[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Kh-Loud

Will your Queen do 1/3 of that numbers without the AMAZON deal though? and i am not including the smartphone BestBuy BTW give away.

Maybe, maybe not. That's not the issue though now is it? As I've recently said, Gaga wins again

[Hustle.]

It's a win for everyone: The label and publishers get paid in full, the artist gets his or her full royalty, the retailer presumably gets the marketing boost they wanted, and -- most importantly -- the fan gets the deal of a lifetime.

#WINNING

[Chemist]

IPukeeCrystals being banned by the end of today is the real kii

[EarlyMorning]

Originally posted by Chemist

I'm a casual Britney fan you mad?

I'm steaming like a pot full of vegetables over it.

[Callisto.]

Originally posted by Shame♥

Aren't Britney stans trying to get #BillboardCorrupt to trend? Get over it.

I hope Amazon offers Beyonce the same deal next month.

4 for 4! Let's make it trend!

[Nɑɑji.. ©]

Originally posted by FameHooker

GaGa always win.

[iPukeCrystals]

Originally posted by Chemist

IPukeeCrystals being banned by the end of today is the real kii

It's not that big of a deal.
I don't spend my whole day on here.
Unlike you girls. It's nice seeing how easily bothered you girls are.

[iLays]

Without Tha Scheiße Again..Fight For Ya Right

[Oshiish]

Originally posted by Gui Blackout

Britney stans and Britney herself remains umbothered.

It shows



Yay Gaga and BB200

[Patrick]

As tacky as it is for Britney fans to bombard him with requests that the rules be changed and Gaga be robbed of her potentially record breaking week of sales, I find it in bad taste that he would muddy this otherwise well-written article with petty jabs.

And I don't appreciate the high and mighty attitudes in this thread. Certain Britney fans are clearly pressed as all **** right now, but let's not pretend that your respective stanbase is not likely to engage in equally as childish behavior when given the right provocation.

"We're so above this Britney fan ****! WHAT?! SOMEONE THREW THE MOST TRIVIAL SHADE IN BEYONCE'S/RIHANNA'S/GAGA'S DIRECTION?! PLEASE EXCUSE ME WHILE I GO ACT LIKE A DAMN FOOL ON TWITTER!"

[Kh-Loud]

Originally posted by RatedG

Maybe, maybe not. That's not the issue though now is it? As I've recently said, Gaga wins again

I hope she sells 5 million first week.

[Chemist]

Originally posted by iBeyoncé.

4 for 4! Let's make it trend!

NO!

[Reza]

Originally posted by RatedG

Now you get it

oh i definitely get it but i believe that it is absolutely wrong. How is he going to give a hypothetical theory about decreasing album sales in order to change a rule thats existed in billboard for several years? music albums MIGHT one day sell for 4.99 or 0.99 but the reality is that they still sell for 14.99 today. Why change the rule this week? hmmmmm????? oh i know why. ch....

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by Patrick

As tacky as it is for Britney fans to bombard him with requests that the rules be changed and Gaga be robbed of her potentially record breaking week of sales, I find it in bad taste that he would muddy this otherwise well-written article with petty jabs.

And I don't appreciate the high and mighty attitudes in this thread. Certain Britney fans are clearly pressed as all **** right now, but let's not pretend that your respective stanbase is not likely to engage in equally as childish behavior when given the right provocation.

"We're so above this Britney fan ****! WHAT?! SOMEONE THREW THE MOST TRIVIAL SHADE IN BEYONCE'S/RIHANNA'S/GAGA'S DIRECTION?! PLEASE EXCUSE ME WHILE I GO ACT LIKE A DAMN FOOL ON TWITTER!"

This is why I love you Patrick

[TheOnlyOne]

I don't know why they go by copies sold, as opposed to money spent. That seems like the most simple and easiest solution. There should be no threshold for what should and shouldn't be counted, in terms of price, because bought music is bought music.

However, for example (just making up #'s here), as opposed to Gaga getting credit 350,000 copies sold for $1 on Amazon, plus 700,000 for those bought in stores/iTunes for $14 or so, she should instead be credited for $350,000 worth sold on Amazon plus the $9.8 mill for those sold at the $14 price, etc. It makes so much more sense, and is more fair this way.

And this is not just about Gaga. I still think it's ******** that Jackie Evancho or whoever debuted on the Billboard 200 above Rihanna when her album was nearly 1/3 of the cost that Loud was. I'm sure it's affected other artists, as well. If people are spending $14 on one album, but only $5 on another, the one that made more money should receive more credit when it comes to Billboard figures.

[Shame♥]

Originally posted by iBeyoncé.

4 for 4! Let's make it trend!

I'll be spamming Amazon's twitter. Beyonce would love to help their market share.

[MusicTalker]

Originally posted by TheOnlyOne

I don't know why they go by copies sold, as opposed to money spent. That seems like the most simple and easiest solution. There should be no threshold for what should and shouldn't be counted, in terms of price, because bought music is bought music.

However, for example (just making up #'s here), as opposed to Gaga getting credit 350,000 copies sold for $1 on Amazon, plus 700,000 for those bought in stores/iTunes for $14 or so, she should instead be credited for $350,000 worth sold on Amazon plus the $9.8 mill for those sold at the $14 price, etc. It makes so much more sense, and is more fair this way.

And this is not just about Gaga. I still think it's ******** that Jackie Evancho or whoever debuted on the Billboard 200 above Rihanna when her album was nearly 1/3 of the cost that Loud was. I'm sure it's affected other artists, as well. If people are spending $14 on one album, but only $5 on another, the one that made more money should receive more credit when it comes to Billboard figures.

This post is amazing. I think I agree.

[Shame♥]

Originally posted by Oshiish

It shows

Billboard 200 spilling that tea.

[RatedG²]

Originally posted by TheOnlyOne

I don't know why they go by copies sold, as opposed to money spent. That seems like the most simple and easiest solution. There should be no threshold for what should and shouldn't be counted, in terms of price, because bought music is bought music.

However, for example (just making up #'s here), as opposed to Gaga getting credit 350,000 copies sold for $1 on Amazon, plus 700,000 for those bought in stores/iTunes for $14 or so, she should instead be credited for $350,000 worth sold on Amazon plus the $9.8 mill for those sold at the $14 price, etc. It makes so much more sense, and is more fair this way.

And this is not just about Gaga. I still think it's ******** that Jackie Evancho or whoever debuted on the Billboard 200 above Rihanna when her album was nearly 1/3 of the cost that Loud was. I'm sure it's affected other artists, as well. If people are spending $14 on one album, but only $5 on another, the one that made more money should receive more credit when it comes to Billboard figures.

Actually a smart post for once. I love it

[Green]

Originally posted by RatedG

Nope. There was no rule change. Read the article

There was a rule change in 2007 the week that Blackout was released. You are the one that need to read the article.

Billboard had a standing policy against including releases that were only sold through one retailer in our chart. The Eagles released their "Long Road Out of Eden" album exclusively at Wal-Mart, a retailer that had not previously reported its exclusive titles to Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan. At the last minute, Wal-Mart, under pressure from the Eagles camp, reported sales figures, and it became clear that the Eagles had sold nearly twice as many copies of their album as had Britney. The powers-that-be (of which I was not one at the time) decided to make a policy switch because they felt the best decision was to allow for the most accurate chart. I'm not going to go back and second-guess that, but I will repeat: I don't believe in making a policy change that will affect the same week's charts.