achievement Adele's 21 - first female album to spend 10 Years on BB 200

[Jay L]

A classic  

[Buffy]

22 minutes ago, R.E.M. said:

It feels unlikely because the records will be split between the old and new recordings

 I forgot about that. I think 1989 has the best chance though right…?

[Hot Volcano]

album of the century

[Immaculate]

[R.E.M.]

14 minutes ago, Buffy said:

 I forgot about that. I think 1989 has the best chance though right…?

1989 is at 365 weeks (~ 7 years) so technically yes, but she would have to hold out 1989TV for another 3 years 

[Paiuk]

album of the century

[DuffLavigne]

1 hour ago, Buffy said:

 I forgot about that. I think 1989 has the best chance though right…?

 

1 hour ago, R.E.M. said:

1989 is at 365 weeks (~ 7 years) so technically yes, but she would have to hold out 1989TV for another 3 years 

Lana's Born to Die crossed 400 weeks back in July

[OrgVisual]

The biggest female artist of the century

[Ichinaru19]

Legend  

[naval23]

It really is the biggest female album of all time if you take into account the sales climate - 30M+ in 2011 release is insane and the longevity is unprecedented 

 

Truly saved the music industry

 

[supertiffany]

47 minutes ago, naval23 said:

It really is the biggest female album of all time if you take into account the sales climate - 30M+ in 2011 release is insane and the longevity is unprecedented 

 

Truly saved the music industry

 

yeah if you adjust sales climate, it would have been 50M sales 

the fact more than 30 million people bought in in the late 2010's is just astonishing and mind-boggling

[ReH2o]

wow insane 

[Agenor]

1 hour ago, supertiffany said:

yeah if you adjust sales climate, it would have been 50M sales 

the fact more than 30 million people bought in in the late 2010's is just astonishing and mind-boggling

Funny thing about adjusting pure sales to different sales climate... let me do some math.

I'll be using pure sales data from RIAA site:

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

 

The revenue from music consumption in the US hit all time high in 2000, with $13.93B coming from pure sales.

In 2011 revenue from pure sales were $4.27B, and in 2015 it was $2.84B.

Extrapolating pure sales of 21 and 25 from the years they were released to the year 2000 (taking into account pure sales revenue from 2000, 2011 and 2015) the results are:

- 21 - 12.25M x 3.26 = 39.94M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

- 25 -  9.70M x 4.90 = 47.53M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

 

25 would sell 7.5M more pure albums in 2000 than 21. 

25 would also sell 14.6M copies in 2011.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Agenor

[Ms. Togekiss]

19 minutes ago, Agenor said:

Funny thing about adjusting pure sales to different sales climate... let me do some math.

I'll be using pure sales data from RIAA site:

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

 

The revenue from music consumption in the US hit all time high in 2000, with $13.93B coming from pure sales.

In 2011 revenue from pure sales were $4.27B, and in 2015 it was $2.84B.

Extrapolating pure sales of 21 and 25 from the years they were released to the year 2000 (taking into account pure sales revenue from 2000, 2011 and 2015) the results are:

- 21 - 12.25M x 3.26 = 39.94M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

- 25 -  9.70M x 4.90 = 47.53M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

 

25 would sell 7.5M more pure albums in 2000 than 21. 

25 would also sell 14.6M copies in 2011.

25 bigger than 21 confirmed 

[blackbeatxx]

5 hours ago, Agenor said:

Funny thing about adjusting pure sales to different sales climate... let me do some math.

I'll be using pure sales data from RIAA site:

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

 

The revenue from music consumption in the US hit all time high in 2000, with $13.93B coming from pure sales.

In 2011 revenue from pure sales were $4.27B, and in 2015 it was $2.84B.

Extrapolating pure sales of 21 and 25 from the years they were released to the year 2000 (taking into account pure sales revenue from 2000, 2011 and 2015) the results are:

- 21 - 12.25M x 3.26 = 39.94M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

- 25 -  9.70M x 4.90 = 47.53M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

 

25 would sell 7.5M more pure albums in 2000 than 21. 

25 would also sell 14.6M copies in 2011.

can people drop the talk about come on over or hagged little pill being bigger now please.

the fact 25 in comparison even has more sales while adjusted is even more crazy, wtf 

[PopFan1996]

7 hours ago, Agenor said:

Funny thing about adjusting pure sales to different sales climate... let me do some math.

I'll be using pure sales data from RIAA site:

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

 

The revenue from music consumption in the US hit all time high in 2000, with $13.93B coming from pure sales.

In 2011 revenue from pure sales were $4.27B, and in 2015 it was $2.84B.

Extrapolating pure sales of 21 and 25 from the years they were released to the year 2000 (taking into account pure sales revenue from 2000, 2011 and 2015) the results are:

- 21 - 12.25M x 3.26 = 39.94M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

- 25 -  9.70M x 4.90 = 47.53M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

 

25 would sell 7.5M more pure albums in 2000 than 21. 

25 would also sell 14.6M copies in 2011.

In 2021 the revenue from pure sales was under $1B  https://haulixdaily.com/2021/09/music-revenue-2021?amp

[simmnfierzig]

13 hours ago, DuffLavigne said:

 

Lana's Born to Die crossed 400 weeks back in July

Yeah but it hasnt charted for around 100 weeks since release. 1989 hasnt charted for 7 weeks and without Taylors version would have most likely caught up

[getinthezone]

8 hours ago, Agenor said:

Funny thing about adjusting pure sales to different sales climate... let me do some math.

I'll be using pure sales data from RIAA site:

https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/

 

The revenue from music consumption in the US hit all time high in 2000, with $13.93B coming from pure sales.

In 2011 revenue from pure sales were $4.27B, and in 2015 it was $2.84B.

Extrapolating pure sales of 21 and 25 from the years they were released to the year 2000 (taking into account pure sales revenue from 2000, 2011 and 2015) the results are:

- 21 - 12.25M x 3.26 = 39.94M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

- 25 -  9.70M x 4.90 = 47.53M pure album sales in 2000 in the US

 

25 would sell 7.5M more pure albums in 2000 than 21. 

25 would also sell 14.6M copies in 2011.

idk why yall think it works this way

[blackbeatxx]

1 hour ago, getinthezone said:

idk why yall think it works this way

Well no thinks 25 would sell 45 million copies in US 2000. But it gives a hint, adjusting for market change is definitely relevant altho far from the full truth

[Carrie-is-no-1]

2 hours ago, getinthezone said:

idk why yall think it works this way

it's just gauging, but sales will tapper off at the saturation point some where at the top.

[Agenor]

2 hours ago, getinthezone said:

idk why yall think it works this way

I'm not saying it's the way it works, it just shows the possibilities of what the albums could've sold in the 3-5 times bigger market.

[brianc33710]

Technically, 21 needs 2 more weeks for 10 years, so 522 weeks. With 1-2 days left over each year after 52 weeks the time accumulates to about 2 weeks after 10 years. 

[1989]

21 is such a great album, deserved 

 

Taylor should be next 

[supertiffany]

21 hours ago, Agenor said:

I'm not saying it's the way it works, it just shows the possibilities of what the albums could've sold in the 3-5 times bigger market.

Lol at those peeps. The way people dont understand how statistics work. The stupidity. 

[Steve Johnson]

10 hours ago, 1989 said:

21 is such a great album, deserved 

 

Taylor should be next 

1989 is not happening luv. 1989 TV will ruin OG chart run.