[Chemist]

Originally posted by MonstahNL

We're living in 2011, in case you didn't know.

You didn't get my point I see

[MonstahNL]

Originally posted by Chemist

You didn't get my point I see

There was no point to get, it was plain nonsense.

[Chemist]

Originally posted by MonstahNL

There was no point to get, it was plain nonsense.

it has nothing to do with how much album sales have been declined.

[MonstahNL]

Originally posted by Chemist

it has nothing to do with how album sales have been declined.

I know, but it's still NOT easy to sell over 1 million copies first week.

[Chemist]

Originally posted by MonstahNL

I know, but it's still NOT easy to sell over 1 million copies first week.

I said "easy"

But let's not fight and enjoy gaga's sucess

[MonstahNL]

Originally posted by Chemist

I said "easy"

But let's not fight and enjoy gaga's sucess

Exactly, you said it's EASY to sell over 1 million copies first week nowadays. That's ridiculous.

Right.

[Monroe]

Originally posted by Rico Shameless v2

Did we not get a sales update today? I assume that means Britney's record is safe, as HITS would've certainly made some note if it were close? I say she levels off at 1.1 million.

Agreed. Billboard has stated a floor of 1.15 million taking into account the biggest retailers. Which is great, but just short of Britney's 1.32 million record.

[Mr.Dream]

Originally posted by Monroe

Agreed. Billboard has stated a floor of 1.15 million taking into account the biggest retailers. Which is great, but just short of Britney's 1.32 million record.

Please don't compare Britney 's album with Gaga 's $0.99 thing

[Nicole]

Originally posted by MonstahNL

I know, but it's still NOT easy to sell over 1 million copies first week.

It's not easy to sell 300K first week now. Forget the million.

[acive]

Originally posted by Mr.Dream

Please don't compare Britney 's album with Gaga 's $0.99 thing

exactly. its an insult to the the ORIGINAL PRINCESS OF POP BRITNEY... i mean if Britney did 0.99 durign that time she might have sold 2-3 Million in 1 week considering albums cost about $10 during that time!

[Entity]

Are you guys serious? Let's go to the real deal:

The Eminem Show: 1.3 Million
The Marshall Mathers LP. 1.8 Million

After being in the game for over 15 years, he still managed to sell 750K of Recovery in its first week!

Now, that, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call legendary.

He is KING...and y'all better kill for that Queen title.

Legend he is.
Legend he is.

[acive]

1st week sales of Gaga - 1.1 M*

with an *
* - promo price of 99 cents

[Peep]

From UK Mix:

The reason Amazon won't lower the price for most acts is because, to justify having 3 million dollar losses, you need to be sure the act can attract unprecedented amount of interest and anticipation. There's no pop act who can attract this level of hysteria currently.

Even without Amazon, the album would have sold AT LEAST 800k (and we all know many of those who bought at Amazon would probably buy at full price if the promo wasn't available) and first week numbers from all over the world are smashing and there was no 99c promo anywhere else.

Furthermore, people who think Gaga's management made some kind of deal with Amazon are truly delusional. I mean, not only have Billboard, Hollywood Reporter, New York Times and a bunch of other reliable vehicles reported that it didn't, Interscope would need to be extremely stupid to make a deal with Amazon MP3 'cause that would seriously jeopardize their relationship with Apple's iTunes. And iTunes dominates the digital market which makes Interscope heavily dependent on them.

Face it: the album sold at least 800k AT FULL PRICE, plenty of people who bought at 99c WOULD HAVE BOUGHT AT FULL PRICE ANYWAY (and many probably wouldn't but that's besides the point), her record label HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 99C PROMO, AMAZON WAS USING GAGA TO PROMOTE THEIR NEW CLOUD SERVICE, NOT VICE-VERSA and, most importantly, the album is having amazing first week sales pretty much everywhere. So yeah, stop trying so hard to find excuses, it just make you guys look extremely bitter.

[Darren-5-08]

Originally posted by Mr.Dream

Please don't compare Britney 's album with Gaga 's $0.99 thing

Please don't use an apostrophe to denote that the $0.99 deal had anything to do with Gaga.

[Monroe]

That U.K. post is incorrect as Forbes and Amazon have already stated Interscope is taking a $1.40 hit for each album that is sold under Amazon's .99 cent price. It's obvious Interscope was involved due to the fact that they lowered the whole sales price for Amazon to do the deal. Yes Amazon is paying $6.00 dollars for each album sold for .99 cents but Interscope also saw a loss of a dollar forty for each album sold as well. It's obvious they were in it together.

Forbes

[Darren-5-08]

Originally posted by Monroe

That U.K. post is incorrect as Forbes and Amazon have already stated Interscope is taking a $1.40 hit for each album that is sold under Amazon's .99 cent price. It's obvious Interscope was involved due to the fact that they lowered the whole sales price for Amazon to do the deal. Yes Amazon is paying $6.00 dollars for each album sold for .99 cents but Interscope also saw a loss of a dollar forty for each album sold as well. It's obvious they were in it together.

Forbes

The point is, though, that it isn't breaking any rules, as it is still being sold over the minimum threshold. Also, Gaga has nothing to do with it. Interscope may, but why vent all the anger at Gaga for a deal that any good management would want to secure. I just don't get why everyone is slating Gaga for it, when realistically any other label would jump at the same opportunity. Plus, what happens if, in the future, another big artist does the same thing and their stans have already ripped Gaga to shreds for it? Will they still be as 'anti-Amazon' as ever?

[Monroe]

Well I still personally think a dollar sale is too cheap for anything worth of significant value. But that's my personal opinion. I don't think an album should be sold for a dollar so I believe all of those sales should be struck from the record. That's my personal thoughts on the matter though. Billboard is counting it and that's the end of it.

I am more preoccupied with the fact that fans don't seem to understand how much she benefited from this deal and the fact that Interscope was obviously apart of it from the very beginning. The fans went on and on about how it's only Amazon doing this and Interscope can't stop it even if they wanted to. When in fact they supported the deal the whole time apparently. How else can you describe Interscope lowering the whole sale/retail price of the album in order to get Amazon to sell the album for .99 cents? Obviously they support the choice for Amazon to sell it at that price as they were also willing to see a loss of sales per each album ($1.40 lost for each album sold at the .99 cent price) that was bought at the said Amazon discounted price.

At the end of the day don't deny that Interscope/Gaga benefited immensely from the deal and don't deny the fact that Interscope was apart of the deal as well since they negotiated with Amazon to cut a deal. Amazon was not at all a free agent here, they had the blessing of the label.

[MonstahNL]

Originally posted by Monroe

That U.K. post is incorrect as Forbes and Amazon have already stated Interscope is taking a $1.40 hit for each album that is sold under Amazon's .99 cent price. It's obvious Interscope was involved due to the fact that they lowered the whole sales price for Amazon to do the deal. Yes Amazon is paying $6.00 dollars for each album sold for .99 cents but Interscope also saw a loss of a dollar forty for each album sold as well. It's obvious they were in it together.

Forbes

First of all, it was NEVER stated by Amazon.

Numbers haven’t been released, but the deal’s first-day traffic “definitely melted some servers,” according to an Amazon spokesperson.

The Amazon spokesperson only confirms that the deal "definitely melted some servers." That is all.


Secondly, what makes you believe Forbes over Billboard and The Wall Street Journal?

[Monroe]

But a source informs me that Amazon negotiated with Interscope/Universal to pay a wholesale price of $7. That means the retailer is taking a somewhat smaller hit of about $6 per album sold.

I see you didn't read the bold text.

Whole sale the album costs 8.39. Album is on sale for .99 cents. Amazon is buying the album for $6.00 dollars. Where did the $1.40 cents go? Oh that's right Interscope ate it because Amazon was still going to pay them more money for selling the album for a cheaper price.

Let's not go any further with this here. If you want to talk more about this we can take it to PM.

[Яeo.]

When will the sales be released?