| |
Music News: U.S. Album Sales Fell by 13% During 2009
Member Since: 4/12/2007
Posts: 5,851
|
I actually think the decline in album sales will slow down over the next few years and plateau sometime around 2014. Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, and Best Buy will always sell albums...nearly 374 million were sold this year in the US alone which is still significant enough to make them worth carrying. None of those stores would risk losing their market share and they'd rather lose a little money on albums if it brings more shoppers into their stores.
Circuit City went belly up last year too which accounts for some of last year's decline. I'm sure the decline will be closer to 10% this year.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/15/2009
Posts: 2,744
|
artists aren't 100% at fault if their album flops. people are broke as hell 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/10/2008
Posts: 430
|
though I buy CDs and I love collecting them, look at the bright side - more tours for us 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/7/2009
Posts: 9,863
|
^ And the bad side, More expensive tickets!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/28/2009
Posts: 9,353
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ustareth
The RIAA has made weak attempts in the past to scare off illegal downloaders, yet it never worked. Illegal downloading is here to stay, and the music industry will implode fiscally.
|
Not that I think illegal downloading will ever go away, but France's new piracy law has a chance of working a bit. Wait a year and if nothing has happened in France's illegal rates then I'll say there's no hope of saving album sales.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/28/2009
Posts: 9,353
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Vini
^ And the bad side, More expensive tickets!
|
So true. F***ing dealers buying every Ticketmaster ticket within 30 seconds of the sale time and jacking the price.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/6/2009
Posts: 7,375
|
^^^I really wouldn't say that albums will always be carried. In 2009, Borders stopped carrying older albums, and now only carry Top 200 albums.
If Walmart pulls out, say goodbye to physical albums. It's a wrap.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/29/2009
Posts: 5,976
|
It's cos y'all didn't buy Echo 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/27/2005
Posts: 2,010
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bobbymfw
I actually think the decline in album sales will slow down over the next few years and plateau sometime around 2014. Wal-Mart, Target, Amazon, and Best Buy will always sell albums...nearly 374 million were sold this year in the US alone which is still significant enough to make them worth carrying. None of those stores would risk losing their market share and they'd rather lose a little money on albums if it brings more shoppers into their stores.
Circuit City went belly up last year too which accounts for some of last year's decline. I'm sure the decline will be closer to 10% this year.
|
Smartest post in this thread.
True, the album market is WAY past it's prime, but it still rakes in a LOT of money.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/28/2009
Posts: 9,353
|
Maybe the concept of an album is outdated. Maybe it shouldn't even exist anymore. It already binds artists to the ridiculous 1 year album promo+singles, 1 year off etc.
When albums cease to be profitable in any form, artists should just release singles (the only semi-profitable medium besides tours at this point). The quality of music might even go up and we could be rid of the terrible "album fillers."
|
|
|
|
ATRL Moderator
Member Since: 12/21/2002
Posts: 20,569
|
RIAA are a mess. Bullying illegal downloaders and using scare tactics is not the answer. It's time to embrace the digital age and accept that CDs are slowly becoming the new cassette tapes.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
Did you guys read the article? 
It says Digital Sales have increased up 8%. I don't understand this stupid mess. Here's a solution:
Release music digitally and for the people who do want to buy the physical album, produce less albums. The quantity around 2 or 3 per store?
I don't get though why someone would rather buy digitally than buy it physically. Such stupid people out there. But that would solve all problems. Unless they are talking about Digital meaning "singles" not "albums" digitally.
In that case, maybe artists should just release singles, like three or four. Make sure it catches the media's attention and then after all their hits have been successful, release an album for the public and because of the long ass wait, it will bring sales in.
Like Black Eyed Peas. Release Boom Boom Pow. Release I Gotta Feeling. Release Meet Me Halfway. Release Imma Be.
Then release "The E.N.D." I can almost guarantee that their album would have sold a lot more than releasing "Boom Boom Pow" then releasing the album. Stupid RIAA!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/6/2009
Posts: 7,375
|
1999: dud album with 1 good song on it and 16 fillers $17.99
2009: smash album with 8 hits on it $8.99
Did the labels get what they deserve?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/28/2009
Posts: 9,353
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Departure
Did you guys read the article?
It says Digital Sales have increased up 8%. I don't understand this stupid mess. Here's a solution:
Release music digitally and for the people who do want to buy the physical album, produce less albums. The quantity around 2 or 3 per store?
I don't get though why someone would rather buy digitally than buy it physically. Such stupid people out there. But that would solve all problems. Unless they are talking about Digital meaning "singles" not "albums" digitally.
In that case, maybe artists should just release singles, like three or four. Make sure it catches the media's attention and then after all their hits have been successful, release an album for the public and because of the long ass wait, it will bring sales in.
Like Black Eyed Peas. Release Boom Boom Pow. Release I Gotta Feeling. Release Meet Me Halfway. Release Imma Be.
Then release "The E.N.D." I can almost guarantee that their album would have sold a lot more than releasing "Boom Boom Pow" then releasing the album. Stupid RIAA! |
Releasing more than 1 single before the album (and giving them time to peak) is going to be more common I think
ie Dizzee Rascal - Bonkers (May 2009) then Holiday (20 August 2009) then album (22 September 2009). He should have even released Dirtee Cash in October 2009 or something and put the album out in November. Nevertheless, he got a peak of around 5 I think, which isn't amazing, but I think it would've been even less if he put the album out a week after Bonkers like most artists in the UK would have done. Of course, that is in the UK, but album sales are declining everywhere right? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
I bet most of the flopped albums we have out right now would've sold a lot more if done with that method.
Especially Jesse McCartney and Departure. Leavin' = #1 hit of 2008. It's Over = Top 25 hit. How Do You Sleep = Top 10 hit. Body Language = Top 25 hit.
Body Language was released around Christmas time, which affected it's run. It was doing so well, it's bullet and then it just dropped cause of Christmas. Not gonna regain it's bullet again, oh well. I told him to release Crash & Burn, or hell, Told You So.
I bet he would have broken 100,000 by his first month, not 6 months after it's release 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/6/2009
Posts: 7,375
|
^^Just because digital sales are up, that doesn't change the fact that total sales are down 13% this year. Next year it could will be more. Next thing you know the "top selling" album of the week has sold 14,000 copies.
What will be the point of Billboard? What will be the point of selling music? How many more hits will the industry take?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/13/2009
Posts: 25,902
|
I see FYE going belly-up in the near future Their movies/videogames won't be enough to hold the store up.
I do like your method of releasing a few singles before the album. ex: Pitbull. Krazy (Fall 2008), then I Know You Want Me, then Hotel Room Service around album time, followed by Shut It Down now. The only concern I see is that if an artist's singles aren't popular, there will be 0 hype for the album, rather just the first single. The first single could do great and the other singles tank, so in that case releasing the album sooner would've been better, and if singles take off over time, then the album will continually gain from it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/14/2007
Posts: 6,202
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Departure
?
I don't get though why someone would rather buy digitally than buy it physically. Such stupid people out there. But that would solve all problems. Unless they are talking about Digital meaning "singles" not "albums" digitally.
|
So you are basically calling someone stupid for legally downloading an album at a sometimes cheaper price and avoiding having to store an album and keep it in good condition. Any bonus stuff that comes with the album (i.e. bonus tracks, cover art, etc...) is available in download form too.
Johnald is right. In order for any industry to survive, it has to evolve. It is the music industy's turn to evolve. When you give people what they want, they give you back what you want (i.e. money). When a consumer feels like they have been taken advantage of by an industry, you have what is occuring now.
The RIAA needs a good plan. They cannot beat illegal downloaders. You can't prosecute half the country. Nor can you cut internet access to half the country (France's plan will fail). The former is impossible. The latter would make ISP's laugh at the RIAA. What should they do is indeed a good question that I don't exactly know the answer too. However, they need to change because they can't survive in their current state.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/6/2009
Posts: 7,375
|
There is no going back. Once people have stopped paying for music, the likely hood of them going back to paying for it is slim. Changing the way they release singles is a good strategy but not good enough
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/21/2005
Posts: 19,258
|
What I mean Yankee is...
Why would you waste 9 bucks on something digitally and burn it to a CD and make it look very tacky when you could easilly spend two more dollars more for the whole shebang, including album art and the case?
When I buy stuff off of iTunes, I have to burn it to a disc, that's my way of backing it up. But I'd rather go out and buy the album than spend the same amount to have a tacky looking burnt disc.
It's all in someone's preferance, but that's the way I see it. I, though, do download albums first before buying them. Albums are ****** lately, so if I love the album, I always go out and buy it. If it sucks ass, then maybe that artist should work harder on their projects
|
|
|
|
|
|
