Discussion: Gaga in 2010 or Katy in 2014: Who was bigger? - Page 13

Mast

Quote:

Originally posted by Robinladen

Katy Perry. With all those album, single and tour receipts Gaga still couldn't fork up more money in a single calendar year and was below the $100 Million mark. This clearly shows Katy has a bigger pull where it really matters.

Did you hurt your arms while reaching that far?

This has got to be the farthest reach in the history of mankind, and NASA just released images of Pluto.

Mast

Quote:

Originally posted by Я×R

Gaga will never have a $200M tour with less than 150 dates

Um, she EASILY could have with the BTWB. It grossed $184M with only 98 shows and she cancelled the remaining 18 (most of which were sold out).

Genius

2010: Great Year for Pop Music overall
2014: Great Year for Katy Perry with only one song

so, Katy Perry

Misanthrope

Quote:

Originally posted by Genius

2010: Great Year for Pop Music overall
2014: Great Year for Katy Perry with only one song

so, Katy Perry

This doesn't make any sense.

If im taking this correctly, you're essentially reducing gagas enormity to the fact that pop music was just big in general that year. as if she didnt arguably make it as big as it became in the first place with her phenom. then trying to say katy perry came out on top in a year when pop music was not which you seem to be implying is some sort of big feat. but i dont think thats even correct.

Whiskey Mouth

Gaga in 2010, it's obvious.

Gaga outsold PRISM's total numbers with only The Fame/Monster's US sales. And even if music sales have declined, 16 million albums in 2010 compared to 3M (or 4?) million albums in 2013/2014 is still a huge stretch.

Gaga also sold more singles. Won more Grammys, won more VMAs, her music was more acclaimed, she had more impact...Gaga was everywhere in 2010.

Whiskey Mouth

Quote:

Originally posted by CakeLike

The reciepts are telling me Gaga, by a long shot...

Bayonsay

I don't even use her any more, but it was clearly Gaga.

sgcat

Quote:

Originally posted by Mast

Did you hurt your arms while reaching that far?

This has got to be the farthest reach in the history of mankind, and NASA just released images of Pluto.

how is that reaching. gaga at her peak didnt even manage to earn more than $100 mil. and you people here are saying shes bigger than katy when katy earned $135 mil but shes not as big as gaga?

must be raining money at her house then.

HASHTAGPOW

Misanthrope

Quote:

Originally posted by sgcat

how is that reaching. gaga at her peak didnt even manage to earn more than $100 mil. and you people here are saying shes bigger than katy when katy earned $135 mil but shes not as big as gaga?

must be raining money at her house then.

katy perry has products and endorsements: fragrances, eyelashes, deals with popchips and nail polish companies. I dont understand how money in part made from all that automatically makes her bigger than lady gaga at her peak. that does not make any sense and its totally the wrong way to go about judging which one was bigger. I think you'd have to be hard pressed to say katy perry in 2014 was bigger than lady gaga in 2010. hard pressed.

meanwhile gaga put a majority of her own money into her show which ran for like 2 years and became one of the most iconic pop tours ever. while not endorsing nearly anything at the time (she had those headphones but lets not act like they were raking in the bills or anything) and she did not have a fragrance yet. any money made was based almost purely off of her musical efforts.

MissedTheTrain

Quote:

Originally posted by sgcat

how is that reaching. gaga at her peak didnt even manage to earn more than $100 mil. and you people here are saying shes bigger than katy when katy earned $135 mil but shes not as big as gaga?

must be raining money at her house then.

Katy has had several endorsements (Popchips, CoverGirl, Proactiv, etc), where people make bank. Gaga didn't have any.

sgcat

Quote:

Originally posted by Misanthrope

katy perry has products and endorsements: fragrances, eyelashes, deals with popchips and nail polish companies. I dont understand how money in part made from all that automatically makes her bigger than lady gaga at her peak. that does not make any sense and its totally the wrong way to go about judging which one was bigger. I think you'd have to be hard pressed to say katy perry in 2014 was bigger than lady gaga in 2010. hard pressed.

Quote:

Originally posted by MissedTheTrain

Katy has had several endorsements (Popchips, CoverGirl, Proactiv, etc), where people make bank. Gaga didn't have any.

not you ignoring gaga's endorsements though.

Quote:

With a worldwide tour and million-dollar endorsements with Polaroid, Virgin Mobile and Monster Cable, Lady Gaga netted an estimated $62 million over the last year

even with endorsements and her huge peak, shes making less than half of what katy earned in 2015!

Misanthrope

Quote:

Originally posted by sgcat

not you ignoring gaga's endorsements though.

even with endorsements and her huge peak, shes making less than half of what katy earned in 2015!

First of all not you completely ignoring Gagas immense impact in 2010 and trying to say Katy was bigger based on weak technicalities and money earned at years end.

And actually I didnt ignore them in my edit. But they were incredibly minimal in comparison to the amount of endorsements and brands that katy hawks and they were not endorsements that consistently allowed her to rake in any cash say like Katy Perrys fragrance line, makeup products and eyelashes etc. Thats stuff sold at discount stores across the country that continually bring in some extra money. Not to mention the fact that Gaga literally stated she put almost all of her money into said tour which was bigger and more iconic than what Katy Perry is capable of.

sgcat

Quote:

Originally posted by Misanthrope

First of all not you ignoring completely Gagas immense impact in 2010 and trying to say Katy was bigger based on weak technicalities and money earned.

And actually I didnt ignore them in my edit. But they were incredibly minimal in comparison to the amount of endorsements and brands that katy hawks and they were not endorsements that consistently allowed her to rake in any cash say like Katy Perrys fragrance line, makeup products and eyelashes etc. Thats stuff sold at discount stores across the country that continually bring in some extra money. Not to mention the fact that Gaga literally stated she put almost all of her money into said tour.

based on weak technicalities?

well theres no point arguing with the pressed here. im just going to ignore the additional $73 million then.

not to mention the impact at her peak couldnt even help her stay relevant for at least a few more years.

Misanthrope

Quote:

Originally posted by sgcat

based on weak technicalities?

well theres no point arguing with the pressed here. im just going to ignore the additional $73 million then.

not to mention the impact at her peak couldnt even help her stay relevant for at least a few more years.

Leave it to a Katy Perry stan to put all importance on some year end accumulation of cash

That does not mean Katy Perry was bigger.

Im not even going to get into your weak relevance argument considering she is clearly still relevant to this day.

Katy V.!

Quote:

Originally posted by Misanthrope

Leave it to a Katy Perry stan to put all importance on some year end accumulation of cash

That does not mean Katy Perry was bigger.

Im not even going to get into your weak relevance argument considering she is clearly still relevant to this day.

Monsters have used Forbes/Earnings as a receipt to drag all the others fanbases for years

It's really funny how tables have turned, though

Aqim

Katy Perry by infinity.

Robinladen

Quote:

Originally posted by Mast

Did you hurt your arms while reaching that far?

This has got to be the farthest reach in the history of mankind, and NASA just released images of Pluto.

the fact you can't rebuke it tells me im right

Robinladen

Quote:

Originally posted by MissedTheTrain

Katy has had several endorsements (Popchips, CoverGirl, Proactiv, etc), where people make bank. Gaga didn't have any.

@ you acting like any of those endorsements played a role in her earning, most if not all came from her record breaking tour.

Misanthrope

Quote:

Originally posted by Katy V.!

Monsters have used Forbes/Earnings as a receipt to drag all the others fanbases for years

It's really funny how tables have turned, though

Katy stans have this really strange perception of monsters. They like hold onto what one might have said 5 years ago and use their own random personal experiences to then generalize the entire base regardless of how sparse those specific events were or how long ago.

Gaga stans in 2009/2010 were RABID and incredibly obnoxious. But that was 5 years ago. Ever since Born This Way they've been pretty tamed especially in comparison to you guys lately. And if anything at least Gagas immense phenomenon arguably validated the obnoxious behavior. Katys success is certainly success but doesn't warrant the kind of mindblowing reaching that most of you Katy stans do. Calling her the female MJ and ****. Trying to porously argue that somehow Katy Perry in 2014 with Prism was bigger than Gaga at her peak. Like I can't...