You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Could the tide be turning
Poor marketing is probably to blame for the declining free streams on the website too, right? If they just would have promoted song #12 just a little better, people would have listened all the way through...
You could put that down to a million things.
For example - attention span - not everyone listens to ANY full album these days in our ipod singles culture...or maybe people stream stuff while doing other things on their computer and because CD is a long album they finished up and went out prior to the end.
I'd guess that almost anything that's streamed the first few tracks will be the streams with the highest numbers...along with songs with names that might spark an interest...I mean hey...the whole point of streaming is for people to have a casusal peak at what the product is....
To infer the album sucks because less people played some tracks than others is going a bit far.
You could also say the last tracks didn't stream well because after hearing the first few people had already decided to buy the album and went and bought it...and that's why it was certified platinum in places where it was actually freely availiable in normal stores (unlike the usa).
I don't think that's really what happened, to be honest, I think it's the nature of streaming anything, you listen for a bit, you move on, some people who stream are really into it, other stumbled across it.
You like to say everyone positive is crazy, and some of us are, but manipulating streaming results to say an album isn't sucessful when it's platinum in europe and stuff...it's not real balanced either.
Re: Could the tide be turning
buzzsaw wrote:buzzsaw wrote:Poor marketing is probably to blame for the declining free streams on the website too, right? If they just would have promoted song #12 just a little better, people would have listened all the way through...
Still waiting for someone to address this part...
I didn't address it because I didn't think you were serious. You honestly think myspace streams are what killed album sales?
Not at all. It confirms the existance of something that some people seem to deny exists.
There are people that don't think the music was very good. Admitting that is a good step. I'd say it's safe to assume that many people bought the album without streaming it first, correct?
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Could the tide be turning
Not sure what you're getting at really.
Play anyone anything and some people are going to love it and others going to hate it, and a bunch of people are probably moderate to it. I'd say that's true of any artist.
Sure, some people will have streamed it and not liked it. Some people will have streamed it and then purchased it. Some people will have intentionally streamed it, some just come across it.
It hardly justifies your position that a second album is not financable by a record company.
Personally I see the streaming results as indicative of not much at all....but if we insist on giving them a value.. I would think these "negative streamers" you seem to have identified actually help the case for album 2 being sucessful - because if a bunch of people listened to the album and didn't like it - then that could be used to infer that the majority of sales of album 1 were then not chance or curiosity sales - as the curiosity people had already been weeded out by the stream - leaving the people who purchased it as mostly people who liked it.
Re: Could the tide be turning
buzzsaw wrote:Poor marketing is probably to blame for the declining free streams on the website too, right? If they just would have promoted song #12 just a little better, people would have listened all the way through...
You could put that down to a million things.
For example - attention span - not everyone listens to ANY full album these days in our ipod singles culture...or maybe people stream stuff while doing other things on their computer and because CD is a long album they finished up and went out prior to the end.
I'd guess that almost anything that's streamed the first few tracks will be the streams with the highest numbers...along with songs with names that might spark an interest...I mean hey...the whole point of streaming is for people to have a casusal peak at what the product is....
To infer the album sucks because less people played some tracks than others is going a bit far.
You could also say the last tracks didn't stream well because after hearing the first few people had already decided to buy the album and went and bought it...and that's why it was certified platinum in places where it was actually freely availiable in normal stores (unlike the usa).
I don't think that's really what happened, to be honest, I think it's the nature of streaming anything, you listen for a bit, you move on, some people who stream are really into it, other stumbled across it.
You like to say everyone positive is crazy, and some of us are, but manipulating streaming results to say an album isn't sucessful when it's platinum in europe and stuff...it's not real balanced either.
Wait for it...it's going to be wrapped in a little bow here shortly unless people figure out what I'm doing and stop answering.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Could the tide be turning
hahah...
I'm fully prepared to admit some people who bought CD didn't like it, and some people who streamed it didn't like it. Even at HTGTH I doubt anyone would claim that the album has only ever been loved by any mortal that listened to it..
Doesn't change my position that given album2 is basicly already recorded, with it's costs already recouped by the label, that the label would make a profit on releasing - as it would only pay for mastering and promotion.
I think someone said the last album sold 4 million coppies....even if 3 out of every 4 people were horrified and never bought a GNR product again - that would leave 1 Million coppies sold - which would STILL rank the product as more sucessful than other sucessful modern albums - such as Alice in Chains Black Gives Way to Blue - that sold around 1/2 a million - not only that but it would do that - WITHOUT the recording costs those albums have.....and thus would be insanely profitiable for the label.
Hey - love or hate the new band - bottom line is that releasing a CD from a band with a brandname value of GNR in an enviroment where the recording costs have already been 90% covered is going to be profitable.
Mastering the album would cost them like $100k max. It's hard to see how it could not recoup....
Re: Could the tide be turning
Never. I get that people like it. I'm not sure why they do and I've always admitted that, but I do get that people like it.
Ok, so back to the next step:
So...if people streamed it and didn't like it, and people bought it and didn't like it, it's reasonable to expect that sales would be lower for a subsequent album, correct?
And if that's true, it's safe to say that less people are going to buy a new album - even if the reviews are amazing because as has been admitted, reviews for CD were quite positive. Correct?
Re: Could the tide be turning
So...if people streamed it and didn't like it, and people bought it and didn't like it, it's reasonable to expect that sales would be lower for a subsequent album, correct?
Not really.
The quality of Album #2 doesn't depend on CD. The main selling point is the name Guns N Roses.
What if Album #2 is streamed and people who disliked CD would like it? Wouldn't it be a safe bet to expect the sales to increase to reflect that?
