Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Beatles :: Charts & Sales History

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by irishguy28
    Originally posted by Deano
    I have seen millions of pounds/dollars worth of advertising leading up to the latest releases from the Beatles - which should stimulate a huge amount of sales between now and the weekend - whereas MJ had nothing leading up to his death on Thursday 25th June.
    How perverse to suggest there could/should have been advertising "leading up to his death".

    Advertising, no, but production was ramping up anyway, and in-store emphasis was being placed on his catalogue, in anticipation of the hoop-la surrounding his imminent return to touring.

    When the hoop-la came, it was for a different reason, and so much the greater as a result. And even if it was all free advertising, no money could have paid for the amount of coverage his death received from the 25th onwards.

    Originally posted by Topicel
    However, it has only been aimed at the general public in a meaningful way since the Bank Hoilday weekend, and particularly the last weekend as Radio 2 doesn't really reach many people.
    Radio 2 is actually the most-listened to radio station in the UK. And its audience perhaps fits the profile of the Beatles target audience better than any other station, too!!
    Fair point about Radio Two - I still have the image of my youth, and Jimmy Young etc.

    I'd be surprised though if most-listened to counted for much in terms of millions of listeners on a Bank Holiday weekend - hence special programming to attract folk who never bother with the station. First time I'd tuned in for years (or any radio broadcast for that matter) and only because of Edu in Portugal advising UK-Mixers it was on!

    I see we agree about posthumous MJ reaction however (my comments came just after yours further down) and indeed I'd been keeping a respectful mourning period before pointing out the bleeding obvious to distaught fabs that plenty of stock would have been available in anticipation of 'This Is It'.

    The charts should indeed have been swamped!

    Topicel

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Deano
      Originally posted by Mael
      I went to the local music store today here in Linköping and bought 5x of the re-mastered Beatles albums: 'With The Beatles', 'Rubber Soul', 'Revolver', 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band' and 'Abbey Road'. I think the sound is magnificent and what can I say about the Beatles - great as always! ;)

      A note; in the chain store ‘Skivlagret’ here in Sweden, the mono/stereo box-sets were apparently sold out in just a few hours after being released yesterday - There was about 250 copies shipped to this chain store.
      Cheers,
      Martin
      I take it you mean "250 copies" between all the 'Skivlagret' stores? How many stores do they have out of interest?

      Do you have major music stores like 'HMV' or 'Virgin' in Sweden as well?
      Yes, 250 would be the amount of copies that was first shipped to all 'Skivlagret' stores. - They have 20 stores. Although, the employee that I talked with said that more copies was being shipped as we talked.

      We have a website called cdon.com here in Scandinavia, which probably could be compared to the UK's Amazon.com. The Åhlens chain store also sells a lot of CDs/DVDs - But I can't think of any Swedish music store that could be compared to such as ‘HMV’ and ‘Virgin’ in the UK (that may be the 'Skivlagret' stores then). But then again, I live in Linköping (~140,000 inhabitants) – So, there’s of course a chance that some major stores are placed in such cities as Göteborg/Malmö/Stockholm (the big three here in Sweden ;) )

      Cheers,
      Martin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by irishguy28
        Originally posted by Topicel
        Good point KoS. Zeus or someone up-to-date with the OCC's methods should comment. Pre-orders in the past meant little until the customer paid up over the counter and the till rang! Guess I'm just old.
        when the pre-orders are processed as actual sales is a matter for the retalier, not for the OCC, who merely consolidate all the data provided to them.

        I would imagine retailers log the sale at the time the item is shipped, even if the item has been paid for well in advance.
        Of course. So the retailer will indeed still 'ring the till' that then provides the sales data to OCC. If the customer is paying in advance that will have gone through on 'shipment' to him - i.e. first day of officially going on sales. Nowadays many leave card details and don't pay for the purchase (whatever it is) until despatch. If the record retailer works like this, again it should have happened during a busy Wednesday, whether people came in for the records themselves or were sent by post.

        What we are trying to discount is the possibility of sales not being noted because the sale went through ahead of schedule and technically wouldn't show up at all in OCC terms. It can happen still I suppose - and would account for the odd record creeping into charts nowadays before officially available?

        Regards,

        Topicel

        Comment


        • Originally posted by irishguy28
          Originally posted by Deano
          The record companies and retailers were totally unprepared for what happened to MJ - with shops holding very little stock - as opposed to the months of planning and promotion that went into the latest Beatles 'event'.
          Not true - interest in his catalogue was already increasing with the "This Is It" tour less than a month away. "Number Ones" was already heading for a Top 75 re-entry.

          Originally posted by [url=http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=22&storycode=1038052
          Alan Jones[/url]]Last Thursday morning, one of the smaller paragraphs I had prepared welcomed Michael Jackson’s Number Ones album back into the Top 75 for the first time since May 2007, citing mounting media attention and consumer excitement ahead of his O2 residency for the fact that the album had doubled its sales week-on-week and was on schedule to end up at around number 60.
          I understand what you are saying, about stores 'gearing up' for the concerts, but no one was prepared for the scale of sales that would occur after his death.

          Here's a couple of examples of how MJ's music sold out overnight and sales were held back by limited demand for the first week or two;

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31570429/ns ... ss-retail/

          http://www.musicradar.com/news/guitars/ ... cds-211123

          http://www.retail-week.com/retail-secto ... 70.article

          What I am trying to say is that the initial sales for the Beatles should not be compared to the first week sales of MJ, as theirs have been planned well in advance.

          It will be interesting to see the longer term sales, say over 12 weeks.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Topicel
            First time I'd tuned in for years (or any radio broadcast for that matter) and only because of Edu in Portugal advising UK-Mixers it was on!
            Oh dear - I posted that news first, and well in advance! Don't you remember? I invited our resident experts here to predict their Top 10s so we could see who knew what they were talking about and who were talking through their hats!!!

            Comment


            • Well, Topicel, "plenty of stock" (whatever that means) might have been available, but it plainly wasn't enough.

              The charts were indeed, as you put it, "swamped". In fact, 12 weeks later, they still are!

              That must upset you at least a little Topicel?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Topicel
                Of course. So the retailer will indeed still 'ring the till' that then provides the sales data to OCC. If the customer is paying in advance that will have gone through on 'shipment' to him - i.e. first day of officially going on sales. Nowadays many leave card details and don't pay for the purchase (whatever it is) until despatch. If the record retailer works like this, again it should have happened during a busy Wednesday, whether people came in for the records themselves or were sent by post.

                What we are trying to discount is the possibility of sales not being noted because the sale went through ahead of schedule and technically wouldn't show up at all in OCC terms. It can happen still I suppose - and would account for the odd record creeping into charts nowadays before officially available?
                Well, if the sale was logged "early", then it should still be notified to the OCC - or at least, if the barcode is scanned, then the OCC will register it. Only if a record company specifically requests an item be de-listed would it then not feature in the published charts (assuming it had sold enough stock to merit a place in the published lists).

                There is something of a grey area there, indeed. It's not totally unheard of for so-called "Street Date Violations" to occur, but this was traditionally a phenomenon with singles, rather than albums. It's not unusual, though, for retailers such as HMV.com to ship stock such that it arrives even before the official release date. Whether HMV reported that sale at the time of shipping, or after the fact in the actual week of release, or if it was even recorded for chart purposes, I don't know.

                For the record, none of the remasters showed up in last weekend's Top 200 albums chart.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Deano
                  Here's a couple of examples of how MJ's music sold out overnight and sales were held back by limited demand for the first week or two;

                  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31570429/ns ... ss-retail/
                  So media reports of Beatles sell-outs are to be viewed with suspicion; media reports of Michael Jackson sell-outs (even when illustrated with a photograph showing stock on shelves!) are to be taken as Gospel?

                  Originally posted by Deano
                  What I am trying to say is that the initial sales for the Beatles should not be compared to the first week sales of MJ, as theirs have been planned well in advance.

                  It will be interesting to see the longer term sales, say over 12 weeks.
                  Well why compare 12 weeks' sales, if one-week sales are incomparable?

                  As much as 25% of Michael Jackson's album sales (see Alan Jones article I linked to above) in the days immediately after his death were digital sales - all of Michael Jackson's catalogue is available to download - so how is "lack of stock" even an issue?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Billboard
                    SHOP AND THINK ABOUT THEM
                    September 12, 2009

                    Album Remasters—Here, There And Everywhere Except iTunes
                    Ed Christman

                    Could a band that broke up in 1970 really become the best-selling act of the decade? The Beatles might just pull it off, thanks to EMI Music's Sept. 9 release of their remastered catalog. Eminem currently reigns as the best-selling artist of the decade, with sales of 32 million albums in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan, followed by the Fab Four with 28.2 million. The Eminem catalog is sure to pick up more sales by year's end, thanks in part to the continued strong performance of his May release "Relapse," which falls six notches to No. 28 on this week's Billboard 200 and has sold 1.4 million copies, according to SoundScan. Beyond the fan excitement generated by the first remastering of the entire Beatles catalog in more than 20 years, sales will also benefit from the massive marketing push behind MTV Networks' videogame "The Beatles: Rock Band," which will be released on the same date. Sources say the game is backed by a $20 million-$25 million advertising campaign, which includes the value of advertising on TV networks owned by MTV parent Viacom. That will provide consumers with a timely refresher course on their favorite Beatles songs—and perhaps prompt many of them to pick up a newly minted remaster.EMI is banking on the legendary band to be a strong seller through the year-end holidays. The label is shipping 4 million copies worldwide on street date, including 1.9 million in the United States. The catalog relaunch will also get its own $1 million-$2 million TV advertising campaign, which will include spots on key cable networks like ESPN, TNT, TBS, TV Land, USA Network and MSNBC. Sources say that the primary spend will be at MTV's fellow Viacom sibling Nickelodeon as part of an effort to turn the network's young, game-playing audience into Beatles fans.

                    And just in time for the start of the holiday shopping season, sources say ABC is planning to air a two-hour prime-time special on Thanksgiving night that will feature Beatles footage and contemporary artists performing Beatles songs.

                    SoundScan sales tallies of the remastered Beatles albums could be diluted somewhat by a boxed set that includes all of the remastered titles in stereo and a collectible monophonic boxed set of the Beatles albums originally released in mono. According to sources, EMI is shipping worldwide about 150,000 copies of the stereo boxed set and 40,000-50,000 copies of the mono set. Each U.S. sale of either multidisc set will count as only one SoundScan sale, however, which could deflate total unit sales.

                    Even though EMI has ramped up production of both boxed sets, consumers may find them tough to find initially. Amazon, which took preorders on both versions, says it's sold out based on its initial allocations but is encouraging customers to continue preordering the sets, promising to let them know when more are available. After initial shipments are sold out, sources say the stereo boxed set—expected to be a popular Christmas gift purchase—won't be back in stock until late September. The mono set is expected to be back in stock in mid-October.

                    Gauging Consumer Interest

                    In a year when U.S. album sales are down 14.7% to date from the same period last year, sources project the Beatles reissues to generate first-week U.S. sales of more than 500,000, with first-month sales expected to reach 1.3 million. But after that initial burst of fan excitement, how will consumers respond to the marketing of a remastered catalog? During the '80s and '90s, remastering campaigns provided labels with a reliable means of goosing sales of older titles. Recently, the marketing of catalog reissues has focused less on improved sound quality than on the inclusion of previously unreleased recordings and other bonuses.

                    None of the Beatles reissues will feature previously unreleased tracks, although in an apparent nod to the need for bonus material, mini-documentaries on each Beatles album will be included in early copies of individual reissue titles and in the stereo boxed set.

                    It isn't clear whether improved sound will be much of a draw for young music fans, many of whom listen to music through MP3 players and computer speakers.

                    "Although the sound is different, the songs are the same, so I doubt the kids of today will give a hoot about the remasters, unless the 'Rock Band' game has a positive influence," says Chuck Thatcher, VP of retail at Music City, the Nashville-based parent of the seven-store Cat's Music chain. "I hope the label works the radio stations for airplay of the remasters. That could have an impact on the younger generations."

                    In addition, some retailers and industry executives question the wisdom of releasing the new Beatles reissues all at once, expressing concern that the simultaneous release of so many titles could dilute sales for certain individual albums. In the late '80s when EMI finally released the entire Beatles catalog on CD, the label staggered the albums' arrival, putting out at most only a few titles at a time and, in the minds of some industry observers, helping extend consumer demand beyond just perennial top sellers like "Abbey Road" or "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

                    "I am more of a fan of the staggered release because fans don't have unlimited wallets and to go buy 13 CDs in a single scoop is expensive," says Carl Mello, head of purchasing at Newbury Comics. "Also, with the staggered release, you are giving fans a reason and a date to come back into the stores."

                    At the same time, a senior distribution executive points out that by releasing all of the Beatles' titles at the same time, EMI can get more bang for its advertising dollars by amortizing the expense over a larger revenue base. Furthermore, the simultaneous release of all of the titles in conjunction with that of "The Beatles: Rock Band"—and its multimillion-dollar ad campaign—has already created a full-fledged media event that's also generated an additional wave of free publicity.

                    Christmas greetings from the beatles

                    Brick-and-mortar merchants are viewing the Fabs' catalog relaunch as an early Christmas gift that will help push consumers into their stores to buy CDs. That's because the Beatles are among a small number of major acts that still don't make any of their albums available as digital downloads.

                    While Apple and EMI have discussed releasing the Beatles through iTunes, EMI doesn't have any immediate plans to sell the Beatles' music digitally, sources say, despite speculation that a deal might be announced Sept. 9, when press-savvy Apple has scheduled a press conference to make an iPod-related announcement.

                    But the band has done quite well sales-wise without embracing downloads. Despite its absence from iTunes, now the top U.S. music retailer, the Beatles' 2000 hits collection "1" is the best-selling album of the decade, while the Cirque du Soleil-related "Love" album has sold nearly 2 million copies and certain individual catalog titles like "Rubber Soul" and "The Beatles" (The White Album) have sold more than 1 million each since the start of the new millennium, according to SoundScan.

                    Another factor fueling the Beatles' rise during this decade could be the burgeoning strength of catalog sales, which have grown from 34.4% of total album sales in 2000 to 41.8% in 2008. So far this year, catalog sales account for 46.2% of overall album sales.

                    The Beatles are also the second-best-selling act of the SoundScan era in the United States, with album sales of nearly 58 million copies since SoundScan's launch in May 1991. Country star Garth Brooks is No. 1, with sales of 69.3 million.

                    Like the Beatles, Brooks doesn't make any of his albums available for purchase as downloads. Coincidence? Some market watchers believe the ability to buy individual tracks cannibalizes album sales. While that may be true to some extent, most executives don't believe it explains the sales superiority of the Beatles or Brooks, which can each count on the loyalty of huge fan bases.

                    "One could even argue how much bigger they would be if they were available digitally, particularly now, with iTunes accounting for 25% of the U.S. market," says one distribution executive, who also made an observation echoed by other executives.

                    "The fact that they are No. 2 for this decade," he says, "is due to the power of the Beatles."

                    Comment


                    • More evidence of the onset of senility! Of course I recall that post of yours, now you mention it! Lol.

                      I didn't expect much by way of sales revelations, but when Edu mentioned it with it already 'on air' I decided to listen in. Not for long, once it became obvious no figures were being announced.

                      I 'wasted' more time in the afternoon cos in good old fashioned 'keep 'em waiting' form the album list was kept virtually until last. And again, gave us little we didn't know or couldn't work out with the parameters correctly set!

                      Did enjoy a lot of the music of old though, so 'wasted time' ain't strictly accurate.

                      Cheers,

                      Topicel (the one with memory lapse)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by irishguy28
                        Originally posted by Deano
                        Here's a couple of examples of how MJ's music sold out overnight and sales were held back by limited demand for the first week or two;

                        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31570429/ns ... ss-retail/
                        So media reports of Beatles sell-outs are to be viewed with suspicion; media reports of Michael Jackson sell-outs (even when illustrated with a photograph showing stock on shelves!) are to be taken as Gospel?

                        Originally posted by Deano
                        What I am trying to say is that the initial sales for the Beatles should not be compared to the first week sales of MJ, as theirs have been planned well in advance.

                        It will be interesting to see the longer term sales, say over 12 weeks.
                        Well why compare 12 weeks' sales, if one-week sales are incomparable?

                        As much as 25% of Michael Jackson's album sales (see Alan Jones article I linked to above) in the days immediately after his death were digital sales - all of Michael Jackson's catalogue is available to download - so how is "lack of stock" even an issue?
                        Now you're being far to logical IG!

                        As I said to Deano 'plenty of stock' (thinking in old-fashioned terms again I'm afraid ) would have been ready to go at warehouses all around the country. Sony would have been pressing like mad for weeks, maybe months as that is what big companies do in the summer doldrums - at least I guess they still do - lol.

                        Fact is, MJ dominated because of stock being readily available, and if anyone was 'spun' into believing otherwise (or that they couldn't instantly produce a 100,000 of each of his 'few' releases overnight) then they'd been as easily misled as was the purpose.

                        Why should MJ selling a few albums upset me? He and his music are great - you're not going to drag up old prejudices are you???

                        Best wishes,

                        Topicel

                        Comment


                        • Well actually he said sales were held back by "limited demand".

                          And anyway - even if a particular shop sold out of one particular title - did someone go home frustrated and empty-handed? I think not. In the frenzy, anything with the word "Jackson" on it was snapped up - I don't think most buyers were particularly discriminating.

                          And this scenario of shelves being picked clean of stock with nary a thing left to lay hands on is a myth which is already being cultivated as fact.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by irishguy28
                            Originally posted by Deano
                            Here's a couple of examples of how MJ's music sold out overnight and sales were held back by limited demand for the first week or two;

                            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31570429/ns ... ss-retail/
                            So media reports of Beatles sell-outs are to be viewed with suspicion; media reports of Michael Jackson sell-outs (even when illustrated with a photograph showing stock on shelves!) are to be taken as Gospel?

                            Originally posted by Deano
                            What I am trying to say is that the initial sales for the Beatles should not be compared to the first week sales of MJ, as theirs have been planned well in advance.

                            It will be interesting to see the longer term sales, say over 12 weeks.
                            Well why compare 12 weeks' sales, if one-week sales are incomparable?

                            As much as 25% of Michael Jackson's album sales (see Alan Jones article I linked to above) in the days immediately after his death were digital sales - all of Michael Jackson's catalogue is available to download - so how is "lack of stock" even an issue?
                            Well, the Beatles "sell-outs" were before the stock even went on sale in the shops - so damn right we should be suspicious!

                            Michael's were 'after the event' and can be proved with many actual 'personal' instances and hundreds of media articles from around the world - Google will help you with that.

                            I won't comment on your remarks about the photo, as words fail me!

                            MJ also 'bucked the trend' for people wanting hard-copies of his music. Sales are reported as 82% in favour of physical cd's, then rising to 90%, very shortly after stocks were replenished*

                            http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/14 ... physical14

                            Some people actually believe that the availability of 'on-line' individual tracks hamper the overall sales of complete albums - perhaps another advantage the Beatles have over MJ?

                            One thing is for sure. They are going do have to go some to sell like MJ has;

                            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/arts/ ... chael.html

                            http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/0 ... index.html

                            Comment


                            • None of those reports chime with my own personal experience, though, Deano. I was in record stores in the Netherlands and in London many times in the 7 days immediately after Michael's death, and none of his studio albums were unavailable on CD in any of the stores I visited.

                              You quoted: "MJ also 'bucked the trend' for people wanting hard-copies of his music. Sales are reported as 82% in favour of physical cd's, then rising to 90%, very shortly after stocks were replenished* "

                              If physical share of his total market fell only to 82% - where was the stock shortage? It's just not borned out by that figure. If all physical stock sold out everywhere, then that share would have fallen to 0%. And 82% is a long, long ways from that sort of territory!!!

                              And yes, as the Billboard article above points out, it's hardly a coincidence that the two biggest selling artists of the SoundScan era in the US - Garth Brooks and The Beatles, respectively - are both unavailable to download. But conversely, Michael Jackson's percentage sales increases are enhanced by the fact he was coming from such a low base, I guess. The Beatles are already the Number 2 selling act of the current millennium in the US - and are poised to overtake Eminem by the end of the year.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by irishguy28
                                Well actually he said sales were held back by "limited demand".

                                And anyway - even if a particular shop sold out of one particular title - did someone go home frustrated and empty-handed? I think not. In the frenzy, anything with the word "Jackson" on it was snapped up - I don't think most buyers were particularly discriminating.

                                And this scenario of shelves being picked clean of stock with nary a thing left to lay hands on is a myth which is already being cultivated as fact.
                                Oops! Did I really say that? Perhaps I was thinking of the Beatles at that moment?

                                Ok. So let's just say that the retailers and record companies already knew that MJ would sell 15,000,000 albums across the world just due to the concerts in the UK (well planned by them), and early sales were not hampered at all by unprecidented demand after his death (we obviously have to ignore all reports from Japan, India, the US, England, etc.) - does that really sound logical to you?

                                I can just imagine the head of some music chain in Tokyo 4 months ago;

                                "Have you ordered those extra 100,00 Michael Jackson albums Chung?"

                                "What for boss?"

                                "What for! He's doing those concerts in London! The demand from Japanese fans will go through the roof!!"

                                Hummmm....doesn't sound right to me.

                                Comment


                                • Your charming Japanese vignette presupposes that it would be an unusual thing to order Michael Jackson stock.

                                  And your entire stance seems to presuppose that Sony wouldn't or couldn't get their CD presses into action within days of Jackson's death (which we are assured that they did on the Friday - so even your postulated shortages would have been short-lived).

                                  On the contrary - Michael Jackson is an artist whose entire body of work has always been "in print" and is easy to find in even the smallest of stores carrying a limited range.

                                  Breathless media reports of "sellouts" probably meant that the sales assistants hadn't got around just yet to visiting the stock room. It's an oft-ignored fact that most record stores actually have additional stock on hand to top up the display racks.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by irishguy28
                                    None of those reports chime with my own personal experience, though, Deano. I was in record stores in the Netherlands and in London many times in the 7 days immediately after Michael's death, and none of his studio albums were unavailable on CD in any of the stores I visited.

                                    You quoted: "MJ also 'bucked the trend' for people wanting hard-copies of his music. Sales are reported as 82% in favour of physical cd's, then rising to 90%, very shortly after stocks were replenished* "

                                    If physical share of his total market fell only to 82% - where was the stock shortage? It's just not borned out by that figure. If all physical stock sold out everywhere, then that share would have fallen to 0%. And 82% is a long, long ways from that sort of territory!!!

                                    And yes, as the Billboard article above points out, it's hardly a coincidence that the two biggest selling artists of the SoundScan era in the US - Garth Brooks and The Beatles, respectively - are both unavailable to download. But conversely, Michael Jackson's percentage sales increases are enhanced by the fact he was coming from such a low base, I guess. The Beatles are already the Number 2 selling act of the current millennium in the US - and are poised to overtake Eminem by the end of the year.
                                    Well I accept your personal experience, but mine is very different. Perhaps places like London would be the first to re-stock, whereas many other towns and citys would be less of a priority?

                                    Living in the UK, as I do, you would sometimes think that all 62 million people lived in Inner London, rather than only about 3 million!

                                    I won't comment too much on the Netherlands other than to say; I was in Amsterdam a week or so after MJ's death, and I'm surprised most of them know what day of the week it is, let alone that MJ has died!*

                                    With regard to percentages; how do we not know that limited stocks hampered physical sales rising to 90% rather than 82%?

                                    Surely you can sell all of your physical copies in 6 days, have none to sell on the 7th day, and still not drop to 0% physical sales??

                                    I'm not saying there were 0 physical sales in the shops am I? I am saying they were very often limited. And that, even of it was only in 50% of shops (obviously not the lucky ones you visited), would still hamper overall sales, wouldn't it?


                                    *Again, my tongue is firmly in my cheek.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Deano
                                      Originally posted by irishguy28
                                      Well actually he said sales were held back by "limited demand".

                                      And anyway - even if a particular shop sold out of one particular title - did someone go home frustrated and empty-handed? I think not. In the frenzy, anything with the word "Jackson" on it was snapped up - I don't think most buyers were particularly discriminating.

                                      And this scenario of shelves being picked clean of stock with nary a thing left to lay hands on is a myth which is already being cultivated as fact.
                                      Oops! Did I really say that? Perhaps I was thinking of the Beatles at that moment?

                                      Ok. So let's just say that the retailers and record companies already knew that MJ would sell 15,000,000 albums across the world just due to the concerts in the UK (well planned by them), and early sales were not hampered at all by unprecidented demand after his death (we obviously have to ignore all reports from Japan, India, the US, England, etc.) - does that really sound logical to you?

                                      I can just imagine the head of some music chain in Tokyo 4 months ago;

                                      "Have you ordered those extra 100,00 Michael Jackson albums Chung?"

                                      "What for boss?"

                                      "What for! He's doing those concerts in London! The demand from Japanese fans will go through the roof!!"

                                      Hummmm....doesn't sound right to me.
                                      Deano - regrettably we are right back where we were with the OCC saying 'Bad' sold under 3m but Soony giving it 13xP or whatever at the same time.

                                      You're falling for silly numbers and hype. Scale it back, as we were questioning with the mono/stereo box numbers for the Beatles. Read bewteen the lines and use common sense. They say one thing, a photo, individual - hopefully and probably impartial - witnesses say another. I also went out of my way to check local shops and MJ was there alright. Not packed out, but if I wanted an album, I could buy one.

                                      So no, they didn't expect 15m sales as a result of 'This Is It', but just as when 'Dangerous' was launched they would flood the market with the existing product in anticipation of a good result. The stock would have been ready to go, and no doubt at all the UK would have been primed for the largest amount (hundred thousand of each at least) as that was where the concerts were to be. And, we are talking principally about the UK in this discussion that's meandered from OCC retail returns etc.

                                      It is the name of the game to make things look even bigger than they already are - and if you had someone happy to be referred to and continue to be seen as the King of Pop, then that was an added pressure and incentive to get the product 'out there' - at the very least, buyers or not.

                                      Do I really need to go back over the terms that some retailers will have to accept at times of mass appeal promotions?

                                      'Sell-out' has been used as a hyperbole phrase within the industry for years and years and years. How's Vienna doing at the moment?

                                      Anyhow, back to the Fab Four. It is not inconceivable imho that promotion or not, stock available or not, these four days will see them sell more than the corresponding four days after June 25 for MJ albums.

                                      Topicel

                                      Comment


                                      • Deano - that's the way to look at it. London would be a different animal to other places, just like LA or NY is rather different to St. Paul, Minnestota no doubt!

                                        The stocks in shops not on shelves would be awaiting shifting to the front, pressing facilities and stock deliveries would have been swung into action the next day. There would have been no 'sell-out' but yes, some big cities and large stores - where the media like to habituate at times like this - may well have had issues with supplies.

                                        Let's call it a day. He sold loads, he charted unbelievably, he probably will continue to do so until the New Year. Then, we re-evaluate. Like I say, forty years is a long time to keep up enough interest to do what the Beatles are doing right now.

                                        Topicel

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by irishguy28
                                          Your charming Japanese vignette presupposes that it would be an unusual thing to order Michael Jackson stock.

                                          And your entire stance seems to presuppose that Sony wouldn't or couldn't get their CD presses into action within days of Jackson's death (which we are assured that they did on the Friday - so even your postulated shortages would have been short-lived).

                                          On the contrary - Michael Jackson is an artist whose entire body of work has always been "in print" and is easy to find in even the smallest of stores carrying a limited range.

                                          Breathless media reports of "sellouts" probably meant that the sales assistants hadn't got around just yet to visiting the stock room. It's an oft-ignored fact that most record stores actually have additional stock on hand to top up the display racks.
                                          And is your stance that Sony presses are standing idle all day waiting for demand on Michael Jackson albums?

                                          I would think that Sony might have other albums to print - perhaps even planned production? - although I agree MJ's would have been put to the front of the queue within reason.

                                          I'll leave it here now, if you don't mind, as we don't seem to be on the same wavelength at all.

                                          All I will say though is this; Michael Jackson's sales have been amazing the last 3 months, but for the saddest of reasons, and if the Beatles match those with this 'media event' then good luck to them. At least MJ's children will benefit. :-?

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by Deano
                                            With regard to percentages; how do we not know that limited stocks hampered physical sales rising to 90% rather than 82%?

                                            Surely you can sell all of your physical copies in 6 days, have none to sell on the 7th day, and still not drop to 0% physical sales??

                                            I'm not saying there were 0 physical sales in the shops am I? I am saying they were very often limited. And that, even of it was only in 50% of shops (obviously not the lucky ones you visited), would still hamper overall sales, wouldn't it?


                                            *Again, my tongue is firmly in my cheek.
                                            I won't ask where your maths or your logic are, then!

                                            The article you cited states that the current split for music sales is normally 60% physical to 40% digital. And yet somehow a sales split which is markedly more weighted towards physical - ranging from 82% to 90% - is evidence of "lack of physical stock"?

                                            Please, Deano. Get your tongue out of your cheek, and your thinking cap on!!!!

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by Topicel
                                              Deano - that's the way to look at it. London would be a different animal to other places, just like LA or NY is rather different to St. Paul, Minnestota no doubt!

                                              The stocks in shops not on shelves would be awaiting shifting to the front, pressing facilities and stock deliveries would have been swung into action the next day. There would have been no 'sell-out' but yes, some big cities and large stores - where the media like to habituate at times like this - may well have had issues with supplies.

                                              Let's call it a day. He sold loads, he charted unbelievably, he probably will continue to do so until the New Year. Then, we re-evaluate. Like I say, forty years is a long time to keep up enough interest to do what the Beatles are doing right now.

                                              Topicel
                                              You seem to forget Topicel that the Beatles only have about 5-6 years on MJ. It's almost 40 years since he had his first number 1 with the J5!

                                              Good luck to them both I say. Artists/talents like them don't come along very often. And I was lucky enough to be around when they did!

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by Deano
                                                And is your stance that Sony presses are standing idle all day waiting for demand on Michael Jackson albums?

                                                I would think that Sony might have other albums to print - perhaps even planned production? - although I agree MJ's would have been put to the front of the queue within reason.

                                                Billboard stated (if you'd read that article!):
                                                Employees at Sony's pressing plants in Pitman, N.J., and Terre Haute, Ind., are being told to plan on overtime work as the plants will be running over the weekend.
                                                Considering most labels have been shuttering plants in the last few years in response to the shrinking size of the physical market (CD shipments in the States decreased by 25% in 2008, year-on-year), then I guess it was a good thing there was plenty of spare capacity at the pressing plants, even if it did mean having to pay overtime and cancelling weekends!!!!

                                                The Michael Jackson phenomenon was truly staggering, and his untimely death, and in such reduced circumstances, immensely sad. It's an incredible story as it is - so why the need to embellish the facts even more? This particular rose needs no gilding. His sales were phenomenal - but they were not hampered by lack of stock.

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by irishguy28
                                                  Originally posted by Deano
                                                  With regard to percentages; how do we not know that limited stocks hampered physical sales rising to 90% rather than 82%?

                                                  Surely you can sell all of your physical copies in 6 days, have none to sell on the 7th day, and still not drop to 0% physical sales??

                                                  I'm not saying there were 0 physical sales in the shops am I? I am saying they were very often limited. And that, even of it was only in 50% of shops (obviously not the lucky ones you visited), would still hamper overall sales, wouldn't it?


                                                  *Again, my tongue is firmly in my cheek.
                                                  I won't ask where your maths or your logic are, then!

                                                  The article you cited states that the current split for music sales is normally 60% physical to 40% digital. And yet somehow a sales split which is markedly more weighted towards physical - ranging from 82% to 90% - is evidence of "lack of physical stock"?

                                                  Please, Deano. Get your tongue out of your cheek, and your thinking cap on!!!!
                                                  I should think that the "evidence" is that physical sales went up from 68% in the first week to 90% a couple of weeks later - perhaps after Sony had 'dusted off' their old printing presses and hired some people to work them especially for Michael Jackson albums?

                                                  Simples!

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by Deano
                                                    I should think that the "evidence" is that physical sales went up from 68% in the first week to 90% a couple of weeks later - perhaps after Sony had 'dusted off' their old printing presses and hired some people to work them especially for Michael Jackson albums?

                                                    Simples!
                                                    68% is still a much larger split towards physical than the overall music market, Deano! And as no-one will doubt the fact that Michael's digital sales exploded in the week after his death, then it stands to reason that his physical sales must have grown at an even bigger pace, if his physical sales outperformed the normal market ratio! Again - no evidence of lack of physical stock!! (in fact, it suggests the exact opposite!)

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by irishguy28
                                                      Originally posted by Deano
                                                      I should think that the "evidence" is that physical sales went up from 68% in the first week to 90% a couple of weeks later - perhaps after Sony had 'dusted off' their old printing presses and hired some people to work them especially for Michael Jackson albums?

                                                      Simples!
                                                      68% is still a much larger split towards physical than the overall music market, Deano! And as no-one will doubt the fact that Michael's digital sales exploded in the week after his death, then it stands to reason that his physical sales must have grown at an even bigger pace, if his physical sales outperformed the normal market ratio! Again - no evidence of lack of physical stock!! (in fact, it suggests the exact opposite!)
                                                      No evidence? It has been well documented, and it was quite obvious as well. In case you don't know, Sony were launching a huge price reduction on 28 June to retailers, which have naturaly wait for that date to get new stocks of artists concerned, Jackson included. Stocks by June 25 of Michael Jackson albums were at their lowest point for years.
                                                      About your comparison with other acts in the share of physicals, it makes hardly sense considering the habbit of people in getting physical products in such moments, it is nothing new.
                                                      25 June 2009, the day the Music died

                                                      Comment


                                                      • How serendipitous that Sony were expecting a surge in orders from the 28th! They must have had extra stock ready to fulfil those orders they were expecting to come flooding in on the 28th anyway then!

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by irishguy28
                                                          How serendipitous that Sony were expecting a surge in orders from the 28th! They must have had extra stock ready to fulfil those orders they were expecting to come flooding in on the 28th anyway then!
                                                          Serendipitous? By 25th stocks were almost empty but they were "serendipitous"? Then you tell about logic to Deano? And of course, you try to tell us some copies going to be shipped thanks to a price reduction were going to be enough to fill the massive demand after his death? Such a like of good sense.

                                                          You like so much to quote Music Week, I'm surprised you fail to remember their articles:

                                                          Michael Jackson’s The Essential completes a second week at the album apex on sales of 113,910 copies.

                                                          With extensive media coverage of Michael Jackson’s funeral and memorial service staged last Tuesday (July 7), he continues to dominate the charts. Although Florence & The Machine’s Lungs album was able to sneak ahead in the first midweek sales flashes, it finished in second place, on sales of 63,020 copies, and is the only album in the top five NOT to feature Jackson

                                                          The Essential, which debuted and previously peaked at number two four years ago this week, ironically had its lowest ever weekly sale – just 52 copies – in the week prior to Jackson’s death, and has thus far sold 483,735 copies, including 193,272 since his death. It’s his ninth number one album – a total exceeded only by The Beatles (15), Elvis Presley (11), The Rolling Stones and Madonna (10 apiece).

                                                          Jackson’s tally of Top 75 albums remains at nine but with previously depleted physical stocks partially replenished, all are now in the Top 20, and seven increase sales week-on-week.

                                                          Aside from The Essential, Jackson also features in the Top 10 with Off The Wall (up 10-3, 39,082 sales), Thriller (6-4, 32,919 sales), Number Ones (3-7, 29,145 sales) and Thriller 25 (18-9, 24,855 sales).
                                                          This is just one evidence among tons of others. One more time contradicting the obvious.
                                                          25 June 2009, the day the Music died

                                                          Comment


                                                          • Still think that the Beatles will outsell MJ over the comparable number of days from release.

                                                            A big call! Place your bets ladies and gents!

                                                            That apart, let's congratulate Brian on a wonderful selection of photos on his thread. I'm going for another gander...

                                                            Topicel

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by Topicel
                                                              Still think that the Beatles will outsell MJ over the comparable number of days from release.

                                                              A big call! Place your bets ladies and gents!

                                                              That apart, let's congratulate Brian on a wonderful selection of photos on his thread. I'm going for another gander...

                                                              Topicel
                                                              Hmm,I may have to part company with you here Top.
                                                              Not sure how many units Jackson has moved since his death,but it seems at least 3m in the US(physical).Might be more.
                                                              Cant see the remasters moving that much,but who knows?

                                                              Comment

                                                              Working...
                                                              X