| |
Chart Listings: HITS & SoundScan Top Albums (May 23-30, 2011)
Member Since: 3/25/2009
Posts: 13,550
|
Quote:
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 |
That source also says that Amazon sold 100k first day. Do you believe that too? 
WSJ & HITS >>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/12/2009
Posts: 15,281
|
Some of us do not care for your opinion and it's accepted at the official sources, they even dedicated a post to all whining Britney (st)/(f)ans. Have you got your receipts for that lowering the price because that seems fishy. I thought they bought everything for full price.
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
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.
|
Nobody ever denied that Lady Gaga, Interscope and Amazon are benefiting from the deal. Your fans being able to get the album at $1 is amazing, and considering Interscope will still earn a lot of money from it - so you are not losing any sales is amazing as well.
Besides Amazon can finally push their cloud service, something Apple does not have (yet?), in order to get more market share and stop iTunes monopoly with their expensive prices.
But you are sticking to your point and I'm not here to repeat myself, so here's a part of the quote again from UK Mix.
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2009
Posts: 11,404
|
can we try to get over the 99c thing already? we'll see a lot of talk about it on wednesday anyway 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/13/2011
Posts: 4,742
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bibliotheque
That source also says that Amazon sold 100k first day. Do you believe that too? |
I see you didn't read.
The company has never moved more than 100,000 copies of an album in a week, but with prognosticators projecting total sales of 800,000 copies in Born This Way‘s first week, Amazon will likely shatter that mark with ease.
It was saying the company has never sold 100k copies of an album within a week before but it will now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2010
Posts: 15,376
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 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 cents. 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.
|
I read every word of it honey, don't you worry. It's still coming from an unknown source rather than Amazon.
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
Amazon has already stated Interscope is taking a $1.40 hit for each album that is sold under Amazon's .99 cent price.
|
Link me to it Monroe, link me! An amazon spokesperson has confirmed the meltdown of the servers, he or she didn't confirm anything regarding the discount.
Amazon paid the wholesale price of $8.39, as stated by both Billboard and The Wall Street Journal. Again, what makes you believe Forbes over those 2 highly credible sources?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/30/2009
Posts: 5,123
|
Britney stans, would you give it a rest already?  Never seen a stanbase so pressed before.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/25/2009
Posts: 13,550
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
I see you didn't read.
The company has never moved more than 100,000 copies of an album in a week, but with prognosticators projecting total sales of 800,000 copies in Born This Way‘s first week, Amazon will likely shatter that mark with ease.
It was saying the company has never sold 100k copies of an album within a week before but it will now.
|
Some insiders believe Amazon will sell 200,000 copies of Gaga’s album, meaning the retailer would be taking a loss of about $1.2 million.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2010
Posts: 15,376
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrCookiepants
Britney stans, would you give it a rest already? Never seen a stanbase so pressed before. |
The numbers aren't even it yet.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/13/2011
Posts: 4,742
|
I can't even do this. Forbes is also a highly regarded source and if they are saying that Amazon and Interscope cut a deal then it is likely true. Since they mentioned that source within the same sentence as Amazon's spokesperson's quote it is likely that the source came from Amazon.
Quote:
Originally posted by Bibliotheque
Some insiders believe Amazon will sell 200,000 copies of Gaga’s album, meaning the retailer would be taking a loss of about $1.2 million.
|
So I see 100k is 200k now? I don't even see what your point is. Are you trying to discredit the article because it had been written before more accurate sales figures were announced? Because even then the article was updated to include them afterward. So again what is your point?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2010
Posts: 15,376
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
I can't even do this. Forbes is also a highly regarded source and if they are saying that Amazon and Interscope cut a deal then it is likely true. Since they mentioned that source within the same sentence as Amazon's spokesperson's quote it is likely that the source came from Amazon.
|
I know Forbes is also a highly regarded source, but that was not what I asked you. What makes you prefer Forbes over Billboard and The Wallstreet Journal?
No, it is NOT mentioned within the same sentence.
Quote:
|
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. Numbers haven’t been released, but the deal’s first-day traffic “definitely melted some servers,” according to an Amazon spokesperson.
|
2 different topics, 2 different sentences, devided by a notable dot.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/30/2009
Posts: 5,123
|
Monroe, how many thousands of words have you dedicated to this issue in the past week? Why do you spend every waking hour of every day thinking about the sales of an album you don't even like?
You need some REAL problems!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2010
Posts: 15,137
|
We're still on this?
I wouldn't be surprised if Forbes was right, and that Interscope gave Amazon a bit of a deal after Amazon presented them with that offer. That fact is that Interscope wasn't really losing that much money, if any, because presumably the extra sales would offset the loss. BUT, the doesn't mean this was Interscope's idea. Amazon was still the mastermind, as they are the ones taking the hefty loss. There is not a record label around that wouldn't agree to that deal after being approached by Amazon, especially when they're not losing that much money. Some of you want to speak about integrity, but there's no integrity involved (but you all don't really care about integrity anyway, stop being transparent. The same predictable people are still complaining about it, and it's quite obvious why). This is business.
In any case, this Amazon deal is going to be talked about for a long time because it's a rather exceptional business model. There will be no asterisk next to Born This Way, because in the end, this deal was a win for everyone - Interscope (who is still making close to wholesale profit from every unit sold), Amazon (who gets to promote their cloud service - they're a multibillion dollar company who can afford a loss of a few million), and the consumer (who gets to buy a highly anticipated album for an amazing price). The only losers here are the bitter stans frothing at the mouth who can't stand that Amazon chose Gaga to do this.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/16/2010
Posts: 15,137
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrCookiepants
Monroe, how many thousands of words have you dedicated to this issue in the past week? Why do you spend every waking hour of every day thinking about the sales of an album you don't even like?
You need some REAL problems! |
Some Britney fans are way too invested in that damn OIDIA record. It's pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/18/2010
Posts: 4,617
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bibliotheque
Some insiders believe Amazon will sell 200,000 copies of Gaga’s album, meaning the retailer would be taking a loss of about $1.2 million.
|
But wasn't it announced that Amazon lost 3 millions from the discount?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/10/2011
Posts: 1,657
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MrCookiepants
Monroe, how many thousands of words have you dedicated to this issue in the past week? Why do you spend every waking hour of every day thinking about the sales of an album you don't even like?
You need some REAL problems! |
How on earth does someone need problems ? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/12/2009
Posts: 15,281
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
I can't even do this. Forbes is also a highly regarded source and if they are saying that Amazon and Interscope cut a deal then it is likely true. Since they mentioned that source within the same sentence as Amazon's spokesperson's quote it is likely that the source came from Amazon.
So I see 100k is 200k now? I don't even see what your point is. Are you trying to discredit the article because it had been written before more accurate sales figures were announced? Because even then the article was updated to include them afterward. So again what is your point? |
I see you started skipping over my posts again, just like SYG.
But I thank you for leaving the personal insults and anger I could sense in your posts, and instead stay classy. I'm sorry for your confusing with 'loss' at 6$ an album and price they sell it at $0.99 and Interscope still getting it for full price.
Quote:
Originally posted by Peep
Some of us do not care for your opinion and it's accepted at the official sources, they even dedicated a post to all whining Britney (st)/(f)ans. Have you got your receipts for that lowering the price because that seems fishy. I thought they bought everything for full price.
Nobody ever denied that Lady Gaga, Interscope and Amazon are benefiting from the deal. Your fans being able to get the album at $1 is amazing, and considering Interscope will still earn a lot of money from it - so you are not losing any sales is amazing as well.
Besides Amazon can finally push their cloud service, something Apple does not have (yet?), in order to get more market share and stop iTunes monopoly with their expensive prices.
But you are sticking to your point and I'm not here to repeat myself, so here's a part of the quote again from UK Mix.
|
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Monroe
I see you didn't read.
The company has never moved more than 100,000 copies of an album in a week, but with prognosticators projecting total sales of 800,000 copies in Born This Way‘s first week, Amazon will likely shatter that mark with ease.
It was saying the company has never sold 100k copies of an album within a week before but it will now.
|
Oh, market share. We'll see how much they sold and how much precisely their loss will be. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/6/2010
Posts: 27,892
|
Quote:
Originally posted by benzene_dream
We're still on this?
I wouldn't be surprised if Forbes was right, and that Interscope gave Amazon a bit of a deal after Amazon presented them with that offer. That fact is that Interscope wasn't really losing that much money, if any, because presumably the extra sales would offset the loss. BUT, the doesn't mean this was Interscope's idea. Amazon was still the mastermind, as they are the ones taking the hefty loss. There is not a record label around that wouldn't agree to that deal after being approached by Amazon, especially when they're not losing that much money. Some of you want to speak about integrity, but there's no integrity involved (but you all don't really care about integrity anyway, stop being transparent. The same predictable people are still complaining about it, and it's quite obvious why). This is business.
In any case, this Amazon deal is going to be talked about for a long time because it's a rather exceptional business model. There will be no asterisk next to Born This Way, because in the end, this deal was a win for everyone - Interscope (who is still making close to wholesale profit from every unit sold), Amazon (who gets to promote their cloud service - they're a multibillion dollar company who can afford a loss of a few million), and the consumer (who gets to buy a highly anticipated album for an amazing price). The only losers here are the bitter stans frothing at the mouth who can't stand that Amazon chose Gaga to do this. |
This x22.
I have been preaching the amazing prices of Amazon ever since I joined this forum. For what it's worth, people cant seem to stop talking about the service.
Amazing promo.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/13/2011
Posts: 4,742
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Peep
I see you started skipping over my posts again, just like SYG.
But I thank you for leaving the personal insults and anger I could sense in your posts, and instead stay classy. I'm sorry for your confusing with 'loss' at 6$ an album and price they sell it at $0.99 and Interscope still getting it for full price.
|
I already discussed your 'points'. There was no reason to go over them again as you added nothing to the discussion. You overlooked the entire point that was made which had Interscope apart of the dollar deal. I already gave sources from Forbes which state that Interscope and Amazon worked together to dock the price of the album. That invalidates any post you had from an aggrieved fan over at U.K. Mix whom was obviously misinformed. It's not that I skip over your posts, it's that your post(s) hold(s) no worth in this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/20/2010
Posts: 3,485
|
If only Britney fans spent on Britney half of the time they spend on Gaga...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/20/2010
Posts: 15,376
|
Monroe, will my question remain unanswered or not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
