The Hits Daily Double Thread

by **stevyy** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:44 am

M5 did sooooooo well. *relieved*

by **GetBack** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:10 pm

Bravo to Linkin Park for opening with big numbers! Congrats to Maroon 5 for a great opening week as well.

by **tada** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:39 pm

GetBack wrote:Bravo to Linkin Park for opening with big numbers! Congrats to Maroon 5 for a great opening week as well.

THIS!

good week for pop/rock groups

by **phoenix83** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:29 pm

Yeah good numbers for two - I suppose we should say, by this stage, relatively veteran - groups. I may be tempted to buy the new LP album.

by **thebigham** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:06 pm

It's a holiday here in the US so HITS might not give us the Chris Brown estimates today.

by **NothingFails** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:30 pm

Neymar wrote:
FliplovesMC wrote:
Timmy94 wrote:Well, it's not like One Direction are selling monster numbers either .

Next week we are going to see huge top 10 sales... They have MAAAAAAANY albums for 0.99$ on Amazon!
Like, WOW! it's for real
This is getting pathetic.

In fact, amazon and apple manipulate the prices AND, because of that, the charts too.

Every week!!!

Question: What Will "billboard" to do?

The answer: Nothing.

IMO mp3's count as much for owning the music as downloading a video off YouTube is comparable to owning the DVD or Blu-Ray. MP3's are sound files, they should cost next to nothing. $5 should be the max a MP3 album should cost, it shouldn't cost even 50% of the price of a CD because you're not getting all the tangible things that go into a CD, no physical product, no artwork, no disc, no shipping the package, etc... You can't convince me that it is no different to listening to music than watching something on YouTube is compared to owning the actual physical movie on a DVD or something.

by **phoenix83** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:32 pm

NothingFails wrote:
IMO mp3's count as much for owning the music as downloading a video off YouTube is comparable to owning the DVD or Blu-Ray. MP3's are sound files, they should cost next to nothing. $5 should be the max a MP3 album should cost, it shouldn't cost even 50% of the price of a CD because you're not getting all the tangible things that go into a CD, no physical product, no artwork, no disc, no shipping the package, etc... You can't convince me that it is no different to listening to music than watching something on YouTube is compared to owning the actual physical movie on a DVD or something.

You make some good points but the difference is that you do actually own the sound files on MP3s - as in, you can always access them on your computer/iPod etc.

It's not quite the same as YouTube or other streaming services where, if the site or service goes down, you don't have access to the music.

by **herb** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:37 pm

phoenix83 wrote:
NothingFails wrote:
IMO mp3's count as much for owning the music as downloading a video off YouTube is comparable to owning the DVD or Blu-Ray. MP3's are sound files, they should cost next to nothing. $5 should be the max a MP3 album should cost, it shouldn't cost even 50% of the price of a CD because you're not getting all the tangible things that go into a CD, no physical product, no artwork, no disc, no shipping the package, etc... You can't convince me that it is no different to listening to music than watching something on YouTube is compared to owning the actual physical movie on a DVD or something.
You make some good points but the difference is that you do actually own the sound files on MP3s - as in, you can always access them on your computer/iPod etc.

It's not quite the same as YouTube or other streaming services where, if the site or service goes down, you don't have access to the music.

I agree with NothingFails. Nowadays you can convert your CD into the desired format easily. The MP3 should cost less.

Call me old fashion, but I still prefer CD format. :oops:

by **phoenix83** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:41 pm

herb wrote:
phoenix83 wrote:
NothingFails wrote:
IMO mp3's count as much for owning the music as downloading a video off YouTube is comparable to owning the DVD or Blu-Ray. MP3's are sound files, they should cost next to nothing. $5 should be the max a MP3 album should cost, it shouldn't cost even 50% of the price of a CD because you're not getting all the tangible things that go into a CD, no physical product, no artwork, no disc, no shipping the package, etc... You can't convince me that it is no different to listening to music than watching something on YouTube is compared to owning the actual physical movie on a DVD or something.
You make some good points but the difference is that you do actually own the sound files on MP3s - as in, you can always access them on your computer/iPod etc.

It's not quite the same as YouTube or other streaming services where, if the site or service goes down, you don't have access to the music.
I agree with NothingFails. Nowadays you can convert your CD into the desired format easily. The MP3 should cost less.

Call me old fashion, but I still prefer CD format.

Maybe I wasn't clear: I agree with him about the cost issue.

I'm just saying that owning MP3 sound files is not equivalent to watching something on YouTube.

by **stevyy** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:16 pm

as much as i agree with John, i also understand Timmy's concerns. I mean providing legal mp3 albums for 0.25cts is ridiculous. It's nothing.. it's really like giving the product away for free.. but making it charting. as long as the digital market has no reflected market structures and price stability.. they should not manipulate charts for providing music for almost nothing.

I think the recent BB rule change was reasonable. albums, regardless of its format, should not be sold for less than $3,99 in the US. I think the maximum price for physical products should not exceed $10, while the maximum for digital albums shud be $5.

by **Timmy94** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:17 pm

NothingFails, you also shouldn't forget that the making of the record is not what causes most part of its price, but recording/writing/producing
/travelling etc. Therefore those parts stay the same for digital and physical albums and this simply has a price if you want an album full of quality, personality and individuality.
And don't forget that people have to live from the record and there are more people that are part of it than just the ones on the cover.

@stevyy: You already knew what I was writing before I haven't entirely posted it

. Or how did you know my concerns :lol:

?

by **NothingFails** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:24 pm

stevyy wrote:as much as i agree with John, i also understand Timmy's concerns. I mean providing legal mp3 albums for 0.25cts is ridiculous. It's nothing.. it's really like giving the product away for free.. but making it charting. as long as the digital market has no reflected market structures and price stability.. they should not manipulate charts for providing music for almost nothing.

I think the recent BB rule change was reasonable. albums, regardless of its format, should not be sold for less than $3,99 in the US. I think the maximum price for physical products should not exceed $10, while the maximum for digital albums shud be $5.

If $5 was the maximum price allowed to charge for an MP3 album I wouldn't mind it, but I feel like some consumers seem to love to be raped by the industry. MP3 downloading started because CD prices got ridiculously high (in 1999-2000, it wasn't an uncommon sight to see cd's for $20), people revolted against ridiculous high prices, but the studios still think that MP3's should carry that premium to it when they are worthless. Why do some consumers bitch when they get the good end of the deal? The day actual CD's are being sold for 99 cents on Amazon, maybe I can see the argument but IMO mp3's should be ridiculously cheap because you're only getting the song files, not the artwork, not the ability to resell it, etc... To charge $10+ for an mp3 album is just another example of the record labels' attempts to rape the consumer.

by **phoenix83** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:35 pm

^ not being rude but I don't think most people care that much about the artwork in comparison to the music.

Also, bit before my time, but I bet there were similar debates going on when CDs began to replace vinyl. Of course record companies are going to charge high amounts to consumers, that's not going to change just because the dominant format of consumption does.

by **abi** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:45 am

HDD hasn't really gave us an update but there's one from Billboard...

Chris Brown's 'Fortune' Heading for No. 1 on Billboard 200 Chart

Chris Brown is looking to get his second No. 1 album on the Billboard 200 chart next week, as his new Fortune set is headed for the top. Industry sources suggest that the album -- his fifth studio release -- will sell around 125,000 to 140,000 by the end of the tracking week on Sunday, July 8.

The new Billboard 200 chart's top 10 will be revealed on the morning of Wednesday, July 11.

Fortune was released on Tuesday, July 3 and follows his last studio set -- and first No. 1 -- F.A.M.E. It arrived atop the list with 270,000 sold in its first week according to Nielsen SoundScan.

Fortune's sales debut is about on par with what Usher's recent Looking 4 Myself started with. The latter bowed at No. 1 three weeks ago, selling 128,000. That also was a big drop-off compared to the start of his previous release: Raymond v Raymond debuted at No. 1 in 2010 with 329,000.

Fortune was initially slated for a May 8 bow, but was pushed back to July 3 in late April. Five singles from the album have been released so far, led by "Strip," which came out in late 2011. The song reached No. 3 on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, but none of its follow-up tracks have yet to hit the top 10. "Sweet Love" has topped out at No. 27 while "Till I Die" rises 37-27 this week.

Over on the all-format Billboard Hot 100 chart, the album's pop/dance track "Turn Up the Music" debuted and peaked at No. 10 on the March 3 chart. It's strong start was fueled by robust first-week sales registered after Brown's performance of the song on the Feb. 12 Grammy Awards. However, in terms of radio airplay, the cut peaked at No. 18 on the Pop Songs chart (which ranks the most played songs on mainstream top 40 radio).

A second top 40-focused track, "Don't Wake Me Up," was recently sent to radio stations and may debut on the Pop Songs tally in the next week or two. Brown performed the song on the BET Awards, which aired on Sunday, July 1.

Same amount as Usher's album. Tbh I was expecting more. :cry:

by **Lehmann** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:02 am

No 'Look At Me Now' type hit this time, probably the reason

by **ead1972** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:22 am

why the new Gojira album "L'enfant sauvage" is not mentionned on the Hits Daily Double ??

From Billboard 200, it is n°34 this week (so with sales of about 11.000).

by **GetBack** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:21 pm

Gosh, not expecting Fortune to be this low, since I predicted it to be somewhere around 160,000. I can't believe how much the critics are killing him!

by **GUS** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:01 pm

GetBack wrote:Gosh, not expecting Fortune to be this low, since I predicted it to be somewhere around 160,000. I can't believe how much the critics are killing him!

Do you think he's not opening big because of the critics???

by **starshine90** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:05 pm

Chart News:

Chris Brown (Sony) 125-135K
Justin Bieber (UMG) 80-90K
Linkin Park (WMG) 70-80K
Maroon 5 (UMG) 65-75K
Katy Perry (EMI) 50-55K
Kenny Chesney (Sony) 50-55K
Adele (Sony) 45-50K
Gotye (UMG) 40-45K
fun. (WMG) 40-45K
One Direction (Sony) 35-40K
Usher (Sony) 35-40K
MMG Presents (WMG) 35-40K
The Black Keys (WMG) 27-32K
R. Kelly (Sony) 25-30K
Jason Mraz (WMG) 25-30K
Of Monster And Men (UMG) 25-30K
Florence + The Machine (UMG) 24-27K

by **abi** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:05 pm

^I think it's because of the singles that are doing badly on the radio + the 4th of July effects.

"Strip" peaked at #3 on Urban 7467 months ago and it was a mixtape track, "Turn Up The Music" was very frontloaded. The other singles aren't doing good either, though looks like "Don't Wake Me Up" is re-climbing again.

by **tada** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:18 pm

CHRIS BROWN = USHER 2.0 :roll:

once again, their new music direction betrayed themselves :-?

awesome for Katy, however, hard discounting..you know what i mean

by **Timmy94** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:44 pm

tada wrote:awesome for Katy, however, hard discounting..you know what i mean

I was expecting even more somehow considering the deep Amazon discount, the hit single and airplay success and the upcoming movie... Being priced for less than 1 dollar - that should've been enough for sales between 100 and 200k, or is this still too much for the people to pay :lol:

?
At least we haven't had a studio album in its original chart run reaching the top 10 that late since Nickelback's All The Right Reasons.

by **thebigham** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:41 pm

PLEASE copy and paste the whole article!!!

HITS:

YOUR 3-D WEAKEND CHART PREVIEW:

Chris Brown will score the #1 album next week, giving Sony Music its 20th week of occupying the top spot this year. And because the 4th of July is historically one of the lightest holidays in terms of music retail, new releases were scaled way back, with Brown’s is the only debut that will make the Top 15.

To shake consumers out of their summer doldrums, Amazon did a multi-titled $1.99 Gold Box promotion, which we estimate generated sales north of a quarter-million albums on July 4th.

As a result, a number of albums are way up this week. Here's how it looks headed into the weekend:

by **GetBack** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 3:53 pm

argentino78 wrote:
GetBack wrote:Gosh, not expecting Fortune to be this low, since I predicted it to be somewhere around 160,000. I can't believe how much the critics are killing him!
Do you think he's not opening big because of the critics???

I think that there is a huge amount of hate and disgust to him personally by people in general, and with how the publicity is towards him at the moment, (the feud with Drake where even innocent civilians were hurt), it heightens and can definitely affect his career.

by **Lioha** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:11 pm

GetBack wrote:
argentino78 wrote:
GetBack wrote:Gosh, not expecting Fortune to be this low, since I predicted it to be somewhere around 160,000. I can't believe how much the critics are killing him!
Do you think he's not opening big because of the critics???
I think that there is a huge amount of hate and disgust to him personally by people in general, and with how the publicity is towards him at the moment, (the feud with Drake where even innocent civilians were hurt), it heightens and can definitely affect his career.

And the people are right. He's really repulsive

As a person and as a artist.