Quote:
Originally posted by Optimus
Yeah that Free album strategy was good. If the 'free album' is good then a lot of people will check for the album after it and maybe will spend their money to buy it.
 |
Yup. I'd have played it out like this:
1. Release single 1, then 2, normally in order to profit conventionally from them and chart conventionally, but also get the fans supporting them to hopefully being hits, therefore encouraging radio/casuals to support the post-album singles which will have significant drop off in sales (obviously).
2. Announce then that the album will be available for free, everywhere. Put it on a special nameofalbum.com website that would be sponsored (by Virgin, for example). They'd then make XX million from that deal, plus potentially all earn per click.
3. To combat the lack of "sales", the site would display how many people had downloaded it. This way there'd still be the bragging rights (which is primarily the point of figures being public knowledge). It would also be the first indicator of how many people listen to her music both legally and illegally as people would flock to the site for a HQ free download, not bothering with (unmeasureable) ******* sites, and they'd have access to data showing where the album was popular (aiding tour dates, promo etc.).
Which sounds more impressive: "Gaga's new album has sold >10 million" or "Gaga's new album was controversially made available for free, and has since had <30 million downloads"?
4. Post album release singles would rely on radio and streaming, with the videos being key. The album would also be released physically later for non-tech savvy people and fans. It would be the deluxe version with extra tracks to encourage purchase.
5. Bigger tour. More fans who will buy into her discography. Grab the worlds attention for her follow up album (which could be sold conventionally). A lot of coverage for controversy/pioneering debate. Reigniting the Gaga phenomenon.
Quote:
Originally posted by MM3
True. But I feel like he really cared about Gaga. It would've been benefiting her as well. But, ya know, I don't know what went on behind closed doors, so I shouldn't be making huge assumptions. He might have been up to no good. I need a Gaga memoir to expose it someday
 |
I have mixed feelings on it all. As her manager, he should have been supportive and had her best interests at heart (which isn't necessarily the most profitable)...but on the other hand, it's not surprising that he craved success and wanted more - he was a manager. Not her friend, and not a creative, but a business man.
My guess is that he simply interfered too much in the creative process on ARTPOP (less rave, more uban with R Kelly, T.i, Too $hort, Twista, Kendrick, Azealia...) and she felt like she wasn't good enough for him. The breaking point probably had something to do with Troy throwing the album under the bus when reception wasn't shaping up to be positive, and she felt betrayed because she made a lot of those decisions/changes as per his request. It said a lot that she chose to rebel with Dope - even performing it the night news broke - and said that song came about as a result of rebelling against being told what to make.
I doubt she was guiltless throughout all this (she's difficult and stubborn), but I don't believe the rumours that he left her because she was out of control.
