Yes, you are

Selling 1m in 5 different countries (each) > selling 5m in the US

This is not difficult to understand

Selling 1M in 5 different countries each = selling 5M in the U.S.

It's not difficult to understand but it's literally going right over your head. 5 will never be greater than 5 no matter what you post, sis.

Honey, you can't say an album was more successful WW just because it was more successful in ONE/TWO countries

Yes, 1989 was bigger in the US/Oceania, but Sasha was more successful (and by a huge margin) outside of it (WW), therefore, it is more successful overall

You're basically saying this:

Being big in the US/AUS > being bigger WW (10+ countries)

And it's not true at all

Let's get out of the US perspective, both Stromae's album and Ultraviolence sold around 1.3m copies

90% of Stromae's sales came from France, whereas only 10% of Lana's sales came from the same country

which one is more successful WW (outside of France)?

The album that sold 100k, or the album that sold 900k? It's really not that difficult to understand

I literally just posted the top 10 music markets in the world and Sasha was more successful in 6/10 of them... but yall are trying to say that 1989 (4/10) is more successful because it was bigger in the US?

1989 has a good lead when it comes to US (around 2.1m) but Sasha also has a great lead when it comes to WW sales (2.6m)

No, but:
Selling 7.6M albums nowadays (and still selling 55K every week) >> Selling 7.5M in 2008

Selling 4m outside of the US and being more successful in 10 countries > selling 2.4m outside of the US and being more successful in 4 countries

You do realize 1989 also sold more in Canada, Japan, Mexico, China, Argentina, New Zealand, etc., too, right?

And selling 1.3M in one country is the same as selling 1.3M in 20 countries. 1.3M copies sold WW is equal to 1.3M copies sold WW. This is as simple as math gets and I cannot break it down for you further.

And "more successful WW (out of France)" are not the same thing. Lana and Stromae were equally successful WW however Lana was bigger outside of France. I don't think you're grasping the concept that "worldwide" includes every single country in the world.

IA...SF's WW sales are 100k lower than 1989's and 1989 is still selling Yes, IA...SF has sold more outside of the U.S. but it still has lower global sales thus it sold less globally. What is not connecting here, sis? Help me help you.

1989

Taylor's era is bigger than Beyoncé's singles-wise and albums-wise, also with streaming but that's because of the growth in streaming since 2009 but we also should take in consideration sales have declined since then and 1989 still trumps IASF.
Not only that, but the tour will probably end up being bigger as well.

Accordin to receipts and real world iasf >>>>>>>

1989 only on atrl >>>>

It's a simple concept to grasp. The Hive is literally too lazy to pick up a book.

IASF, I felt it bigger. Taylor hardly ever make any headlines where I live (Brazil)

It's like Eternium is talking to a brick wall

1989 > Bey's career tbh.

Whenever the word WW gets thrown here in ATRL it means outside of the US, it's a well known fact

Sasha outsold 1989 in way more countries (16) that 1989 outsold Sasha (10), and by a much bigger margin , therefore, being more successful in more countries > being more successful in a couple of them

It's common sense

Slay! drag a bit henny!!1! Scalp ha!
-
OT: Sasha was more successful as it was more global, obviously

Period

If we adjust 1989's 2015 (outside of the USA sales) to 2008's sales, 1989 is bigger than Sasha

1989 ofc

IASF right now but 1989 can catch up