa", "Pop" and HTDAAB did. Yet ATYCLB outsold them all. In fact, ATYCLB sold more than "Zooropa" and "Pop" combined.

I was trying to emphasize that even if sales of NLOTH this week are a tad lower than we hoped, it could still do great business.

 

[04072511]

It does seem like a lot, but remember, back then SoundScan didn't account for every single store or every source selling albums. This is why there is such a disparity.

To get an estimate for a week, early on SoundScan would extrapolate based on the data they had. STING2 would go into detail about this. He never felt that the 295K sales number was right for the first week of sales. But that's what we have, so we use it.

SoundScan finally showed the world that country music sold big (it was often assumed that country was limited, when in fact some of the first top sellers in the SoundScan era were country albums). This was also the bias of the old-fashioned way. Having record stores report data led to a lot of fudging. Albums rose up for a while (JT did not debut at #1 nor did R&H - given the huge success of JT, it's ridiculous to think that R&H didn't debut at #1), peaked - often remaining at the top for weeks or months, then slowly fell. Now, an album often peaks its first week and lingers if it's a hit or plummets fast. Record stores could be biased and report false data. Stores could be bribed too. Charts were used in marketing ("The #1 album for the last month!"). These days, few albums stay at #1 for a period of longer than 3 weeks - and if they do, it's usually because it's a slow period (the same reason why a so-so movie can stay #1 for a while, even with low grosses - no real competition to knock it down).

So it's very possible to see that millions of albums were sold that SoundScan did not capture back then. Add in catalog sales, record clubs and you can see how 8x Platinum is possible. That was certified in 1995, so it's not as if stores over-ordered the album. If they did, they'd ship it back. So the RIAA number is legit.

With my above comments in mind, you see I agree.

However, that wasn't the point of my post. I was just trying to say that if those same nay-sayers saw that U2 only sold 295K copies of AB in its first week, after the huge success of JT and R&H, they'd probably declare AB a flop. But clearly that wasn't the case as the album went on to become U2's second best selling album. In other words, don't put too much into first week's sales or chart positions. ATYCLB didn't even open at #1, while "Zooropa", "Pop" and HTDAAB did. Yet ATYCLB outsold them all. In fact, ATYCLB sold more than "Zooropa" and "Pop" combined.

In other words, I was trying to emphasize that even if sales of NLOTH this week are a tad lower than we hoped, it could still do great business.

Very interesting. SO you think that not all albums that reached the top may have been legit?

Also why exactly would R&H not have debutted at #1. Surely the guys in the store reporting back on the numbers would have notice the album sell through the roof during its opening week no? I've heard that the album sold 750k-1million in its first week. Seems very off in this case that it could debut outside the Top 10, even under the old system.

 

[Yahweh]

U2 have sold an estimated 65 percent of the total albums bought in the US this week physically, I think thats pretty damn dominating even if it doesnt move as many units as past albums have, especially considering the lack of people buying physical media these days.

 

[ChargedVT]

U2 have sold an estimated 65 percent of the total albums bought in the US this week physically, I think thats pretty damn dominating even if it doesnt move as many units as past albums have, especially considering the lack of people buying physical media these days.

Is there a source for that, or an assumption?
65% sounds pretty high.

 

[ChargedVT]

It would be interesting to see back catalogue sales this week, too. At the moment there are 8 U2 albums in the top 100 albums on US I-Tunes.
However, the fact that they are CATALOGUE albums makes sales harder to come by, but U2 18 Singles in particular is selling well around the world, will be Top 20 in UK this week, and is in most Top 10 Rock album lists on I-Tunes.

 

[rollingbob]

The Joshua Tree just re-entered the UK Top 200 at #196

& on the singles,

WOWY : 151 (180)
Beautiful Day : 186 (re)

 

[Irishteen]

Based on those sales from Japan and France last week NLOTH is the 13th best selling album of the year worldwide

If it sells a million this week it'll be number 1 for the year