Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Obsessed Carrie Fan john1987's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nova Scotia Canada
    Posts
    1,310
    Concert Stars

    Billboard Charts Will No Longer Count Albums That Sell For Less Than $3.49

    "Billboard has changed its policy so that any album sold for less than $3.49 during its first four weeks of release will not be counted for their chart. Also, tracks sold for less than 39 cents in its first three months of release will not be counted on their singles charts."

  • #2
    Ultimate Carrie Fan Ann055's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    9,189
    Interesting...thanks for posting!

  • #3
    Carrie Fans Maniac robinannhunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    29,059
    Sonds like a good policy to me.

  • #4
    Ultimate Carrie Fan clh_hilary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    México
    Posts
    9,761
    Amazon will be the sad one. Throughout the times they're the one who's doing it. Lady GaGa's "Born This Way" ($0.99), Rihanna's "Rated R" ($0.99), Taylor Swift's "Speak Now"/"Fearless" ($3.99), U2's "No Line On The Horizon" ($3.99), Lily Allen's "It's Not Me, It's You" ($3.99), Mariah Carey's "Memoir of an Imperfect Angel" ($5.99).

    But please also note that it'll only restrict the first four weeks -- Guess it's because lots of catalog items are at $3 now, and they're what driving the albums sales increase for now.

  • #5
    Ultimate Carrie Fan
    Pi314CA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by john1987 View Post
    "Billboard has changed its policy so that any album sold for less than $3.49 during its first four weeks of release will not be counted for their chart. Also, tracks sold for less than 39 cents in its first three months of release will not be counted on their singles charts."
    Thanks for the post. I would like to see Neilsen Soundscan have a similar policy for counting sales as that impact RIAA for record certification. (Maybe there is one, who knows.) The threshold sales price could be different (say a bit lower), but I would not like to see albums selling for 50 cents or tracks selling for 10 cents to count towards achieving Gold, Platinum, ..., Diamond status.

  • #6
    Ultimate Carrie Fan supercarriefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    6,216
    Concert Stars
    This is a change that needed to happen. It is ridiculous to sell an entire album for 99 cents in its first few weeks. It was just a ploy to get higher album sales for some. If someone can't get those mega sales numbers without a discounted album, they don't deserve it. It also degrades the body of work to offer it for such a low price.

    I consider getting an album on iTunes for $9.99 a bargain lol. It beats paying $12-15 in store.

  • #7
    Ultimate Carrie Fan
    Pi314CA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,897
    The Billboard article has received some good comments. I added my question to the comments section.

    Link: Editor's Note: New Billboard Policy Sets Pricing Threshold for Albums, Singles | Billboard.biz

  • #8
    Carrie Guru pklongbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Long Beach, California
    Posts
    18,901
    Concert Stars
    YEah, I agree that it just misrepresents peoples interest in the material.
    You take a Lady G / TS new release and spend 2 months pushing for it and then massrelease it for .99 cents. and you endup with block buster numbers.
    IT is not fair to compare that to say the Lion King Soundtrack or Star Wars soundtrack with regard to product sold and the publics interest in that product.

  • #9
    Ultimate Carrie Fan HuiZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,391
    Quote Originally Posted by john1987 View Post
    lady gaga and taylor must be sad about this
    Maybe not, since they already managed to get those massive debut week before the policy change.

  • #10
    Insane Carrie Fan Gator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    4,105
    Concert Stars
    Good to know. Now, if only they would do something about re-releases....

  • #11
    Carrie Guru pklongbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Long Beach, California
    Posts
    18,901
    Concert Stars
    Agree. Rereleases with a few new songs only makes the same people go back out and buy it.
    It is manipulative and should not count toward to original's numbers.
    And no, I don't necessarily mean that in regard to CR. An additional disk of christmas music was added. But the original Album stayed intact. I think there is an important distiction there.

  • #12
    Carrie Fans Maniac robinannhunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    29,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Gator View Post
    Good to know. Now, if only they would do something about re-releases....
    Nice post. Something different has to be decided. Maybe a rerelease should be a new album. Once you add music it is a new album.

  • #13
    Insane Carrie Fan Gator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    4,105
    Concert Stars
    This may not be a popular opinion, but I think adding a DVD to the original CD should not be counted with original numbers. Perhaps, they need a DVD category or something. However, I agree, if a CD is released merely by adding a couple new songs, it should not be counted. I thought that's what EPs are for -- if artists wanted to release less than a full album??

  • #14
    Obsessed Carrie Fan 12russ79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    2,636
    Concert Stars
    *****BREAKING NEWS FROM BMR********

    Rules are made to be broken so for every Taylor CD you purchase just send in the proof of purchase coupon inside every CD package...
    Then we will send you back your original purchase price so you can go out and buy the CD again..... Repeat this process 5 times and you will get a Taylor 8x10 glossy... Repeat this process 10 times and get a bottle of SWIFTY Perfume... Repeat this process 100 times and Tay-Tay will bring you in person an Autographed Taylor doll....
    PS-- Taylor thanks you but also she says don't tell your parents......

  • #15
    Insane Carrie Fan Suellen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,772
    Concert Stars
    Billboard should raise the price to $9.99 -- because BM will sell CDs for $3.50 now. Also, I agree they should not count re-releases in the total count.

  • #16
    Ultimate Carrie Fan
    Pi314CA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by 12russ79 View Post
    *****BREAKING NEWS FROM BMR********

    Rules are made to be broken so for every Taylor CD you purchase just send in the proof of purchase coupon inside every CD package...
    Then we will send you back your original purchase price so you can go out and buy the CD again..... Repeat this process 5 times and you will get a Taylor 8x10 glossy... Repeat this process 10 times and get a bottle of SWIFTY Perfume... Repeat this process 100 times and Tay-Tay will bring you in person an Autographed Taylor doll....
    PS-- Taylor thanks you but also she says don't tell your parents......
    And BMR will probably use the marketing line: "we are helping to save the U.S. postal service".

  • #17
    Obsessed Carrie Fan Carrie&Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    1,256
    Hate to be mean to Taylor but that won't be as good for her camp when her next from comes out unless they sell it for $3.50+

  • #18
    Insane Carrie Fan judes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    new york
    Posts
    4,545
    Concert Stars
    A step in the right direction to make the counting of CD sales more fair - maybe my ranting on the net was noticed by some important people or
    maybe it was Carriefans! Anyway - it's a start and also I hope they do something about the rereleases as mentioned above - it just isn't fair - I always reference Nickelbacks album All the Right Reasons now stands five spots above Some Hearts in sales even though they had to rerelease to pull
    ahead of Carrie. If you are going to make lists of sales according to highest sales, then they should have criteria to keep them fair and honest.

  • #19
    Carrie Guru
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    17,945
    Concert Stars
    Unless Soundscan does the same thing record companies will still sell albums for the price want to.

  • #20
    Ultimate Carrie Fan Carrieflattsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    7,830
    Concert Stars
    In theory, this is a good idea, but I think they should raise the price to at least $6.99-$9.99. Often you are able to buy albums that cheap if you buy when the album is initially released.

    Most used albums don't sell for as low as $3.49. I can understand where labels are coming from when they chose to do this; it can bring in a ton of casual fans that wouldn't have bought the full album otherwise. With the way album sales are these days, I can almost sympathize with their efforts to do anything they can to get the physical album in the hands of as many people as possible.

    On the other hand, it is also extremely manipulative, no matter how you look at it. As someone who still buys a lot of albums, I think artists should earn their sales; if you're album is good, that's what should ultimately sell it; lowering the price so casual fans will buy an album is good for the label, but from an artistic standpoint I don't agree with it. It takes months (sometimes years) for artists to put an album together, and I think most artists take extreme pride in the amount of blood, sweat, and tears they put into every album. Sure, they all dream of selling millions of copies and becoming superstars, but there's a reason why each song was chosen to be put on a record. I think the integrity and heart it takes to put together an album that tells the story of the artists and where they are in their lives is lost when labels decide to treat the album as a cash-grab, instead of the personal piece of work it was intended to be by the artist.

    The fact that country artists are starting to use this tactic more frequently is particularly upsetting to me. Country music has always been known to be a genre full of artists who can sell albums without using manipulation to do it. I think most country artists seem to take more of an artistic approach to an album and they look at it as something that represents them. It's sad the integrity of albums could be lost because I doubt most country artists would agree with this practice, judging on how much pride most seem to take in their work.

    In the case of selling Taylor and Gaga albums for 0.99. My only reaction: Are you kidding me? These artists are arguably two of the most successful artists in the world right now; everyone knows they're going to have mind blowing numbers no matter what happens. It comes off as such a cheap move when labels know these artists have more than enough fans who are willing to buy the album as intended; there is no need to be doing such a thing for artists like that.

    I also agree re-releases should not be counted towards total sales of an album. I am not against re-releases, and I really enjoying hearing any new material between albums. However, there are major differences in releasing an album with, say a few holiday songs, and re-releasing an album simply because you have the material and money to do so. I understand it's a good move from a label standpoint, but at this point I bet even Taylor Swift's own fans are sick of having to buy something they already own simply because they feel like they have to buy everything she releases, otherwise they're not "true" fans. Taylor has re-released so much material over the past 5 years she'd have more than enough material to make a completely new album and release it to stores. It makes no sense that she releases all this material separately so her fans have to buy something new every few months.

    I hate that releasing albums for a dirt-cheap price has become more and more acceptable because Taylor Swift makes money off it. Miranda Lambert is a fantastic artist who would have enough fans who would be more than happy to shell out a few extra bucks for an album of her quality. It makes me so sad to see labels forcing this move upon other artists who would never have done this if the label hadn't begun to see it as standard practice. Aren't albums worth anything anymore? No artists would tell you they put months of blood, sweat, and tears into an album just so the label can turn around and sell it for $3.99. Heck, at that point, you might as well be giving it away for free.

    The millions of artists who were selling multi-platinum albums before this whole mess probably still have enough fans willing to go out and buy the physical product; why don't these labels have enough confidence in their artists? That's like saying "here, spend months doing your job and letting me control your every move, but now I'm going to betray you by saying 'eh, the work doesn't matter." It's really sad.

    And I also think these re-releases make some artists seem extremely greedy, when the choice to release "new" material was made by the label, and not the artists themselves. Most artists who take a 1-2 years to work on a new album are arguably not the type of artists who would continuously release new material every few months to increase their sales. If that was the intention, they'd have all kinds of material to release to the public quite regularly. There artists like Tim McGraw and Rascal Flatts who have been used by their labels because they decided to re-release new material even if the said artist is no longer involved with them or supports what they're doing. It's not right that labels are allowed to do things like that when the artist clearly wouldn't approve of doing so. It makes the artists look bad, which is made even worse by the fact that the artists fans know they'd never re-release old material to take advantage of fans. Yet it gives the the general public the impression these artists are arrogant, greedy a*holes who will do anything for money, thinking their fans will buy anything simply because their names are attached. It not only destroys the product, but it destroys the true character of the artist, IMO.

    No wonder the music industry is going down the drain; these record labels seem to accumulate more greed while using less brains.


  •  
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •