they're pushing their 'brand name' at people who are already at the shows - nothing wrong with that. When I say 'brand name' I mean anything that has the tongue logo on it. T-shirts, jackets, zippo lighters, whatever. They seem more interested in selling that stuff than they do about selling records. To answer your question, theres a huge difference in the two. Arent they a rock n roll band? We cant really wonder why their album isnt selling or charting as well as we expected if they're more interested in selling t-shirts and corporate packages than they are records.

why cant they push their MUSIC to the same people who they're trying to push merchandise to? They're obviously not buying the album!

They're marketing themselves - sure, but at corporate America. Not at music fans. Why should the average person tuning into an NFL game care about a new Stones album? Most wont...its not what they've turned on the TV for. To most people, its just another commercial. The 60,000 plus audience who were at Soldier Field on Saturday night should be the type of audience they're relying on to boost their sales. They're already a 'captive market' as they obviously have some interest in the band. Not selling their album at their own concerts is commercial insanity.

by all means, market themselves in the way youve mentioned. But they've obviously overlooked the people who one would have thought would have been more likely to buy a new Stones album in the first place. Their fans.

Selling a collectors edition at Christmas wont give them a #1 album either. Too little, too late. The promotion and marketing behind this album and tour has been incredibly half arsed compared to previous ones.

"We cant really wonder why their album isnt selling or charting as well as we expected if they're more interested in selling t-shirts and corporate packages than they are records."

The album is licensed to the record company and thus the record company's distributors and retailers. Said retailers would raise bloody murder if the record were sold at shows as it would cut into their sales potential.

The t-shirts, trikets and trash are wholey owned by the Stones themselves.

Is it possible (just asking, don't have any idea) that there is something in their record-deal or distribution contracts that doesn't allow them to sell the CD at concerts? Virgin does have a lot of retail outlets, don't they?

Karl

well..Prince's last album was distributed to ticket buyers when they bought tickets for the tour that he was promoting at the time. Think what a similar strategy would have done for Stones' ticket sales...

you're right about Virgin being responsible for selling the album. However, theres no logical reason why they shouldnt be able to sell it a Stones show, esepcially when Virgin records have a connection with the record store of the same name.

Its a win-win situation for both the record company and the band, when you think about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-15 18:05 by Gazza.

Just to clarify: it is clear from the Billboard article Mick DOES want the new album to be a hit; he is explicit about that. (Keith said he doesn't care as much about how big a hit it is) - it's important to strike a balance: the RS have still been WAY more consistent NEW album sellers the past 22 years (since Undercover broke the # 1 streak) than any ex Beatles, Rod (hit or miss), Clapton, or any other artist of their generation, not to mention huge superstars that have slipped like Prince, Sting, etc.
Two issues: there has been LESS airplay for this cd than any RS album in history, or any album in the top 50, I'd guess just from glancing at the chart. 2nd, they are in the midst of a near-sold out tour w/ all the publicity & positive reviews that go along (music reviews dont influence sales the way movie reviews do in the US). Where this album's sales matter is in relation to future Stones albums - this is their last for Virgin, strong sales would put them in a good bargaining position for any future albums, & if "no one" (fewer fans) is interested in their new music, the motivation to make more may be weaker, same with the amount of new/recent material performed in concert. If it gets a tepid response...
I like the cover art - but there's no identifying sticker on the plastic seal with the words "ROLLING STONES - A Bigger Bang, the new album!" or point of sale cardboard bins, etc.
Nevertheless, "weaker" sales for the Stones are relative: as someone pointed out, it's like Louis Armstrong having a # 3 album smash in '66 (don't mention Hello Dolly, a fluke - even in jazz circles his post war work was not taken seriously till posthumously), or Benny Goodman in the 70s. Finally, I'm not sure Sep 17 - 24 is a great time for the band to be taking a week off, less than 2 weeks after the album's release.

It lacks hits and it lacks great songs. If another band had recorded this album it wouldnt have reached the stores. No radioplay means no hits.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 04:59 by cirrhosis.

I agree. They should find a way to sell the CD at concerts, whether it cuts into T-shirt sales or not.

cirrhosis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really don't see why the album isn't sold at
> concerts.

Maybe because it's not played at them....or barely

As much as hard core fans have voiced how bad they feel Streets Of Love is, it is a song that, had it been properly worked in the US, could have appealed to casual Stones fans or more importantly to the young female demographic who is not amongst the group who bought the album last week.

Those 129,000 copies were sold to hard core fans who would buy the album anyway. I don't think very many hard core fans were put off by hearing Streets of Love and as a result did not buy the album. In the U.S., it really is not even possible to hear the song unless you seek it out. The reality is unlike in Europe and other continents, they are not trying to work this song at radio, on MTV and not even in their live concerts. They should have had a video to this song delivered to MTV and VH1 by mid August. Pehaps a video with a storyline using primarily young actors and bits showing the Stones playing would have transcended the age factor and tapped into a demographic that clearly is not buying this album.

Having Rough Justice worked at rock radio is fine, if only they would play it more. Streets Of love seems to be on the album with the intention of appealing to non Stones fans, the way that Angie was able to do back in 1973. Aerosmith had a huge hit with their ballad I Don't Want To Miss A Thing, so it's possible the Stones could have had similar success with Streets.

I wrote this as a response to another thread, but I believe the same answer applies here...

IT"S PRETTY HARD FOR ANY BAND TO HAVE A 'CLASSIC' ROCK SONG THESE DAYS WHICH WILL LAST THROUGH THE AGES BECAUSE ROCK IS DEAD AS A MOVEMENT AND A REFLECTION OF POPULAR CULTURE !!!

Face it, guys, it's true. The combination of rap & music videos pretty much killed off rock as THE reflection of our times and, therefore, no rock songs recorded after, I would say, 1982 will hold up as 'classics'. There's still fine rock music out there, no question about it. But rock 'n roll, sadly, no longer is the reflection of youth and young adult culture.

The last chance rock had to have a full-fledged artistic renaissance was in the late '70's and early '80's with the original punk and new wave artists. The Sex Pistols, the Ramones, the Clash, Elvis Costello, Talking Heads, Rockpile, Sham 69, the Buzzcocks, the Pretenders, Blondie, the Modern Lovers, Television, the Damned, the Jam and more....if only these artists would have found widespread commercial success AND radio airplay (Blondie was about the only one that did), rock 'n roll could have had a glorious new era. But no -- radio had to be restrictive and people, in general, decided they would rather listen to crap like Styx, Kansas, Journey and REO Speedwagon. That was the first major stake through the heart of rock 'n roll. Then along comes MTV which reduces music to meaningless images and the advent of rap which eliminates any semblance of melody or thought and instead glorifies violent, misogynistic, thuggish behavior. That was the second and final stake through rock's heart.

And now, guess what ? We want to be reminded of rock's glory days, so we are willing to pay outrageous prices in order to do so. The Eagles were the first band to charge $100 or more per ticket on their 'Hell Freezes Over' reunion tour. They got away with it. Almost every show was a sell-out, and almost every other band decided that if the Eagles could gouge Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public...well, then, so can we ! INCLUDING THE STONES !!!

I do believe this is why sales are lower than expected, despite the quality of the album. In concert, we will pay outrageous prices to reminded of "the good old days" before rap & hip hop. But most people simply don't care about NEW rock music anymore. It's a sad thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-09-15 21:57 by RockR.

As far as why the cd is not sold at shows, at least not yet, could be because those sales would not be reflected in the Soundscan figures and while they would have ended up selling more than 129,000 copies last week in total, the Soundscan figures would have been a little lower. Some of those people attending shows in St. Paul, Milwaukee and Chicago last week were undoubtedly included in those 129,000. Perhaps the Soundscan figures would have been a couple thousand lower had they sold the cd at the shows.

Obviously Virgin and the Stones wanted a big first week, but now that that is over, it would make sense to start selling the cd at the shows, as a lot of concert goers would buy it if they see the cd right in front of them, but will forget about it after leaving the show and never get around to buying it in a store.

RockR:

I have to agree with most of what you say. Video (MTV) had a secondary negative effect in that it directly contributed to the musical malaise of the 80's, IMO. I remember Rod Stewart being quoted as saying (circa 1982) to the effect that the video ideas come first now and the music was secondary to that. That blew my mind. And, we can all pretty much agree that the 80's were THE worst decade in rock'n'roll history...whether we agree on the contributing factors is another question.

The baby boomer arre into changing diapers and don't have time for something this cool.

It's not that they don't have the time...but if you have $100 to spend on either a Stones ticket or Baby Formula, what's gonna be your first priority ?

You can get a new copy of the album for $10.99 - I don't think it's an issue of baby formula vs concert ticket, or concert ticket vs album. The album costs, what, a beer & a half? And lasts longer. Radio is the big problem, & I didn't hear Rober Plant's new album (excellent) on the radio either (dropped from something like # 22 - 84 first 2 weeks). Aerosmith extended their pathetic lifespan by hiring 'song doctors' for big screen ballads WAY worse than any the Stones would record, & their newer stuff isn't doing so well either. But for the 'half full' perspective, Ray Charles' last had the contrived & proven 'duet' formula that sold to people who otherwise couldn't name a single new Charles recording from the past 35 years, James Brown has not sold anything since '73, Aretha - still trying to keep contemporary on Arista?, Did Jeff Beck's last even chart? Lou Reed's? Blondie's? Bowie did, but with a fraction of what ABB has sold. The list goes on & on - ageism at radio, the focus on the youth demographic. So all things considered, including my own hopes & expectations, there is a level at which this IS a hit - # 3 - that if it keeps pace w/ VL, Stripped, B2B, or 40L WILL go platinum or better. And for a 43 year old band that is putting out vital new music and terrific shows, I'll have to say THAT exceeds my own expectations of 20 years ago (Undercover peaked at # 4), w/ Duran Duran at their popular peak & the Stones seemingly near the end of theirs.

-



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-12-22 05:00 by cirrhosis.

Muddy Waters and Little Walter saw there record sales go soft when Chuck, Bo and Elvis came along...taste change. I love this album and didn't think they could pull off another great one like this ...shame on me for thinking that and shame on who ever did't buy this great rock and roll CD.

john r Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can get a new copy of the album for $10.99 - I
> don't think it's an issue of baby formula vs
> concert ticket, or concert ticket vs album. The
> album costs, what, a beer & a half? And lasts
> longer. Radio is the big problem, & I didn't
> hear Rober Plant's new album (excellent) on the
> radio either (dropped from something like # 22 -
> 84 first 2 weeks). Aerosmith extended their
> pathetic lifespan by hiring 'song doctors' for big
> screen ballads WAY worse than any the Stones would
> record, & their newer stuff isn't doing so
> well either. But for the 'half full' perspective,
> Ray Charles' last had the contrived & proven
> 'duet' formula that sold to people who otherwise
> couldn't name a single new Charles recording from
> the past 35 years, James Brown has not sold
> anything since '73, Aretha - still trying to keep
> contemporary on Arista?, Did Jeff Beck's last even
> chart? Lou Reed's? Blondie's? Bowie did, but with
> a fraction of what ABB has sold. The list goes on
> & on - ageism at radio, the focus on the youth
> demographic. So all things considered, including
> my own hopes & expectations, there is a level
> at which this IS a hit - # 3 - that if it keeps
> pace w/ VL, Stripped, B2B, or 40L WILL go platinum
> or better. And for a 43 year old band that is
> putting out vital new music and terrific shows,
> I'll have to say THAT exceeds my own expectations
> of 20 years ago (Undercover peaked at # 4), w/
> Duran Duran at their popular peak & the Stones
> seemingly near the end of theirs.


Thats why Robert Plant and Jimmy Page oughta wake up and re-form Zeppelin and tour with the classics !!