[Fruity]

While the OP is clearly being negligent with the specifics, I think the point he's trying to deliver is pretty simple. Essentially people tend to hugely underestimate the monetary value of an album compared to a single. That's not to say I think singles aren't important because they are.

But when you truly think about it in purely economic terms, what Beyonce did was remarkable. Let's compare 'Beyoncé' (the album) to any other typical album campaign. Usually staple pop artists release a single ($1.29) - hoping for a huge debut with a few hundred thousand sales first week - as a sort of promotional tool for the album. Eventually the consumer is lead through a promotional campaign for the album, which combined with the singles, should hopefully convince them into making a more lucrative purchase ($15).

But. Beyonce has SUCH a powerful brand, and people trust her music so much, that she convinced these hundreds of thousands of people to buy an album which costs over 10 times the price straight away The difference between the respective costs of the purchases show how powerful she is. People bought the full catalogue of songs on her name alone.

[WFL]

Did Pepsi only paid for the music videos or they paid for everything including the writers, producers etc? I

And btw, some people look so desperate while trying to shade/drag/discredit or whatever Beyonce because she is basically slaying all of our faves with ease.

[jafet]

So when we get this week sales for Bs 5th álbum? 17 years into her career and 10 into her soo career?

[Harmonic Dreamer]

Originally posted by Fruity

While the OP is clearly being negligent with the specifics, I think the point he's trying to deliver is pretty simple. Essentially people tend to hugely underestimate the monetary value of an album compared to a single. That's not to say I think singles aren't important because they are.

But when you truly think about it in purely economic terms, what Beyonce did was remarkable. Let's compare 'Beyoncé' (the album) to any other typical album campaign. Usually staple pop artists release a single ($1.29) - hoping for a huge debut with a few hundred thousand sales first week - as a sort of promotional tool for the album. Eventually the consumer is lead through a promotional campaign for the album, which combined with the singles, should hopefully convince them into making a more lucrative purchase ($15).

But. Beyonce has SUCH a powerful brand, and people trust her music so much, that she convinced these hundreds of thousands of people to buy an album which costs over 10 times the price straight away The difference between the respective costs of the purchases show how powerful she is. People bought the full catalogue of songs on her name alone.

*1.5 million people so far. And growing.

[JClarkSTAN]

I think her album sales are amazing and are obviously making her alot of money but I think a hit single reaches ALOT more people and helps an artist alot more in the long run. So I really don't think money is the issue here.

But XO and DIL will obviously be hits so I really don't think there is anything to worry about.

[PartyAnimal]

Just a proof that singles are barely making money in music industry. That's why Rihanna doesn't even worth 100M and Beyonce worth 300M.
Math is real.

[Mezter]

Jesus....

Why did you use King Macklemore as an example though?

[GeezusHaberdash]

Originally posted by Fruity

While the OP is clearly being negligent with the specifics, I think the point he's trying to deliver is pretty simple. Essentially people tend to hugely underestimate the monetary value of an album compared to a single. That's not to say I think singles aren't important because they are.

But when you truly think about it in purely economic terms, what Beyonce did was remarkable. Let's compare 'Beyoncé' (the album) to any other typical album campaign. Usually staple pop artists release a single ($1.29) - hoping for a huge debut with a few hundred thousand sales first week - as a sort of promotional tool for the album. Eventually the consumer is lead through a promotional campaign for the album, which combined with the singles, should hopefully convince them into making a more lucrative purchase ($15).

But. Beyonce has SUCH a powerful brand, and people trust her music so much, that she convinced these hundreds of thousands of people to buy an album which costs over 10 times the price straight away The difference between the respective costs of the purchases show how powerful she is. People bought the full catalogue of songs on her name alone.

the girls love playing dense on purpose instead of giving Bey props.

[Harmonic Dreamer]

Originally posted by JClarkSTAN

I think her album sales are amazing and are obviously making her alot of money but I think a hit single reaches ALOT more people and helps an artist alot more in the long run. So I really don't think money is the issue here.

But XO and DIL will obviously be hits so I really don't think there is anything to worry about.

In theory they are supposed to help the longevity of the album.
But there have been rare instances of this (Adele & Taylor) but then again they didn't release like B did. It's rarely working now, the way album sales are going.It's just best to let time ride out and do it's thing.

[thirdward]

Originally posted by Mezter

Jesus....

Why did you use King Macklemore as an example though?

Because his song is 2013's biggest hit... Did u read the OP?

[satellites.™]

Originally posted by Fruity

While the OP is clearly being negligent with the specifics, I think the point he's trying to deliver is pretty simple. Essentially people tend to hugely underestimate the monetary value of an album compared to a single. That's not to say I think singles aren't important because they are.

But when you truly think about it in purely economic terms, what Beyonce did was remarkable. Let's compare 'Beyoncé' (the album) to any other typical album campaign. Usually staple pop artists release a single ($1.29) - hoping for a huge debut with a few hundred thousand sales first week - as a sort of promotional tool for the album. Eventually the consumer is lead through a promotional campaign for the album, which combined with the singles, should hopefully convince them into making a more lucrative purchase ($15).

But. Beyonce has SUCH a powerful brand, and people trust her music so much, that she convinced these hundreds of thousands of people to buy an album which costs over 10 times the price straight away The difference between the respective costs of the purchases show how powerful she is. People bought the full catalogue of songs on her name alone.

Thank you, I didnt have time to break it down. I thought it was a simple enough point being made.

[GeezusHaberdash]

Originally posted by Mezter

Why did you use King Macklemore as an example though?

Originally posted by satellites.™

Thrift Shop by those two cute white boys is the best selling digital single of the year.

the most successful single of the past entire year generates less revenue than an album released less than 2 weeks ago. it wasn't meant to shade Macklemore, it was meant to use him as the bar for success (singles-wise).

[Callum]

All in a week's work for King B I guess

[JClarkSTAN]

Originally posted by Harmonic Dreamer

In theory they are supposed to help the longevity of the album.
But there have been rare instances of this (Adele & Taylor) but then again they didn't release like B did. It's rarely working now, the way album sales are going.It's just best to let time ride out and do it's thing.

Like I said, I'm not worried about the sales of the album because the album is already doing amazing.

I just mean that every artist needs a signature song or a song that will still be remembered 10 years from now. Obviously Beyonce has tons of those but it doesn't hurt to have more and its ideal to have them on every album you release. Which is why single success is still very important. If I Will Always Love You flopped, I don't think The Bodyguard Soundtrack would be thought of or remembered in the same way.

[staracademy1990]

I may be pressed a little by her success. But I will be the first to admit she put out an amazing album and slaying effortlessly. The end.

[Ascension]

Originally posted by WFL

Did Pepsi only paid for the music videos or they paid for everything including the writers, producers etc? I

And btw, some people look so desperate while trying to shade/drag/discredit or whatever Beyonce because she is basically slaying all of our faves with ease.

In an expansion of the recent marketing experiments that have brought PepsiCo ever closer to the music industry, the company has embarked on a hybrid project with Beyoncé that will include standard advertising like commercials as well as a multimillion-dollar fund to support the singer’s chosen creative projects. - NY Times/Pepsi press release

The Pepsi deal was unique because it is a multi-year business partnership; so it's deeper than one ad campaign and done. They are continually funding various products of hers in exchange for having the long term endorsement of one of the biggest celebrities in the world with arguably the highest level of brand stability ever seen from a modern act.

And Pepsi is basically Bey's way of funding while cutting out the label (who I think pissed her off beyond point of no return during the 4 era) and not risking losing huge sums of her own money trying to fund entire ventures herself. She can afford to fund herself, but it's always best to use other peoples' money and mitigate virtually all risk in the event of a failure/raise the profit margin if things go well. Her business acumen is out of this world. Mathew taught her very well.

[staracademy1990]

The use of Macklemore was terrible though considering, this is their debut and have had a huge year with 2 singles in top 5 singles of the year + a platinum independent album.

[SuperLolita]

Originally posted by Jennifer

If BEYONCE fails to span any hits (XO is going to be a huge hit, though, people are way too rash), then it would go down as a very successful record but outside the people who bought it, nobody is going to remember anything from it.

You know damn well that's a lie.

[phyneassf**k]

D fact is dat singles are made to promote albums, so at d end of the day macklemore are trying to sell an album using a single dat made abt $9m dollars of digital sales alone, not factoring other souce of income 4 d single, while putting in mind dat they hv an album dat has sold over 500k copies... Beyonce's formula won't work 4 every1, it won't even work 4 her again, but damn she's killing it...dis music business is all about making money, and while u keep saying pepsi paid 4 dis or didn't pay 4 dat, its an investment, $50m. If bey didn't spend it on d album it b in her bank account, so when all is said and done she's gonna need to recuperate all dat money pepsi invested, which she is doing so well already, having hit singles would only make it faster dan it is already...

[Fruity]

Originally posted by staracademy1990

The use of Macklemore was terrible though considering, this is their debut and have had a huge year with 2 singles in top 5 singles of the year + a platinum independent album.

Literally the context of Macklemore was only to compare it to a huge single (he just happens to have the best selling of 2013)