Quote
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
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.

Unfortunately due to the mastering of the compilation it is not a worthy representation of their 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.

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
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.

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
ThatsWhatISay
Maybe using social media like facebook also played a role in pushing sales.

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
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.

Have you ever seen or had the original release of Undercover? A grrrzillion times better than this hits album.

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.

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.

I still have to buy my copy I know I am always a bit late, but Grregory's announcements for concerts are more important to me than CDs.

40 Licks sold astonishingly well. It peaked at No.2 in the UK upon release and re-entered the top-ten circa the '07 02 Shows. I'm sure this Grrrr! comp is selling steadily, but I wouldn't imagine it selling as well as 40 licks.

According to this source, 40 Licks sold 4,000,000 globally:
[www.beatzenith.com]

Maybe this is of interest, too:
[en.wikipedia.org]!

ROCKMAN

Quote
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
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
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
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? 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
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
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.

The only thing that matters now is, that, based on today's standards, GRRR sold very well, especially if you consider its high price.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-16 18:32 by ThatsWhatISay.

Quote
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
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.

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
ThatsWhatISay

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?

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?

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
ThatsWhatISay

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.

Using only the tongue couldn't be more unimaginative. We've seen that often enough.

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
ThatsWhatISay

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.

How do you know that people who liked the Stones facebook page didn't buy the album?

Has GRRR! sold 11,812,795 copies? That's how anyone can know that. That's obvious.

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.

11,812,795 people like their page. There are around 300,000 people talking about the page or the Stones. That's a safe assumption but there's never going to be a way to know.

Quote
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
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.

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

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.

I don't have the audio equipment to really judge the audio quality. I just noticed that the sound was clearer and less dusty which I liked. I do believe you that it lacks dynamics, but I assume that the remastering was done by seasoned experts who knew what they did. Maybe the Stones just followed a trend by decreasing the dynamics. Who knows. In any case, the sound was certainly deemed good by lots of people before the compilation was released.
But whatever they release, there are always audiophiles on this board who find something to criticise about the audio quality, often times just to demonstrate their "expertise" in this field (I'm not referring to you here).

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.

The title sucks indeed. Don't bother your head about why such artwork is well received. I'm much more baffled about the kind of trash music that makes it into the charts nowadays. Taste has changed dramatically in so many aspects of life, with music being only one sad example.

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.

You're right. I wasn't only talking about album artwork. I just meant to say that the Stones logo has been overused in so many ways for decades. It's generally not very creative to just put the logo on the album cover. Forty Licks certainly didn't have the most memorable cover artwork.

Quote
GasLightStreet
Has GRRR! sold 11,812,795 copies? That's how anyone can know that. That's obvious.

Most of the millions of subscribers do not regularly follow the page. But approx. 300.000 are actively chatting on the page and that's the number of people who certainly saw the promotion and announcement. I'm pretty sure many of them bought GRRR.

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.

Yes, it was for the average music fan.
But they also release stuff for the serious fan. Look at StonesArchive for instance. But understandably they also have to release stuff for the general public. Otherwise they would hardly make any money with selling records.

The Stones haven't made money selling records for years, only the record labels have - and it hasn't been much.

Ha ha! I'm no audiophile BUT I have noticed the UMe remasters are just obnoxious and sound terrible. It's a shame.

Quote
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
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
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

Quote
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
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]

While I'd guess that the Stones would have gotten themselves a 'better deal' the fact of the matter remains that album sales absolutely pale in comparison to the tours.

My decision to not purchase Grrrr! was quite simple: I own all the tracks already. Doom And Gloom and One More Shot I downloaded. I'm not a collector, really. IMO, like 40 Licks, this latest collection is a decent overview of the groups 49 years-worth of studio recordings.

Sales of albums, cd"s, downloads...whatever they are now, are irrelevant with this band. I just hope that they bring the price of tickets down to a reasonable price for their shows in 2013.

if they have new material?.... release 1 song/single every month as the tour goes on.

Single releases are the way to go for sure with the Stones. There's really no need for a new album - they'll practically ignore it anyway live if they do a new LP and tour. They'll just play the one single so it makes sense to just do another single or two.

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
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]

I'm very aware that the artists only receive a tiny share of the revenue and the record labels make the huge profit. But things like distribution logistics, promotion etc. is unlikely paid by the artists if that is what you were saying.
Also keep in mind that the Stones certainly have much more lucrative contracts than most other artists. If there is one thing the Stones truly excel in, it is making money and being greedy.

The article you were linking to might have some merit, but the scenarios mentioned in it and the distribution of revenue is a guess and very generalized. Nobody really knows the contents of the contracts which surely varies a lot from artist to artist. I also don't believe that artists selling millions of records and receiving no dime for it is the norm.

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
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"...

They've done one tour without a new LP. That can be done again. They've done one tour with a new single on a hits album. So that can be done again. They've done a mini-tour with one single on another hits album 10 years later. Doubt that will happen again. The point is there is no point to them doing a new album when they'll

1. essentially ignore it
2. hardly anyone will buy it
3. a single would be enough with a tour

If it's so important for them to make a new album why don't they then? Nothing says they have to tour after making a new album. They've made a few albums without touring with/for/behind them. It's a tired excuse. The Stones don't need a new album to tour. Sure, Mick likes having something new but not that much really. In fact, they could un-release everything from 1986 to 2012 and tour and no one would notice - they sell tickets solely on their legacy, which is great, really, but to use that excuse of doing a new LP to be "moving forward" is old and dead for The Rolling Stones.

...A new studio album would sell over 2 millions at least, ABB sold over 3 millions worldwide!Do you think that they aren't able anymore to record new stuff?!?

What I'm even more interested in is why bother making the 'speciality products', like the Doom and Gloom vinyl single?

I'm sure the margin is fantastic, but how much money can they possibly be making off something like that?

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.

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
ThatsWhatISay
If there is one thing the Stones truly excel in, it is making money and being greedy.

HA HA! Damn right about that!

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.

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
superrevvy

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.

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.

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.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-17 21:51 by ThatsWhatISay.

Quote
GasLightStreet

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.

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.

22 million copies?

Quote
ThatsWhatISay

Quote
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.

I certainly agree, but my points are:

1) that record/digital sales and touring are not nearly as important to the
BIG artists as they were only a short time ago. Adele may be a slight exception
in that her album sales are unusually large in this day and age. But, as a new
artist, I'm sure her contract sucked. But those radio royalties, both as a
writer and performer, are essentially all hers.

2) so that's why the BIG artists don't really care that much about illegal
downloads. It actually increases the value of their brands, their buzz, their
name recognition, and is more than compensated for by the value of their
radioplay and perfumes and underwear and jeans etc etc etc. Yes, currently less
successful less iconic artists (Mellencamp and DeVille being two recently
discussed on IORR) no doubt do get hurt by illegal downloads. But even there
its quite unclear how many of those illegal downloads would have actually
turned into sales had the downloads been prevented. My guess is a small
fraction. Same with all these "new exciting groups" discussed on another
thread. All on the road to nowhere (under the current system).

3) in other words, the successful business model for a popular recording
artist has changed dramatically in the last five to ten years. Nowadays
what you hear on hits radio in L.A. is quite similar to what you hear on
hits radio in Ghana and Singapore and Croatia. So that's where the cash is.
Sales are relatively meagre and touring is expensive with slim profit
margins. When the best business model was based on sales, the Beatles ruled.
When the best business model was based on touring, the Stones and U2
were the behemoths. But those days are gone, at least for the forseeable
future. Every change of business model produces winners and losers.

With regard to the Stones, the difference between selling 1 million Grrrs
and 3 million Grrrs is chump change compared to what somebody as insignificant
as Bruno Mars will get from radio play during the same time frame.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-17 22:25 by superrevvy.