| |
Celeb News: Gaga addresses ARTPOP success
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
I believe she is profitable when it comes to touring. I think they allowed GUY sized videos because they projected it to perform and make profit though, it didn't.
Don't get me wrong, it's the same with My fave - She by far makes up for any "lack" of album profit when she tours.
In this instance she was and the people in here are, talking about the album as a singular. They're not looking at the era as a whole. She was talking about the album as potrayed by the media. If that quarter didn't make a profit as a whole, then the album didn't. That's not to say this quater won't now that there's a tour but the album as a singular, didn't make profit so I don't think it's a reasonable arguement to make and with all due respect, you're making the same assumptions I am but you're just on the other side.
|
No. You're assigning losses that may well have been due to a host of other artists' albums and general industry decline to one album. That one album made approximately $37 million based off average price and sales (it was $15.99, let's not forget). Unless they spent over $37 million promoting just the album, which is highly unlikely given that the refuted sensationalist claims were only $25 million themselves, the album itself turned a profit.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 3,194
|
ARTPOP's success could mean anything
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tittieslap
Can you do us a favor and link us the UMG report? The New York Post is a sensationalist paper.
|
Just google UMG report 2013. - It's more than 300 pages.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 10/3/2010
Posts: 12,334
|
The media didn't "falsely represent" ARTPOP, literally everyone and their dog could tell it wasn't nearly as big as The Fame, The Fame Monster or Born This Way.
Just because ARTPOP didn't brankrupt UMG doesn't make it a commercial success, the album will not go platinum, and regardless of Gaga's contemporaries beating her, she has to live up to the bar she set for herself and unfortunately she won't even sell half of what Born This Way sold.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Shapes
The media didn't "falsely represent" ARTPOP, literally everyone and their dog could tell it wasn't nearly as big as The Fame, The Fame Monster or Born This Way.
Just because ARTPOP didn't brankrupt UMG doesn't make it a commercial success, the album will not go platinum, and regardless of Gaga's contemporaries beating her, she has to live up to the bar she set for herself and unfortunately she won't even sell half of what Born This Way sold.
|
True, it wasn't as big as her others.
True, it won't go platinum.
True, it won't even sell half what BTW sold.
None of that determines whether it was a technical success. It failed to meet expectations - however, it did not reasonably fail to generate revenue.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
No. You're assigning losses that may well have been due to a host of other artists' albums and general industry decline to one album. That one album made approximately $37 million based off average price and sales (it was $15.99, let's not forget). Unless they spent over $37 million promoting just the album, which is highly unlikely given that the refuted sensationalist claims were only $25 million themselves, the album itself turned a profit.
|
That's not what I'm doing at all. I was clear that it wasn't ARTPOP exclusive.
I'm simply looking at is from a business perspective. If the company didn't turn a profit as a whole regardless of what ARTPOP made, I feel like the "profit" arguement shouldn't be valid.
Do you think the executives say to themselves "we're down this quarter but thank god lady gaga made x amount of $"
It's a business, they look at it as a whole. They don't see individual albums. UMG reported a loss. There was no profit at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
That's not what I'm doing at all. I was clear that it wasn't ARTPOP exclusive.
I'm simply looking at is from a business perspective. If the company didn't turn a profit as a whole regardless of what ARTPOP made, I feel like the "profit" arguement shouldn't be valid.
Do you think the executives say to themselves "we're down this quarter but thank god lady gaga made x amount of $"
It's a business, they look at it as a whole. They don't see individual albums. UMG reported a loss. There was no profit at the end of the day.
|
By this logic, every UMG artist flopped. Every single one. You can't just set up an argument that if a whole company lost money overall, then the profits of one of its products are irrelevant to the status of that product itself. That's not valid.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
By this logic, every UMG artist flopped. Every single one. You can't just set up an argument that if a whole company lost money overall, then the profits of one of its products are irrelevant to the status of that product itself. That's not valid.
|
I didn't use the word flopped.
I used the sentence "didn't turn a profit" I'm not the NY post.
Every UMG artist that released music in that period contributed to the company not turning a profit that quarter including lady gaga.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 4,871
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Just google UMG report 2013. - It's more than 300 pages.
|
I just read a report on allaccess.com which summarizes the report and this is the first paragraph:
Quote:
|
UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP's parent company VIVENDI has reported Q1 financials showing UMG revenues were €984 million, down 2.0% at constant currency and perimeter. The company noted, "This change is due to lower recorded music and merchandising sales. Revenues were down 9.8% at current currency and taking into account the impact of the PARLOPHONE LABEL GROUP disposal in 2013."
|
No mention of Lady Gaga or ARTPOP. I'm not gonna sit through some random ass music industry report when you're not even displaying strong enough evidence for your claim.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/4/2014
Posts: 2,860
|
So what if it's a flop tho? That's the only argument that haters use these days and it makes them seem obsessed.
Her flop album sold 1 million and a half. I wanna flop like her. She's a pop star. She can have a successful era whenever she wants and tries. We have seen this millions of time before tho. Lots of artists with legacies behind flopped once or twice or thrice sometime. Madonna flopped. Beyonce flopped. Rihanna flopped. Michael flopped. Cher flopped. Britney flopped. Jennifer flopped. Christina flopped. So ****ing what? They're all respectable artists. One or two flop eras doesn't diminish one's impact. That's how the music industry works and how pop culture is and it's obvious tbh. Gaga shouldn't be an exception. Period. She can still stand up.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,371
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
That's not what I'm doing at all. I was clear that it wasn't ARTPOP exclusive.
I'm simply looking at is from a business perspective. If the company didn't turn a profit as a whole regardless of what ARTPOP made, I feel like the "profit" arguement shouldn't be valid.
Do you think the executives say to themselves "we're down this quarter but thank god lady gaga made x amount of $"
It's a business, they look at it as a whole. They don't see individual albums. UMG reported a loss. There was no profit at the end of the day.
|
Three things that's wrong with that:
1. It assigns flop to PRISM and Eminem's album among all other UMG albums which doesn't make sense.
2. Gaga's album made more than it cost to promote since they shipped 2.3M in 2013 alone
3. The didn't make a loss, far from it they had hundreds of millions in profit ($702 million for Q4 and >$6 billion more for the whole year in revenue using NY Post's article you linked)
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
I didn't use the word flopped.
I used the sentence "didn't turn a profit" I'm not the NY post.
Every UMG artist that released music in that period contributed to the company not turning a profit that quarter including lady gaga.
|
But we're arguing on whether ARTPOP is a success, and your argument is that because the parent company didn't turn a profit, the album wasn't a success. It's entirely valid for me to use the word "flop" because in music, a flop is an album or record that is not a success - ie. one that did not generate a profit. It's pretty basic that an individual product can turn a profit and a company can at the same time fail to do so - they are not the same entity and tying their successes in order to discredit the product does not hold any ground.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty
Three things that's wrong with that:
1. It assigns flop to PRISM and Eminem's album... which doesn't make sense.
2. Gaga's album made more than it cost to promote since they shipped 2.3M in 2013 alone
3. The didn't make a loss, far from it they had hundreds of millions in profit ($702 million for Q4 and >$6 billion more for the whole year using NY Post's article you linked)
|
1. Sure - As i said they all contributed.
2. Fine. But you really don't know what it cost to promote.
3. I should have rephrased that profits were down.
All of those artists contributed to UMG not meeting projected profits. It was probabaly wrong of me to call it a "loss" I feel like, the reports certainly indicate expectations were not met. I guess that's something you all know, though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/21/2011
Posts: 12,474
|
She is obviously still affected by it's floppage and it looks like she wants to convince herself it wasn't a flop. 
If my fave was flopping I would rather her to flop in peace, than to pull these embarrassing acts
Just accept it Gaga, and move on another era.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Wait, UMG actually made a profit?
Why am I even arguing anymore, then?
I'm out, peace y'all
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/2/2011
Posts: 28,055
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tittieslap
I just read a report on allaccess.com which summarizes the report and this is the first paragraph:
No mention of Lady Gaga or ARTPOP. I'm not gonna sit through some random ass music industry report when you're not even displaying strong enough evidence for your claim.
|
So you read one paragraph of a summary...and decide it's completely irrelevant and not to use it? What? 
Stay in school kids.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2012
Posts: 12,011
|
You can tell it really bugs her 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,567
|
Yess. Retro is back. Tell them the truth! Educate them!!!
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Retro
Wait, UMG actually made a profit?
Why am I even arguing anymore, then?
I'm out, peace y'all
|
According to Rusty.
I havn't read the 400 pages and have no interest in doing so, so I'm happy to trust what he says.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,371
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
1. Sure - As i said they all contributed.
2. Fine. But you really don't know what it cost to promote.
3. I should have rephrased that profits were down.
All of those artists contributed to UMG not meeting projected profits. It was probabaly wrong of me to call it a "loss" I feel like, the reports certainly indicate expectations were not met. I guess that's something you all know, though.
|
I agree expectations for ARTPOP were probably higher in terms of continuous sales weeks after it dropped, and Gaga completely left it at the end of the year for weeks which didn't help. But with over 2.5M shipped out ARTPOP made money (let's not act like promo costs were higher than an album that likely made well in excess of $30M in gross sales) and now her tour will more than cover GUY production costs and bankroll her for a new project with ease. Gaga is still a highly profitable act, despite being portrayed by many as ready for the retirement home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
