Week 36

[Irishteen]

IMO its all about the hits.

coldplay only had 1 hit really - the title track, apart from that singles underperformed, especially the first single, UK #8.

Yes giving away your song for free to two million people generally does affect your ability to sell it for cash

I love how people forget this about Viva La Vida's first single

 

[andyuk]

Coldplay lead single was poor in fact very poor!

 

[Irishteen]

Coldplay lead single was poor in fact very poor!

Still went top ten despite being given away free

 

[phommel]

I think this drives home my point even further. Lady Gaga has had what, 4 top 10 hits this year, yet her album has only sold 500,000 copies more than U2. This just goes to show that big hits are not worth what they used to be in this market that has been heavily impacted by piracy.

Ha Maoilbheannacht, probably we will never agree on this

Probably there are several reasons and piracy is a big factor, I will not deny that. It's just that piracy was also a big factor the last years...
So there are other reasons. The (small) difference between U2 and Lady gaga, KOL and coldplay, who had all albums coming out around the same time (2008-2009), is big radiofriendly hits!

So factors imo are 1) piracy, 2) bad timing of album release, 3) bad choice for first single, 4) no big hits.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

IMO its all about the hits.

coldplay only had 1 hit really - the title track, apart from that singles underperformed, especially the first single, UK #8.
iTunes addvert and VLV hit single, made at least half of those 8-9M sales.

if U2 had had a vertigo level hit off NLOTH, then sales would be up on 6M no doubt.

Maybe a few years ago, but not in 2009. A Vertigo level hit would be lucky to propel the album to 4.5 million sales before the end of the year in this market.

Hits still help, and there have been dozens of huge hits in 2009 by various artist who have been unable to match the sales of "No Line On The Horizon".

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

Ha Maoilbheannacht, probably we will never agree on this

Probably there are several reasons and piracy is a big factor, I will not deny that. It's just that piracy was also a big factor the last years...
So there are other reasons. The (small) difference between U2 and Lady gaga, KOL and coldplay, who had all albums coming out around the same time (2008-2009), is big radiofriendly hits!

So factors imo are 1) piracy, 2) bad timing of album release, 3) bad choice for first single, 4) no big hits.

Again, the difference in sales is so small between NLOTH and The Fame that you could attribute it to almost anything.

Oh and Piracy is a factor that has been increasing in impact year after year. Its impact was less in 2004, and nearly non-existent in 2000 in terms of its impact on the market. But its a different world in terms of the music industry these days when the top album worldwide can only sell 4 million copies in one year.

 

[Native_Son]

Maybe a few years ago, but not in 2009. A Vertigo level hit would be lucky to propel the album to 4.5 million sales before the end of the year in this market.

Hits still help, and there have been dozens of huge hits in 2009 by various artist who have been unable to match the sales of "No Line On The Horizon".

your saying a git like vertigo would give U2 just 1M more sales.
i would say that 3M out of the 3.5M that bought NLOTH were all previous U2 fans, and GOYB or the other NLOTH singles, would hardly have sold any extra copies of the album.
a hit like vertigo would have appealed to a younger audience.
KOL - only by the night, would have stalled on 1M, like their previous releases had it not been for the 2 singles, especially sex on fire.

 

[Sergiodino]

your saying a git like vertigo would give U2 just 1M more sales.
i would say that 3M out of the 3.5M that bought NLOTH were all previous U2 fans, and GOYB or the other NLOTH singles, would hardly have sold any extra copies of the album.
a hit like vertigo would have appealed to a younger audience.
KOL - only by the night, would have stalled on 1M, like their previous releases had it not been for the 2 singles, especially sex on fire.

I´m also with this opinion...

 

[phommel]

your saying a git like vertigo would give U2 just 1M more sales.
i would say that 3M out of the 3.5M that bought NLOTH were all previous U2 fans, and GOYB or the other NLOTH singles, would hardly have sold any extra copies of the album.
a hit like vertigo would have appealed to a younger audience.
KOL - only by the night, would have stalled on 1M, like their previous releases had it not been for the 2 singles, especially sex on fire.

I couldn't agree more!

KOL (and also Lady Gaga) sold these numbers because of their hits!
U2 sold 3,5 M in spite of having hits (so that is amazing!).

Let's say that a hit like Vertigo would give U2 maybe 1 M more sales as Maoil.. stated. That makes a big difference. 1 M more copies is 30% more in this market. So even in a market where sales are down, hits do make a difference. And indeed, hits would have appealed to a younger audience. Look at Coldplay, a huge amount of their album and single sales was digital, proving that they appeal to a young audience. I am sure they would have sold millions less if they didn't have the hits.