For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
ThatsWhatISay
I also think the whole makeup with the Gorilla theme helped the sales a lot.
And you bought it, right? Because you like big monkeys on album covers? THAT is a plus for record sales? Undercover had a much better cover. It sold more copies.
You may have a point - only backwards.
Yes, I bought the 80-tracks edition because I liked the song selection and always wanted to have a remastered stones compilation that was a worthy representation of their body of work.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
I also liked the Gorilla theme, but that wasn't the reason why I bought it. As a die hard fan I don't need fancy graphic designs or marketing strategies to buy their releases.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
But I'm sure that for the casual fan or music buyer, who is not as well informed about releases as we are here on this board, the conspicuous Gorilla theme was a good thing for attracting attention. I'm not saying the design is good (not bad either), but it's an eye catcher and that certainly helped the sales.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
Maybe using social media like facebook also played a role in pushing sales.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
Undercover had a nice and saucy design, but compared to the Gorilla it was nothing that particularly stood out. People have seen naked women on album covers before, but a Gorilla with red lips sticking out a tongue? That is pretty unique.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
Concerning the sales: Undercover was released in 1983. Back then albums generally sold many more units than they do nowadays. Also, GRRR! is a compilation and more expensive than a 1 CD album. So yeah, of course it didn't sell as well.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Unfortunately due to the mastering of the compilation it is not a worthy representation of their work.
Quote
GasLightStreet
So basically you think it is a good marketing strategy and so therefor you would have bought it if you weren't a die hard because you like gorillas?
Quote
GasLightStreet
They would have had a much better album cover with just the tongue - espeically the original tongue - or a bunch of tongues and obviously calling it something better than some sound an animal makes.
Quote
GasLightStreet
No. Hardly anyone that is tuned in to the Stones via whatever bought the album. If you want to go by just Facebook alone hardly anyone bought the album. And you can not tie how many people like their page to Facebook - there were ads all over the place on the internet and in magazines. With the way things are covered now the album has underwhelmingly undersold. There's just not demand. It's very doubtful a better album title and even album cover would have made a difference. It's possible that some people bought it when they looked at the back and saw the old songs on disc 1 and haven't heard them in years and/or didn't get the 2002 reissues.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Have you ever seen or had the original release of Undercover? A grrrzillion times better than this hits album.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Back then albums didn't generally sell more copies than they do now, they DID sell more copies than they do now - if it was a hit album anyway. Hits compilations generally sell better than any album in a band's/artist's discography, especially when released at the right time. If you include CD sales of Undercover it still hasn't sold "a lot" but does rank with their 1989-1997 album sales - world wide - as I recall. The Stones have never been consistent big sellers of original albums, at least historically before Soundscan came along. Nowadays, yes, a million copies world wide is considered a lot. But that also says a lot about the lack of interest/demand. What would be very interesting to find out is how many CD sales of albums originally released on vinyl only have been. That would make Undercover their last original LP and Rewind their last hits compilation sold originally on vinyl for a ending point.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
Unfortunately due to the mastering of the compilation it is not a worthy representation of their work.
I like remastered songs as it sweeps a little bit dust from these old recordings. I found that the songs on GRRR sounded fresher than on the original recordings. An audiophile might have a different opinion saying e.g. the songs now lack dynamics. But for me as a laymen I prefer the remastered versions over the old ones.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
So basically you think it is a good marketing strategy and so therefor you would have bought it if you weren't a die hard because you like gorillas?
Maybe I would have bought it. I hate to repeat myself, but again, it's not about "liking" the gorilla theme, it's about being an eye catcher. People get curious what this bizarre gorilla and "GRRR!" title is all about. For many that's enough to have a look at the album during the next visit at the music store. I also think that many people enjoy the cover artwork. It might not be your and some others cup of tea here on this board, but are you guys representative of the taste of the general public that is not so much into the Stones as we are?
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
They would have had a much better album cover with just the tongue - espeically the original tongue - or a bunch of tongues and obviously calling it something better than some sound an animal makes.
Using only the tongue couldn't be more unimaginative. We've seen that often enough.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
No. Hardly anyone that is tuned in to the Stones via whatever bought the album. If you want to go by just Facebook alone hardly anyone bought the album. And you can not tie how many people like their page to Facebook - there were ads all over the place on the internet and in magazines. With the way things are covered now the album has underwhelmingly undersold. There's just not demand. It's very doubtful a better album title and even album cover would have made a difference. It's possible that some people bought it when they looked at the back and saw the old songs on disc 1 and haven't heard them in years and/or didn't get the 2002 reissues.
How do you know that people who liked the Stones facebook page didn't buy the album?
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
Of course, we can't estimate the influence of facebook promotion on the 12 mio. subscribed fans, but there are about 300.000 people actively talking on their page. I'm convinced that many of them bought the album after it's release was unmissably announced on facebook.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
Have you ever seen or had the original release of Undercover? A grrrzillion times better than this hits album.
No, I haven't. Again, it's not about better, but about eye-catching.
Quote
GasLightStreet
So you like loud no dymanics brickwalled distorted music. The ABKCO remasters were done about as good as one could do (it seems) and the Virgin remasters to this day are a thousand times better than the UMe remasters - which basically destroyed the entire 1971-2005 catalogue sound quality wise (and the recent reissues with the bonus albums). The UMe of Some Girls is terrible. How one can like this kind of mastering and think it's good is astounding.
Quote
GasLightStreet
True. I can't stand it as a Stones fan. But I really don't see the general public going monkey shit all over it. Eye catching? Yes - but revolting at the same time. GRRR? What the hell kind of title is that? It's absurd.
Quote
GasLightStreet
To be factual there has only been one album with just the tongue on it and that was Forty Licks - updated to even say 40 in it. However, if they had used the original tongue on the front and the second tongue on the back it would have been much classier and way more eye catching.
Quote
GasLightStreet
Has GRRR! sold 11,812,795 copies? That's how anyone can know that. That's obvious.
Quote
GasLightStreet
For me, Undercover is eye catching and a great album cover.
You like GRRR! and A LOT of people don't. Like you said and as other people have pointed out, it's for the average music fan, not a serious Stones fan. The problem with that is - and only something happening would change this - they won't bother to release something for serious fans. That singles box set is a joke - serious Stones fans don't need another copy of (enter 1971-whenever single here), they want the never released on CD/digital before stuff (which isn't much but it counts); the good stuff - the B-sides, the actual (ie good) remixes, the live tracks and, bother the Stones forbid, more unreleased tracks, finished or not.
I was hoping they'd revamp Rewind and use that motif again. It's better than Jump Back.
Quote
GasLightStreet
The Stones haven't made money selling records for years, only the record labels have - and it hasn't been much.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
The Stones haven't made money selling records for years, only the record labels have - and it hasn't been much.
You can bet your ass they are making some millions with it. With all the different editions I would estimate the average price per unit sold at $30 or higher. That's already more than $30 mio after a few weeks on the shelves and this number will climb to at least twice that much over the next months/years. Best Of compilations tend to be constant sellers. I don't know what percentage they receive from their record label, but even just a high one-figure percentage would still make them a couple of millions.
Sure, that's not nearly as much as they generate with touring, but it's effortlessly earned money.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
GasLightStreet
The Stones haven't made money selling records for years, only the record labels have - and it hasn't been much.
You can bet your ass they are making some millions with it. With all the different editions I would estimate the average price per unit sold at $30 or higher. That's already more than $30 mio after a few weeks on the shelves and this number will climb to at least twice that much over the next months/years. Best Of compilations tend to be constant sellers. I don't know what percentage they receive from their record label, but even just a high one-figure percentage would still make them a couple of millions.
Sure, that's not nearly as much as they generate with touring, but it's effortlessly earned money.
At some point, sure, the Stones will make money from it but you have to consider the region GRRR! is selling, which is in a lot of areas around the world, and what it takes to get the album there, pressed in different languages etc. UMe needs to recoup the money they spent on advertising - and having the first thing on Youtube come up and then the pop up ads on Youtube and side ads on Google and Facebook isn't cheap.
That's the problem with record sales - people assume that the artist is making a killing. They're not. If GRRR! is selling for whatever price that's not what UMe set it at, it's the retailer setting it a lot higher because UMe is demanding probably more than they should. Any double album release these days should cost under $20 in a store. The download is going for a more reasonable price of about $6.
Here, read this, a good example of how bands don't make money on record sales, regardless of who they are:
[www.techdirt.com]
Quote
GasLightStreet
At some point, sure, the Stones will make money from it but you have to consider the region GRRR! is selling, which is in a lot of areas around the world, and what it takes to get the album there, pressed in different languages etc. UMe needs to recoup the money they spent on advertising - and having the first thing on Youtube come up and then the pop up ads on Youtube and side ads on Google and Facebook isn't cheap.
That's the problem with record sales - people assume that the artist is making a killing. They're not. If GRRR! is selling for whatever price that's not what UMe set it at, it's the retailer setting it a lot higher because UMe is demanding probably more than they should. Any double album release these days should cost under $20 in a store. The download is going for a more reasonable price of about $6.
Here, read this, a good example of how bands don't make money on record sales, regardless of who they are:
[www.techdirt.com]
Quote
mailexile67
C'mon, they can't Touring worldwide without new stuff, it's 8 long years from last studio album, it is also against Mick's convinctions and philosophy,it should be too much like a "Vegas Circus"...
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
Or how do you think a relatively new artist like Adele got her ~$50 mio. net worth? Certainly not with the two tiny tours she did so far.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
If there is one thing the Stones truly excel in, it is making money and being greedy.
Quote
ThatsWhatISay
Or how do you think a relatively new artist like Adele got her ~$50 mio. net worth? Certainly not with the two tiny tours she did so far.
Quote
superrevvyQuote
ThatsWhatISay
Or how do you think a relatively new artist like Adele got her ~$50 mio. net worth? Certainly not with the two tiny tours she did so far.
True. But NOT from record sales either, for the most part.
For the umpteenth time, RADIO is where all the money is these days. Radio play
in over a hundred countries, not just the US and UK like in the old days.
Radio radio radio. Millions upon millions flowing into the artist's coffers
from every point on the planet. Worldwide hits radio.
That's why you don't ever hear Adele or Rihanna seriously complaining about
illegal downloads, even though they are illegally downloaded millions of times
a day. Rihanna has a song out now "pour it up" which is literally about no
matter how much she spends, and she really spends, the next day she's still
got more money. She doesn't sell that many albums, she tours basically for fun,
to stay in contact with her fans, and yet she gets richer and richer every day
because of radio.
Stones fans are more open to Adele because they perceive her as bluesy. But
she didn't work clubs or audiences. She worked her bedroom, put herself on
youtube, got a recording contract, and got on the radio. Exactly the same
as Bieber. Working clubs and sideshows is a fool's game these days. Work
youtube and get yourself on the radio, that's the whole story these days.
With rare exception, working clubs will get you nothing but broke.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
ThatsWhatISay
Or how do you think a relatively new artist like Adele got her ~$50 mio. net worth? Certainly not with the two tiny tours she did so far.
She's sold over 10 million copies of 21 in the United States alone - that certainly paid back all expenses and made her money. In the UK it's sold over 4.5 million. That's a lot. Also the first album in years to sell a million copies in Australia. Plus her previous album started selling more too, which probably helps overall. Add in download singles and the money starts piling up. 21 has sold over 26 million copies world wide.
So obviously all the money the label dished out was made back a long time ago and Adele is making money from it - a lot once the label was paid back its money.
It certainly is cheaper to release a hits album - no recording costs involved so the label doesn't fork out tons of money for that. Advertising costs... who knows. Sony spent $40 million on Jacko's HIStory, partially because it had a new album tagged on to a hits album. Jacko had a deal for royalties to help offset the costs - so Sony's breakeven point was 5 million copies. At $33 a copy, you think Sony made their money back? They did - it eventually sold 220 million copies.
Quote
ThatsWhatISayQuote
superrevvy
Work
youtube and get yourself on the radio, that's the whole story these days.
With rare exception, working clubs will get you nothing but broke.
I think you have a point. But I remember many music artists seriously complaining about all the illegal downloading. It certainly harmed their bank accounts. It's hard to tell how many of their income is from record sales and how much from airplay.
But especially top-selling solo artists who don't have to share the revenue among band members, like the Stones for instance have to do, make a huge amount of money with selling records. Adele for example sells many million units of each album. Even if she only received 5-10% of the revenue, she will make many millions.