You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Lady GaGa Thread
This is such a fuckin' cheat, jmo.
It's one thing with CD. It's been dead since December 2008, and they are simply trying to move product off the SHELVES (not for some Soundscan shit). And even still, CD's numbers were shit. It couldn't even go back to the Top-25 ROCK albums.
GaGa's people are intentionally fucking up numbers to put her over more than she actually is.
2011 or not, it's a fucking cheat. This is no different than kicking your opponent in the nuts when the ref ain't lookin in a wrestling ring, than pinning him 1, 2, 3 and turning around and becoming World Champion.
Sure, GaGa's got the belt, but she turned fucking heel to do it.
Just the way I feel about it.
Re: Lady GaGa Thread
I seem to remember Bon Jovi doing something similar with their last record, selling it for $4 or so over its debut weekend on Amazon. Obviously it didn't help them quite as much. So it's not completely unprecedented. I think Lady Gaga could've sold quite close to the number she did, even without the price reduction. But I agree, it doesn't look as good, that they handled it that way.
Re: Lady GaGa Thread
It's not a problem per se, but if you want to compare it to other albums or say it's the highest selling debut album in X amount of years. I just don't think it's a fair comparison. You can't say if Taylor Swift would or wouldn't have sold more copies if all those rabid country fans only had to pay $1 for it.
I'm all for CD's being as cheap as can be, but they're not really on the same playing field.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Lady GaGa Thread
I still don't understand the problem. This is a new product that a lot of people wanted and a ton of people got it for dirt ass cheap. I honest to God can't see a problem with that.
It's not a problem for customers, it's a problem for compeditors in the industry.
The whole point of the charts is there's a certain marketing prestiege in being able to claim your record went #1 in it's first weekend and so on.
It's basic economics that there is a relationship between price and demand, and it becomes unfair to rank success by most sold unless the price is equal.
Consider who designs the best cars? Porsche or Mitsubishi? There's no point Mitsubishi claiming it had #1 in the sales ranks if it sells it's cars for $40k and Porsche sell for $200k. Let's see how they would compare if both cars were $200k or if both cars were $40k...then you have a comparision worth creating a consumer approval chart.
That is, the low price means that the chart shows that consumers responded to low price, which isn't surprising, not that they responded to that music any more than another item on the chart. And surely the idea of the charts is to show what sells well because consumers like it, not because of an ecomnomicly driven force.
For you and me buying an album for $1 is awesome, but unless every album on the chart is also $1, it makes the chart pretty meaningless.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Lady GaGa Thread
That's probably a good point. I mean lady gaga was always going to sell a bucket really. Makes you wonder what the point is from lost revenue perspective too - like I wonder if it attracted any new fans or if people are just paying less for somethng they would have paid more for.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: Lady GaGa Thread
Good music is good music. Has nothing to do with "falling" for anything.
I'm not impressed with her new stuff. Compare crap like "Born This Way," "Judas," and "Edge of Glory" with the likes of "Just Dance," "Poker Face," and "Bad Romance." It's not even fucking close. The latter three are miles better.
