Originally posted by Popmartijn:
These stats can be found in the Peel Off Those Dollar Bills forum, in the thread for week 72. They are in the post with the Soundscan statistics of the catalog charts (ironically, those stats were posted by the Doc ). If you want to look, The Joshua Tree is #81 this week. As these are Soundscan stats, they do not include sales by record clubs, etc. (AFAIK, that is).
Speaking of all of these figures, I think this thread should have been placed in the Peeling Off Those Dollar Bills forum, as they talk about the business side of U2. Why didn't ya, Doc? (Cue, carrot-eating rabbit)
Bugs Bunny claims that the reason this thread was posted here was to get other's opinions, not just those who dominate the "Peel off those Dollar Bills" forum.
Plus, the answer didn't *have* to be about the charts or sales, per se, as you, ironically, pointed out in one of your replies (i.e., U2's connections).
Speaking of being "ironic" you commented on the Catalog charts, stating how "well" JT is selling this week and extrapolating that information to how well the album would sell in the U.S. this coming year. Apparently you didn't look at this chart very closely.
Isn't it ironic (*cues Alannis).
True, JT sold a little over 3800 copies this past week, but that is a significant drop from the week before, which was a significant drop from the week before and so on. JT received a strong sales spike thanks to the Super Bowl performance. Furthermore, if you look closely at this chart, you'll see that JT has spent only 14 weeks on the Catalog charts this current run. That is, each time JT falls from the Catalog charts and re-enters, its "weeks on" the chart starts over again at "1." In other words, JT does NOT sell 3800 copies per week, every week of the year - it could and has fallen out of the Top 200 on the Catalog charts, where it may sell under 2000 copies a week. JT is selling well now thanks to the Super Bowl and Grammies. However, as ATYCLB slowly falls from the charts, so will JT. And once JT falls from the Top 200 on the Catalog charts, it will sell, as I just stated, less than 2000 copies per week - meaning less than 100,000 copies per year. Suddenly, that number isn't that impressive, is it?
Also, looking at the Catalog charts, you'll see only two U2 listings - JT and the "Best Of." At times, other strong sellers, like AB, will pop back on the Catalog charts, but that's only due to the release of a new U2 album or a huge hit song, or some other significant U2-related event. Since none of that is true right now, we don't see other former strong selling albums, like AB on teh charts. Therefore, at present, all of U2's albums, other than JT, ATYCLB and the "Best Of", are selling below 2000 copies a week. Something like "Pop" or "October" - both poor selling albums in their initial run in the U.S. - may sell only 100-500 copies a week. That means as little as 5000 copies of these albums sold per year. Again, suddenly this back catalog isn't that impressive, is it?
So while I agree with the overall sentiment of this thread, in that I do not think U2 would have been dropped from their label due to strong worldwide sales, one does have to wonder if ATYCLB hadn't been such a big success (especially in the U.S.) would U2's contract remained the same for the future? The success of ATYCLB could eventually mean the difference of a label signing U2 just because they are U2 - a group who had hits in the past, to a label signing U2 because U2 can still generate MILLIONS sold in the U.S. and win numerous awards as well. The latter is clearly a far more lucrative contract.
