Latest on MJJC
- Latest Michael Jackson News
- Click Here to Join Our Community
- Follow us on X
- Wanna talk Michael? Come join the chat rooms
- The Michael Jackson Chart Watch
- Become an MJJC Patron
- Join the Premium Member Group and Get Lot's of Extra's
- Major Love Prayer - Worldwide Monthly Prayer Every 25th
- MJJC Exclusive Q&A - We talk to the family and those in and around Michael
- Join us in the Chat Rooms
- Find us on Facebook
Lady Gaga
- Thread starter billyworld99
- Start date
- Status
Moonwalker.Fan
Proud Member
Re: >>>Gaga's tour forced her into bankruptcy> 'Born This Way' Blasts Onto U.K. Chart
I dont think its unusual when some artists tours are so expensive (+taxes) that the expenses and costing are higher than the profit, as far as I know, MJs HIStory tour in Asia suffered losses, and the sponsors/promoters had to pay losses.
I dont think its unusual when some artists tours are so expensive (+taxes) that the expenses and costing are higher than the profit, as far as I know, MJs HIStory tour in Asia suffered losses, and the sponsors/promoters had to pay losses.
Moonwalker.Fan
Proud Member
Looking THIS wacky doesn't come cheap! Lady Gaga admits she went bankrupt after spending millions on tour costumes
Lady Gaga has admitted she was left bankrupt after spending millions on crazy outfits for her Monster's Ball tour.
The 25-year-old singer said she was left £1.82million in debt after the production, which ran for 18 months and 200 shows.
However, Gaga - famed for her unique fashion sense, including the now infamous meat dress she wore to last year's MTV Video Music Awards - revealed she had no idea about the extent of her financial problems.
She said: 'Other than that I put everything in the show, and I actually went bankrupt after the first extension of the Monster Ball. And it was funny because I didn't know!
'And I remember I called everybody and said, "Why is everyone saying I have no money? This is ridiculous, I have five No. 1 singles" -- and they said, "Well, you're $3m in debt." '
It was the rejigging at the beginning of the tour, which eventually brought in £138million, that cost the most money.
But Gaga said the reason she didn't know about the bankruptcy was because money isn't that important to her.
In an interview with Stephen Fry in the Financial Times, Gaga said: 'It's honestly true that money means nothing to me.
'The only big things I've purchased are my dad's heart valve and a Rolls-Royce for my parents, for their anniversary.
More here + duscussion of people - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...bankrupt-spending-millions-tour-costumes.html
Lady Gaga has admitted she was left bankrupt after spending millions on crazy outfits for her Monster's Ball tour.
The 25-year-old singer said she was left £1.82million in debt after the production, which ran for 18 months and 200 shows.
However, Gaga - famed for her unique fashion sense, including the now infamous meat dress she wore to last year's MTV Video Music Awards - revealed she had no idea about the extent of her financial problems.
She said: 'Other than that I put everything in the show, and I actually went bankrupt after the first extension of the Monster Ball. And it was funny because I didn't know!
'And I remember I called everybody and said, "Why is everyone saying I have no money? This is ridiculous, I have five No. 1 singles" -- and they said, "Well, you're $3m in debt." '
It was the rejigging at the beginning of the tour, which eventually brought in £138million, that cost the most money.
But Gaga said the reason she didn't know about the bankruptcy was because money isn't that important to her.
In an interview with Stephen Fry in the Financial Times, Gaga said: 'It's honestly true that money means nothing to me.
'The only big things I've purchased are my dad's heart valve and a Rolls-Royce for my parents, for their anniversary.
More here + duscussion of people - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...bankrupt-spending-millions-tour-costumes.html
LLCz
Proud Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,064
- Points
- 0
I was surprised when I heard this album. The ballads were great but the uptempo songs are all too similar. I was expecting the reverse. She is much better at recording songs like "Speechless" than songs like "Bad Romance". Her uptempos songs have started to sound more like noisy nonsense than a song. Songs like "Americano" and "Goverment Hooker" are barely songs. "Judas" could have been much better without the random noises and shouts. "Born This Way" is a big exception it is
excuted perfectly. "Shibe" is also a very good song but goes a bit overboard. The lower tempo songs are amazing. "You and I" has to be one of her best songs to date. "The Edge Of Glory" is also amazing but drags on a bit and gets repetitive. Hair is pretty ok, too. "Fashion Of His Love" is one the best songs I've heard this year. It should be on the normal version of the album and not just the special edition.
The songs that most most shine on this album are "You And I", "Fashion Of His Love", "The Edge Of Glory", and "Marry The Night".
This album would be better better with a shorter tracklist. Some of he uptempo songs ruin the album for me. I would prefer this tracklisting.
1. Hair
2. Born This Way
3. The Edge Of Glory
4. Shibe
5. Judas
6. Black Jesus ¥ Amen Fashion
7. Electric Chapel
8. The Queen
9. The Fashion Of His Love
10. You And I
I give it a 7.5/10
excuted perfectly. "Shibe" is also a very good song but goes a bit overboard. The lower tempo songs are amazing. "You and I" has to be one of her best songs to date. "The Edge Of Glory" is also amazing but drags on a bit and gets repetitive. Hair is pretty ok, too. "Fashion Of His Love" is one the best songs I've heard this year. It should be on the normal version of the album and not just the special edition.
The songs that most most shine on this album are "You And I", "Fashion Of His Love", "The Edge Of Glory", and "Marry The Night".
This album would be better better with a shorter tracklist. Some of he uptempo songs ruin the album for me. I would prefer this tracklisting.
1. Hair
2. Born This Way
3. The Edge Of Glory
4. Shibe
5. Judas
6. Black Jesus ¥ Amen Fashion
7. Electric Chapel
8. The Queen
9. The Fashion Of His Love
10. You And I
I give it a 7.5/10
I dug in to the bankruptcy story and it's somewhat true. It's just not as sensational as it's made out to be. Gaga said herself in an interview for the "Financial Times" that during the first leg of "The Monster Ball" tour that she was bankrupt as far as production costs and was unaware of it. But as I expected, this was early on and the tour went on to become very successful. Gaga doesn't have ANY money troubles.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/16b2d3b4-879f-11e0-af98-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1NaKDGVsJ
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/16b2d3b4-879f-11e0-af98-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1NaKDGVsJ
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Moonwalker.Fan;3397728 said:
So... Money is not important? Gaga does not care about the money? :doh: I'll pretend to believe it. :girl_whistle:
But this story is strange...
:fear:
Last edited:
Moonwalker.Fan
Proud Member
It's Official: Lady Gaga's 'Born This Way' Sells 1.11 Million
Lady Gaga's Born This Way Hits #1: What Next?
Bigger Than the Sound sizes Gaga's remarkable chart debut up against the year's other event album, Adele's 21.
As of Wednesday (June 1), Lady Gaga officially has the #1 album in the country, after selling 1,108,000 copies of Born This Way, according to Billboard.com. That's the biggest sales week since 50 Cent's The Massacre was released in 2005.
None of this should really surprise you, though. After all, no album in recent memory has been promoted to the degree that Born This Way has. You could hear it on FarmVille, in a Google Chrome commercial or through a special version of Tap Tap Revenge. You could buy it for 99 cents on Amazon.com, pick it up with a non-fat double latte at Starbucks (which also hosted an online Gaga-themed scavenger hunt) or get it at Best Buy with the purchase of a mobile phone and a two-year service contract.
That's to say nothing of the more than 20,000 "non-traditional" retailers that also stocked it ... noted musical hotspots like CVS Pharmacies, Whole Foods and Walgreens.
And in the weeks leading up to its release, you seemingly could not escape the woman behind Born This Way, either: Lady Gaga showed up on "Saturday Night Live," "The Oprah Winfrey Show," "Late Show With David Letterman," "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" and "American Idol" (twice). She guest-edited V magazine and the Metro newspaper. She appeared in a documentary that aired on MTV and greeted fans at a New York City Best Buy. No word on whether she also went door-to-door handing out samples of the album, but I wouldn't put it past her.
In short, there was no way you did not know of Born This Way's existence. As Newbury Comics' director of purchasing, Carl Mello, joked to me during the release-week hype, "If people aren't aware that Lady Gaga has an album coming out, then that's a problem for Interscope." So while BTW's big first week is certainly remarkable, it was by no means unforeseen. This was an album that, from the time Gaga first announced its title in September at the VMAs, was destined to debut at #1. It was inevitable. The real test begins in the weeks afterward, when we'll all see whether Gaga's got legs.
During my conversation with Mello, he noted that while Born This Way was the top seller at Newbury's 29 locations (by a long shot), holding strong at #2 was Adele's 21, an album that, in just 14 weeks, has sold nearly 2 million copies in the U.S. alone and snagged the #1 spot on the Billboard 200 nine times. You did not get 21 with the purchase of a Samsung Epic 4G or by rhythmically tapping on your iPhone, and it was not previewed on FarmVille. In fact, about the extent of its promotion has been one official single ("Rolling in the Deep"), a handful of TV appearances and a sold-out tour. And yet, the record has sold and continues to do so. It is, without a doubt, an album that has legs.
In fact, the success of 21 is all the more remarkable when you compare it to the all-out blitz that has surrounded (and, some argue, enveloped) Born This Way. Comparing the two seems almost implausible, if not impossible. But both are genuine phenomena, albeit in completely different ways: 21 is a slow-burning hit; its success is just about as unexpected as it is old-school. BTW is an event; a big blockbuster for which failure was not an option. Adele made the industry pay attention; Gaga had their ear since last year.
And while first-week numbers are all well and good, real success is measured eight to 10 weeks down the road; it's how we know whether an album resonates, whether the singles have stuck, whether the artist is in it for the long haul. Right now, I wouldn't bet on anyone catching either Adele or Gaga in the race for 2011's best-selling album, but the real question is: Can Born This Way overtake 21 for the title? Only time — and some hit singles — will tell. With the promo that led to BTW's release, Gaga has proven that she's willing to work, but now that the album has been foisted onto the world, the real work's just beginning: she's going to have to prove she's got legs too.
++++
Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" album debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart with 1,108,000 copies sold in its first week, according to Nielsen SoundScan. It's only the 17th album to sell a million in a week since SoundScan began tracking sales data in 1991, and the highest sales week since 2005.
"Born This Way" also marks Gaga's first No. 1 album -- "The Fame" debut peaked at No. 2, while "The Fame Monster" EP reached No. 5 and dance effort "The Remix" hit No. 6.
"Born This Way's" bow reaps the largest sales week of any album since 50 Cent's "The Massacre" did 1,141,000 in its first week, in March of 2005. The last time we had a million-plus frame was when Taylor Swift's "Speak Now" premiered at No. 1 with 1,047,000 in November of 2010. The SoundScan-era record week is held by NSYNC's "No Strings Attached," when it debuted at No. 1 with 2,416,000 in 2000.
Additionally, Gaga is only the fifth woman to notch a million-plus week. The record frame for a woman is held by the bow of Britney Spears' "Oops! I Did It Again," which started with 1,319,000 upon its release in May of 2000. "The Bodyguard" soundtrack, driven mostly by Whitney Houston songs, was the first SoundScan-era album to shift a million, and it did so over the busy Christmas shopping week of 1992 (1,061,000). Later, Norah Jonas' "Feels Like Home" debuted with 1,022,000 in 2004, and then the aforementioned Swift sizzled just last year.
While there wasn't any doubt as to whether Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" album would debut at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 -- that's been an assumption for months -- its first-week number was always in question. A month ago, executives at Gaga's record company, Universal Music Group, were expecting a first week total of around 400,000.
That number escalated to 650,000-700,000 by its release on Monday, May 23 -- the same day AmazonMP3 announced its controversial decision to sell the album for 99-cents for one day only. By last Wednesday (May 25), sources indicated that a million-unit week seemed quite plausible. Once Amazon opted to again sell the set for 99-cents on Thursday, May 26, "Born This Way's" million-unit week was all but guaranteed. It's estimated that AmazonMP3 sold upwards of 440,000 downloads of its 99-cent "Born This Way" album.
Gaga's total downloads haul from all digital retailers was 662,000 -- the biggest week for a digital album in SoundScan history. It represents 60% of the set's overall first week.
A full recap of the week's top 10 selling albums and digital songs will follow on Wednesday morning (June 1).
Lady Gaga's Born This Way Hits #1: What Next?
Bigger Than the Sound sizes Gaga's remarkable chart debut up against the year's other event album, Adele's 21.
As of Wednesday (June 1), Lady Gaga officially has the #1 album in the country, after selling 1,108,000 copies of Born This Way, according to Billboard.com. That's the biggest sales week since 50 Cent's The Massacre was released in 2005.
None of this should really surprise you, though. After all, no album in recent memory has been promoted to the degree that Born This Way has. You could hear it on FarmVille, in a Google Chrome commercial or through a special version of Tap Tap Revenge. You could buy it for 99 cents on Amazon.com, pick it up with a non-fat double latte at Starbucks (which also hosted an online Gaga-themed scavenger hunt) or get it at Best Buy with the purchase of a mobile phone and a two-year service contract.
That's to say nothing of the more than 20,000 "non-traditional" retailers that also stocked it ... noted musical hotspots like CVS Pharmacies, Whole Foods and Walgreens.
And in the weeks leading up to its release, you seemingly could not escape the woman behind Born This Way, either: Lady Gaga showed up on "Saturday Night Live," "The Oprah Winfrey Show," "Late Show With David Letterman," "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" and "American Idol" (twice). She guest-edited V magazine and the Metro newspaper. She appeared in a documentary that aired on MTV and greeted fans at a New York City Best Buy. No word on whether she also went door-to-door handing out samples of the album, but I wouldn't put it past her.
In short, there was no way you did not know of Born This Way's existence. As Newbury Comics' director of purchasing, Carl Mello, joked to me during the release-week hype, "If people aren't aware that Lady Gaga has an album coming out, then that's a problem for Interscope." So while BTW's big first week is certainly remarkable, it was by no means unforeseen. This was an album that, from the time Gaga first announced its title in September at the VMAs, was destined to debut at #1. It was inevitable. The real test begins in the weeks afterward, when we'll all see whether Gaga's got legs.
During my conversation with Mello, he noted that while Born This Way was the top seller at Newbury's 29 locations (by a long shot), holding strong at #2 was Adele's 21, an album that, in just 14 weeks, has sold nearly 2 million copies in the U.S. alone and snagged the #1 spot on the Billboard 200 nine times. You did not get 21 with the purchase of a Samsung Epic 4G or by rhythmically tapping on your iPhone, and it was not previewed on FarmVille. In fact, about the extent of its promotion has been one official single ("Rolling in the Deep"), a handful of TV appearances and a sold-out tour. And yet, the record has sold and continues to do so. It is, without a doubt, an album that has legs.
In fact, the success of 21 is all the more remarkable when you compare it to the all-out blitz that has surrounded (and, some argue, enveloped) Born This Way. Comparing the two seems almost implausible, if not impossible. But both are genuine phenomena, albeit in completely different ways: 21 is a slow-burning hit; its success is just about as unexpected as it is old-school. BTW is an event; a big blockbuster for which failure was not an option. Adele made the industry pay attention; Gaga had their ear since last year.
And while first-week numbers are all well and good, real success is measured eight to 10 weeks down the road; it's how we know whether an album resonates, whether the singles have stuck, whether the artist is in it for the long haul. Right now, I wouldn't bet on anyone catching either Adele or Gaga in the race for 2011's best-selling album, but the real question is: Can Born This Way overtake 21 for the title? Only time — and some hit singles — will tell. With the promo that led to BTW's release, Gaga has proven that she's willing to work, but now that the album has been foisted onto the world, the real work's just beginning: she's going to have to prove she's got legs too.
++++
Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" album debuts at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart with 1,108,000 copies sold in its first week, according to Nielsen SoundScan. It's only the 17th album to sell a million in a week since SoundScan began tracking sales data in 1991, and the highest sales week since 2005.
"Born This Way" also marks Gaga's first No. 1 album -- "The Fame" debut peaked at No. 2, while "The Fame Monster" EP reached No. 5 and dance effort "The Remix" hit No. 6.
"Born This Way's" bow reaps the largest sales week of any album since 50 Cent's "The Massacre" did 1,141,000 in its first week, in March of 2005. The last time we had a million-plus frame was when Taylor Swift's "Speak Now" premiered at No. 1 with 1,047,000 in November of 2010. The SoundScan-era record week is held by NSYNC's "No Strings Attached," when it debuted at No. 1 with 2,416,000 in 2000.
Additionally, Gaga is only the fifth woman to notch a million-plus week. The record frame for a woman is held by the bow of Britney Spears' "Oops! I Did It Again," which started with 1,319,000 upon its release in May of 2000. "The Bodyguard" soundtrack, driven mostly by Whitney Houston songs, was the first SoundScan-era album to shift a million, and it did so over the busy Christmas shopping week of 1992 (1,061,000). Later, Norah Jonas' "Feels Like Home" debuted with 1,022,000 in 2004, and then the aforementioned Swift sizzled just last year.
While there wasn't any doubt as to whether Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" album would debut at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 -- that's been an assumption for months -- its first-week number was always in question. A month ago, executives at Gaga's record company, Universal Music Group, were expecting a first week total of around 400,000.
That number escalated to 650,000-700,000 by its release on Monday, May 23 -- the same day AmazonMP3 announced its controversial decision to sell the album for 99-cents for one day only. By last Wednesday (May 25), sources indicated that a million-unit week seemed quite plausible. Once Amazon opted to again sell the set for 99-cents on Thursday, May 26, "Born This Way's" million-unit week was all but guaranteed. It's estimated that AmazonMP3 sold upwards of 440,000 downloads of its 99-cent "Born This Way" album.
Gaga's total downloads haul from all digital retailers was 662,000 -- the biggest week for a digital album in SoundScan history. It represents 60% of the set's overall first week.
A full recap of the week's top 10 selling albums and digital songs will follow on Wednesday morning (June 1).
Moonwalker.Fan
Proud Member
For $.99, it’s a deal, nah....
Moonwalker.Fan;3398569 said:
The album sold 800k, even without Amazon, so I don't understand why so many people are bitter about it. BTW still did remarkably better than many estimated. It's not like it was cheating, illegal, or wrong of Amazon to do it. Everyone won. So what? It was incredibly smart marketing. And congrats to Gaga for finally scoring a #1 album.
qbee
Proud Member
How Many Millions Did Amazon Lose on Two Days of 99 Cent Lady Gaga Sales?
May 27, 2011By Glenn Peoples (@billboardglenn), Nashville
Christmas came early for Lady Gaga fans this week, as Amazon sold downloads of the singer's brand-new LP, "Born This Way," for just 99 cents on Monday and Thursday of this week.
Industry sources told Billboard.biz on Friday that Amazon sold some 440,000 downloads of the album - nearly all of which were the 99-cent version (a more expensive deluxe version is also available).
So how much is Amazon losing? About $3.2 million over the two days the promotion ran, according to Billboard's estimate.
Here's the math: For every unit it sells at 99 cents, Amazon will lose about $7.40, according to Billboard's calculation. At $7.40 per unit and 430,000 units (10,000 shaved off total digital sales to account for some sales of the deluxe edition), the Gaga-related loss comes to $3.18 million.
The promotion was a boon for Gaga's first-week numbers, which are now projected to be approximately 1.15 million units, Billboard projects.
Amazon will lose money on each 99-cent sale because it is paying Interscope/Universal Music Group the standard rate for each unit sold. The similar title is selling for $11.99 at iTunes. The retailer typically keeps 30% of the sale price, meaning it owes the label and distributor the remaining 70% -- or $8.39.
But is a loss really a loss? The important aspect of this 99-cent promotion is the value of the increased traffic and awareness. It has new products to promote, Cloud Drive and Cloud Player. Google has soft-launched a competing cloud music storage service called Music Beta and Apple appears to be nearing a launch of its cloud music service. Considering all the media attention the promotion has received, it's not difficult to imagine Amazon getting back an equal value of consumer awareness of those new products.
There's other value in 99-cent MP3 albums. Amazon is an e-commerce giant with highly diversified products and a high average revenue per customer.
Amazon also needs to increase its MP3 market share and price is one tool in its toolkit. Even if incremental MP3 sales don't provide a financial windfall, the company has plenty of other products to sell customers who stop by for a cheap album.
The loss-leading promotion posed some questions in terms of how Billboard tabulates its weekly album-sales chart, but Billboard has decided not to revise its policies.
May 27, 2011By Glenn Peoples (@billboardglenn), Nashville
Christmas came early for Lady Gaga fans this week, as Amazon sold downloads of the singer's brand-new LP, "Born This Way," for just 99 cents on Monday and Thursday of this week.
Industry sources told Billboard.biz on Friday that Amazon sold some 440,000 downloads of the album - nearly all of which were the 99-cent version (a more expensive deluxe version is also available).
So how much is Amazon losing? About $3.2 million over the two days the promotion ran, according to Billboard's estimate.
Here's the math: For every unit it sells at 99 cents, Amazon will lose about $7.40, according to Billboard's calculation. At $7.40 per unit and 430,000 units (10,000 shaved off total digital sales to account for some sales of the deluxe edition), the Gaga-related loss comes to $3.18 million.
The promotion was a boon for Gaga's first-week numbers, which are now projected to be approximately 1.15 million units, Billboard projects.
Amazon will lose money on each 99-cent sale because it is paying Interscope/Universal Music Group the standard rate for each unit sold. The similar title is selling for $11.99 at iTunes. The retailer typically keeps 30% of the sale price, meaning it owes the label and distributor the remaining 70% -- or $8.39.
But is a loss really a loss? The important aspect of this 99-cent promotion is the value of the increased traffic and awareness. It has new products to promote, Cloud Drive and Cloud Player. Google has soft-launched a competing cloud music storage service called Music Beta and Apple appears to be nearing a launch of its cloud music service. Considering all the media attention the promotion has received, it's not difficult to imagine Amazon getting back an equal value of consumer awareness of those new products.
There's other value in 99-cent MP3 albums. Amazon is an e-commerce giant with highly diversified products and a high average revenue per customer.
Amazon also needs to increase its MP3 market share and price is one tool in its toolkit. Even if incremental MP3 sales don't provide a financial windfall, the company has plenty of other products to sell customers who stop by for a cheap album.
The loss-leading promotion posed some questions in terms of how Billboard tabulates its weekly album-sales chart, but Billboard has decided not to revise its policies.
qbee
Proud Member
Editor's Note: Why Billboard Isn't Revising Chart Policies for Lady Gaga's Amazon Deal
May 26, 2011
By Bill Werde (@bwerde), editorial director
Ice-T's rage is nothing compared to the fury of Britney Spears fans questioning Billboard's chart policies ...
Ah, remember the old days? Back when the Billboard 200 albums chart was as simple as adding up the receipts for thousands of different record stores? Well, to quote Ice-T's under-appreciated hardcore band Body Count, "Sh*t ain't like that." Take this week, for instance: I've gotten more than a few questions about Billboard's decision to count the Lady Gaga albums that Amazon.com is selling for $.99 in the tally for the Billboard 200 albums chart next week.
As I told the Associated Press earlier this week, Gaga's campaign represents a watershed moment in the marketing and release of a superstar album. There have never been so many potential marketing and distribution partners for an album release by an artist of Gaga's magnitude. She is choosing -- I would say wisely -- to embrace many of them. Her music is being marketed in-game through a relationship with Zynga. It's being given away en masse to fans buying mobile phones with two-year contracts at Best Buy. And of course Amazon is using the album as a loss-leader to drive awareness of its music and cloud-related services.
Every week it seems Billboard has new market realities to consider as they relate to our charting policies. In the hope of clearing up misinformation I've seen around the web -- Britney fans, I'm looking at you, or at least at the evil ones who keep cursing me on Twitter without asking questions -- I'll share a few guiding dynamics, as well as some specifics for this week.
Most importantly, I don't believe in changing or adding a rule in order to affect that week's charts. Now I know right away some of you -- again, Britney fans, we're communicating here -- will ask about what happened three-and-a-half years ago during the week of Britney's "Blackout" album release. In that case, Billboard had a standing policy against including releases that were only sold through one retailer in our chart. The Eagles released their "Long Road Out of Eden" album exclusively at Wal-Mart, a retailer that had not previously reported its exclusive titles to Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan. At the last minute, Wal-Mart, under pressure from the Eagles camp, reported sales figures, and it became clear that the Eagles had sold nearly twice as many copies of their album as had Britney. The powers-that-be (of which I was not one at the time) decided to make a policy switch because they felt the best decision was to allow for the most accurate chart. I'm not going to go back and second-guess that, but I will repeat: I don't believe in making a policy change that will affect the same week's charts.
Of course, that is not the same thing as saying I don't believe in making a policy change. We consider them and make them all the time, and this week may prompt us to do just that. But it won't be any simple decision.
Billboard looks for consumer intent when it comes to counting albums. So, for example, if an artist bundles an album in with the purchase of a concert ticket, we insist that there be a voucher for a physical album or a download code for a digital album, both redeemable by a third party. In the case of non-music items -- T-shirts, phones, vitamins -- that are bundled with CDs, there is a requirement that that non-music item be made available both with and without the CD, with the CD option costing reasonably more than the option without the CD. In these instances, the fan has not simply been spammed with music they may or may not want, but has made an active choice to acquire the music. This has been our stated policy. And this is why, for example, we will not count the albums that Best Buy has given away this week, as there was no clear indication that the people receiving the album actually want it, as opposed to simply wanting to buy a phone. As for that phrase "reasonably more," I'll be spending some time thinking about defining that more clearly.
We have never had a policy as it relates to pricing threshold of an album apart from a promotion. Therefore, I am predisposed against making a rule change to affect this week, even if I thought that ultimately we should have a pricing threshold. That said, I'm pretty far from certain it makes sense to consider pricing in such a way (although I encourage your comments below -- I will read them all closely and respond to new ideas). For starters, market dynamics are shifting so quickly. Who's to say that in three years or three months or even three weeks that the accepted value of an album won't be .99 cents? I realize that's an alarming (and unlikely, at least in weeks or months) thought for many of you, dear readers. But the decline in the perceived value of recorded music is not exactly a secret in 2011.
Further, just looking at current market conditions, should an album that sells for $9.99 count twice as much as an album that sells for $4.99? How about on iTunes: Should a $1.29 track count twice as much as a $.69 track?
I'm inclined to say no. As I said, my mind isn't made up about this as it relates to considering this policy in future weeks. I'm certain I'll have many conversations with Silvio Pietroluongo, our Director of Charts, about this topic. But I generally regard Billboard's role as being a market archivist and not a market activist. If we set an arbitrary pricing threshold, we are affecting business and not simply reporting it.
Now, I keep hearing from a small handful of folks that if Billboard doesn't make a policy change, other labels will convince retailers to sell big-release albums for $.99 as well. To that I say: Good luck. As we reported today, Amazon.com has spent literally millions of dollars buying the Gaga album from the Universal Music Group and Interscope at the standard wholesale cost of $8.40, and then selling it to fans for $.99. I can't think of another time a retailer took a loss like this, and I wouldn't expect it to become any sort of a norm. But if a label can convince a retailer to do that, more power to them. From a pure market perspective, it's a win for everyone: The label and publishers get paid in full, the artist gets his or her full royalty, the retailer presumably gets the marketing boost they wanted, and -- most importantly -- the fan gets the deal of a lifetime.
I know some of you, especially those in retail, will bristle. But I just don't believe it's Billboard's role to place arbitrary speed bumps in the way of music's falling price. Do I personally believe a fan should want to pay more than $.99 or even $9.99 for an album from a favorite artist? Yes, absolutely. But that's a challenge that is presented to you by the market, and not by our charts.
Keep in mind, for an artist like Gaga, album sales ultimately represent a small slice of her revenue pie. What's most important to Gaga is that fans are familiar with and excited by her new material. That way she can make money leveraging those fans, be it through a partnership with a brand that wants to reach said fans, or concert ticket sales. It isn't inconceivable to think of a day soon when Gaga and other superstar acts will use radio and social networks and giveaways to create massive international hits -- not defined by sales, but by the number of fans that are familiar with and excited by the music.
Here at Billlboard, we welcome the challenges, and enjoy thinking through these policies and this crazy business we all have the bug for. Billboard has long innovated its policies and its charts, and we're doing it more now than ever. In the past months, we've added new data streams to be included in our signature Hot 100 singles chart; launched the Uncharted ranking to track the top artists who haven't previously cracked a major Billboard chart; and launched the Social 50 to track artist trends on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere in the social web. That's just to name a few.
I expect in the next year or so our charts may be radically different than they are today. Perhaps the Billboard 200 albums chart will include streaming music and other abstractions from the cloud. Perhaps it will include a suite of apps, or a hologram beamed into your consciousness or a pill that makes the album play in your esophagus for a week. Whatever the case, Billboard remains, as ever, wholly and enthusiastically committed to being the book of record when it comes to fan activity in and around music.
Bill Werde is Billboard's editorial director. He knows that most Britney fans have only goodness and love in their hearts.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/bwerde
Tumblr: http://billwerde.tumblr.com/
May 26, 2011
By Bill Werde (@bwerde), editorial director
Ice-T's rage is nothing compared to the fury of Britney Spears fans questioning Billboard's chart policies ...
Ah, remember the old days? Back when the Billboard 200 albums chart was as simple as adding up the receipts for thousands of different record stores? Well, to quote Ice-T's under-appreciated hardcore band Body Count, "Sh*t ain't like that." Take this week, for instance: I've gotten more than a few questions about Billboard's decision to count the Lady Gaga albums that Amazon.com is selling for $.99 in the tally for the Billboard 200 albums chart next week.
As I told the Associated Press earlier this week, Gaga's campaign represents a watershed moment in the marketing and release of a superstar album. There have never been so many potential marketing and distribution partners for an album release by an artist of Gaga's magnitude. She is choosing -- I would say wisely -- to embrace many of them. Her music is being marketed in-game through a relationship with Zynga. It's being given away en masse to fans buying mobile phones with two-year contracts at Best Buy. And of course Amazon is using the album as a loss-leader to drive awareness of its music and cloud-related services.
Every week it seems Billboard has new market realities to consider as they relate to our charting policies. In the hope of clearing up misinformation I've seen around the web -- Britney fans, I'm looking at you, or at least at the evil ones who keep cursing me on Twitter without asking questions -- I'll share a few guiding dynamics, as well as some specifics for this week.
Most importantly, I don't believe in changing or adding a rule in order to affect that week's charts. Now I know right away some of you -- again, Britney fans, we're communicating here -- will ask about what happened three-and-a-half years ago during the week of Britney's "Blackout" album release. In that case, Billboard had a standing policy against including releases that were only sold through one retailer in our chart. The Eagles released their "Long Road Out of Eden" album exclusively at Wal-Mart, a retailer that had not previously reported its exclusive titles to Billboard and Nielsen SoundScan. At the last minute, Wal-Mart, under pressure from the Eagles camp, reported sales figures, and it became clear that the Eagles had sold nearly twice as many copies of their album as had Britney. The powers-that-be (of which I was not one at the time) decided to make a policy switch because they felt the best decision was to allow for the most accurate chart. I'm not going to go back and second-guess that, but I will repeat: I don't believe in making a policy change that will affect the same week's charts.
Of course, that is not the same thing as saying I don't believe in making a policy change. We consider them and make them all the time, and this week may prompt us to do just that. But it won't be any simple decision.
Billboard looks for consumer intent when it comes to counting albums. So, for example, if an artist bundles an album in with the purchase of a concert ticket, we insist that there be a voucher for a physical album or a download code for a digital album, both redeemable by a third party. In the case of non-music items -- T-shirts, phones, vitamins -- that are bundled with CDs, there is a requirement that that non-music item be made available both with and without the CD, with the CD option costing reasonably more than the option without the CD. In these instances, the fan has not simply been spammed with music they may or may not want, but has made an active choice to acquire the music. This has been our stated policy. And this is why, for example, we will not count the albums that Best Buy has given away this week, as there was no clear indication that the people receiving the album actually want it, as opposed to simply wanting to buy a phone. As for that phrase "reasonably more," I'll be spending some time thinking about defining that more clearly.
We have never had a policy as it relates to pricing threshold of an album apart from a promotion. Therefore, I am predisposed against making a rule change to affect this week, even if I thought that ultimately we should have a pricing threshold. That said, I'm pretty far from certain it makes sense to consider pricing in such a way (although I encourage your comments below -- I will read them all closely and respond to new ideas). For starters, market dynamics are shifting so quickly. Who's to say that in three years or three months or even three weeks that the accepted value of an album won't be .99 cents? I realize that's an alarming (and unlikely, at least in weeks or months) thought for many of you, dear readers. But the decline in the perceived value of recorded music is not exactly a secret in 2011.
Further, just looking at current market conditions, should an album that sells for $9.99 count twice as much as an album that sells for $4.99? How about on iTunes: Should a $1.29 track count twice as much as a $.69 track?
I'm inclined to say no. As I said, my mind isn't made up about this as it relates to considering this policy in future weeks. I'm certain I'll have many conversations with Silvio Pietroluongo, our Director of Charts, about this topic. But I generally regard Billboard's role as being a market archivist and not a market activist. If we set an arbitrary pricing threshold, we are affecting business and not simply reporting it.
Now, I keep hearing from a small handful of folks that if Billboard doesn't make a policy change, other labels will convince retailers to sell big-release albums for $.99 as well. To that I say: Good luck. As we reported today, Amazon.com has spent literally millions of dollars buying the Gaga album from the Universal Music Group and Interscope at the standard wholesale cost of $8.40, and then selling it to fans for $.99. I can't think of another time a retailer took a loss like this, and I wouldn't expect it to become any sort of a norm. But if a label can convince a retailer to do that, more power to them. From a pure market perspective, it's a win for everyone: The label and publishers get paid in full, the artist gets his or her full royalty, the retailer presumably gets the marketing boost they wanted, and -- most importantly -- the fan gets the deal of a lifetime.
I know some of you, especially those in retail, will bristle. But I just don't believe it's Billboard's role to place arbitrary speed bumps in the way of music's falling price. Do I personally believe a fan should want to pay more than $.99 or even $9.99 for an album from a favorite artist? Yes, absolutely. But that's a challenge that is presented to you by the market, and not by our charts.
Keep in mind, for an artist like Gaga, album sales ultimately represent a small slice of her revenue pie. What's most important to Gaga is that fans are familiar with and excited by her new material. That way she can make money leveraging those fans, be it through a partnership with a brand that wants to reach said fans, or concert ticket sales. It isn't inconceivable to think of a day soon when Gaga and other superstar acts will use radio and social networks and giveaways to create massive international hits -- not defined by sales, but by the number of fans that are familiar with and excited by the music.
Here at Billlboard, we welcome the challenges, and enjoy thinking through these policies and this crazy business we all have the bug for. Billboard has long innovated its policies and its charts, and we're doing it more now than ever. In the past months, we've added new data streams to be included in our signature Hot 100 singles chart; launched the Uncharted ranking to track the top artists who haven't previously cracked a major Billboard chart; and launched the Social 50 to track artist trends on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere in the social web. That's just to name a few.
I expect in the next year or so our charts may be radically different than they are today. Perhaps the Billboard 200 albums chart will include streaming music and other abstractions from the cloud. Perhaps it will include a suite of apps, or a hologram beamed into your consciousness or a pill that makes the album play in your esophagus for a week. Whatever the case, Billboard remains, as ever, wholly and enthusiastically committed to being the book of record when it comes to fan activity in and around music.
Bill Werde is Billboard's editorial director. He knows that most Britney fans have only goodness and love in their hearts.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/bwerde
Tumblr: http://billwerde.tumblr.com/
Ashtanga
Proud Member
:lol:
kissybissy
Proud Member
Gaga with Elton John's son. I could barely recognize her without her heavy make-up.
Ashtanga
Proud Member
Gaga with Elton John's son. I could barely recognize her without her heavy make-up.
Oops! Now yes she is dressed! :fear: Elton John's son is beautiful! :heart:
Closing this thread as we are now creating fan threads for artist.
This thread got a little messy with merges so thought it would be better to start a fresh
Please if you would like anything you have posted in here in the other thread copy the posts and place it in the new thread which will be created shortly. Please do asap as in time this thread will be deleted as part of a clean up.
This thread got a little messy with merges so thought it would be better to start a fresh
Please if you would like anything you have posted in here in the other thread copy the posts and place it in the new thread which will be created shortly. Please do asap as in time this thread will be deleted as part of a clean up.
- Status