Gorjesspazze9 Posted February 29 Posted February 29 People didn’t bulkbuy back then, and they weren’t frontloaded 1 1
Taylena Posted February 29 Posted February 29 That's bad for them when even aespa can sell 1M in a week. 2 2
aesthetic bih Posted February 29 Posted February 29 I guess fans weren't so obsessed with buying albums back then compared to now. I mean crazed fans still buy em, but probably never in bulk.
suburbannature Posted February 29 Posted February 29 Because sales then weren’t propelled by stans mass buying but by longevity 3
dirrtydiana Posted February 29 Posted February 29 1)the fact that you omitted Britney from the op 2)they most certainly did and also after week one 3)there’s a world outside the hot 100 and bb200
stevyy Posted February 29 Posted February 29 26 minutes ago, JISOO said: Mariah sold 1 million copies of #1's in it's first week in Japan and in 1998 so, the real question is, why can't Taylor Taylor debut with 1m physical sales in a country outside the US? 1 1 1
Outside789 Posted February 29 Posted February 29 In the end, they didn't need to. They still became legends and 3 of the biggest music figures in history. 1
stevyy Posted February 29 Posted February 29 1 minute ago, suburbannature said: Because sales then weren’t propelled by stans mass buying but by longevity also, global population: USA 1950 = 151 million 1960 = 179 million 1970 = 203 million 1980 = 226 million 1990 = 248 million 2000 = 281 million 2010 = 308 million 2020 = 331 million (Western) Europe: 1950 = 305 million 1973 = 358 million 1998 = 388 million 2020 = 419 million Europe: 1950 = 550 million 1960 = 605 million 1970 = 656 million 1980 = 693 million 1990 = 721 million 2000 = 726 million 2010 = 736 million 2020 = 746 million 1
stevyy Posted February 29 Posted February 29 Just now, Outside789 said: In the end, they didn't need to. They still became legends and 3 of the biggest music figures in history. Imagine releasing 9 albums in 10 years with the lowest seller selling 3,5 million in the US. 1
Raptus Posted February 29 Posted February 29 (edited) Madonna was too busy with becoming the biggest and best selling female artist in history. Edited February 29 by Raptus 7
suburbannature Posted February 29 Posted February 29 1 minute ago, stevyy said: also, global population: USA 1950 = 151 million 1960 = 179 million 1970 = 203 million 1980 = 226 million 1990 = 248 million 2000 = 281 million 2010 = 308 million 2020 = 331 million (Western) Europe: 1950 = 305 million 1973 = 358 million 1998 = 388 million 2020 = 419 million Europe: 1950 = 550 million 1960 = 605 million 1970 = 656 million 1980 = 693 million 1990 = 721 million 2000 = 726 million 2010 = 736 million 2020 = 746 million And these were actual physical sales without a streaming formula that takes into account each subsequent listen or that gives points for singles released ahead of the album 2
constantinople Posted February 29 Posted February 29 It was more common in Japan. In the rest of the world, promotion was different. You can't compare 30, 40 years ago with 2024. 1
ugo Posted February 29 Posted February 29 The Beatles did Madonna was not that big Elvis was never that good at marketing Idc about mj he's just creepy 5
wigglytuffer Posted February 29 Posted February 29 Definitely something to do with the logistics of it. Consuming music now is so instant; you can stream and download in a heartbeat but buying physicals requires so much work A lot of record stores were independent (I think) and would need to pre-empt demand and order the right amount of that. Labels and distribution partners will then need to spend hours upon hours going through data (often by hand and not computerised) of best-selling locations, authorizing supply of the amount of stock, send that over, assure it gets there correctly, and hope that they track every sale to report back. it's almost logistically impossible in a time pre-computers. Shania Twain - Come On Over is a great example. 40 million copies sold, best selling by a female ever, but never hit number one in the US as they didn't have enough supply to meet demand in certain weeks. As it spiralled into something so massive, they had to continuously manufacture the album and send it on express shipments round the states which accounts for it having like 20+ six-figure selling weeks or something 2
ugo Posted February 29 Posted February 29 19 minutes ago, wigglytuffer said: Definitely something to do with the logistics of it. Consuming music now is so instant; you can stream and download in a heartbeat but buying physicals requires so much work A lot of record stores were independent (I think) and would need to pre-empt demand and order the right amount of that. Labels and distribution partners will then need to spend hours upon hours going through data (often by hand and not computerised) of best-selling locations, authorizing supply of the amount of stock, send that over, assure it gets there correctly, and hope that they track every sale to report back. it's almost logistically impossible in a time pre-computers. Shania Twain - Come On Over is a great example. 40 million copies sold, best selling by a female ever, but never hit number one in the US as they didn't have enough supply to meet demand in certain weeks. As it spiralled into something so massive, they had to continuously manufacture the album and send it on express shipments round the states which accounts for it having like 20+ six-figure selling weeks or something Not really it was just normal back then so it wasn't a struggle and record could be sent earlier because it wouldn't leak on the internet. People also sold less or more depending on how their label could ship album copies. So it's not impressive for big artists like MJ to sell that much because his label could afford to have every shops out there sell his records... 1
favorite crime Posted February 29 Posted February 29 Multiple did, it is just impossible to find accurate figures cuz Nielsen didn't start tracking until 1991 1
Vitaly Posted February 29 Posted February 29 (edited) Albums were expensive, people bought singles more back in the day. I still remember the time where releasing 2-3 different types of physical singles than album back in the day. Edited February 29 by Vitaly
Magdalene Posted February 29 Posted February 29 they could barely debut at #1 back then flops all of them
Blackout2006 Posted February 29 Posted February 29 (edited) 55 minutes ago, ugo said: Madonna was not that big Genuine question, what is it with you and awful takes? OT: People didn't come to know of the existence of albums back then immediately, and the fascination with first-week numbers wasn't a thing until Nielscan started tracking them, and even then, it only became a big deal in the early 2000s when many acts like Britney, NSYNC*, Eminem, and BSB were simultaneously shifting over a million copies in their debut weeks. Longevity was how the game functioned, and we can see how well it has worked for them, especially since all these artists you mentioned are in the top ten best-selling acts of all time Edited February 29 by Blackout2006 1
Blackout2006 Posted February 29 Posted February 29 18 minutes ago, ugo said: So it's not impressive for big artists like MJ to sell that much because his label could afford to have every shops out there sell his records... This is when we introduce the topic of demand and supply!
jonapova Posted February 29 Posted February 29 Tell me the total number of albums sold amongst those artists and then explain why a 1m opening week even matters.
Skestina Posted February 29 Posted February 29 2 hours ago, Taylena said: That's bad for them when even aespa can sell 1M in a week. bots don't count 1
tomo Posted February 29 Posted February 29 (edited) No group chats to plan bulk purchase. No atrl to track all time sales records to break. No transportation to the record stores. Edited February 29 by tomo 1
ugo Posted February 29 Posted February 29 38 minutes ago, Blackout2006 said: This is when we introduce the topic of demand and supply! it's not always like that
Recommended Posts