February 4, 201015 yr I can accuse him of whatever I think he has done. You have a cheek to insult anyone's intelligence. Looking at your profile and your age I am pretty sure I have a higher academic level than you. Yes, yes you can accuse him of whatever you think he has done. However, you only make yourself look like the complete re**** you clearly are by throwing around these accusations without ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATIONS. I have a cheek to insult anyone's intelligence? You have a higher academic level than me? Come back to me when you have an unconditional offer to one of the top departments in the country, or achieved straight As at A-level etc. Age is no measure of intelligence. Actually, no, I'll rise above petty arguments over what my intelligence may be (given you're basing it entirely on estimates of how intelligent I am from my profile :/). You want to bring personal intelligence into this? Who's the one being universally regarded as a loon here? Who's the one who hasn't yet responded to my argument in any way whatsoever other than holding on to the little obsessive argument that they have and repeating their accusations like a mental patient WITHOUT RESPONDING WITH REASON TO ANYTHING I SAY? What kind of academic level is that? You're taught in primary school to back up your assertions with evidence. Your bluster is clearly complete loonery to back up the fact that you DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. In short, don't throw around accusations that you have a higher academic level than me when you clearly don't. I'm not the sort of person to get all boastful about what I've achieved/my intelligence or anything, but I can say with confidence that I can hold my own in an argument because I possess REASON. Something clearly beyond you. Now please, do the world a favour and LET GO OF THIS ARGUMENT if you have nothing to back it up with other than a childish 'I CAN ACCUSE IT THEREFORE I HAVE AN ARGUMENT'. You're an embarrassment to your, ahem, academic class, if you are indeed superior to me.
February 4, 201015 yr Yes, yes you can accuse him of whatever you think he has done. However, you only make yourself look like the complete re**** you clearly are by throwing around these accusations without ANYTHING TO BACK UP YOUR ACCUSATIONS. I have a cheek to insult anyone's intelligence? You have a higher academic level than me? Come back to me when you have an unconditional offer to one of the top departments in the country, or achieved straight As at A-level etc. Age is no measure of intelligence. Actually, no, I'll rise above petty arguments over what my intelligence may be (given you're basing it entirely on estimates of how intelligent I am from my profile :/). You want to bring personal intelligence into this? Who's the one being universally regarded as a loon here? Who's the one who hasn't yet responded to my argument in any way whatsoever other than holding on to the little obsessive argument that they have and repeating their accusations like a mental patient WITHOUT RESPONDING WITH REASON TO ANYTHING I SAY? What kind of academic level is that? You're taught in primary school to back up your assertions with evidence. Your bluster is clearly complete loonery to back up the fact that you DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. In short, don't throw around accusations that you have a higher academic level than me when you clearly don't. I'm not the sort of person to get all boastful about what I've achieved/my intelligence or anything, but I can say with confidence that I can hold my own in an argument because I possess REASON. Something clearly beyond you. Now please, do the world a favour and LET GO OF THIS ARGUMENT if you have nothing to back it up with other than a childish 'I CAN ACCUSE IT THEREFORE I HAVE AN ARGUMENT'. You're an embarrassment to your, ahem, academic class, if you are indeed superior to me. Clearly you need a hobby if you are getting that angry. Why would I care what A Levels you have when I already have a 1st class degree from probably a better university than the one you have an 'unconditional offer' for. You are the person who brought intelligence into this not me. You also clearly missed the point of the entire argument when I stated that many people on here suggested that more than 1 pound per single would go to charity. It is in plain writing that this is not the case. I would take a look at yourself before calling anyone a loon after your rather bizzare outburst. Anger management issues? I think so.
February 4, 201015 yr Clearly you need a hobby if you are getting that angry. Why would I care what A Levels you have when I already have a 1st class degree from probably a better university than the one you have an 'unconditional offer' for. You are the person who brought intelligence into this not me. You also clearly missed the point of the entire argument when I stated that many people on here suggested that more than 1 pound per single would go to charity. It is in plain writing that this is not the case. I would take a look at yourself before calling anyone a loon after your rather bizzare outburst. Anger management issues? I think so. Angry? I'm perfectly calm. May I enquire as to the nature of this 1st class degree, because it clearly isn't in economics...or indeed, anything involving money. You're also clearly lying considering I doubt anybody could achieve a 1st class degree without having grasped the concept that to make an argument you must back it up with REASON and EVIDENCE. I have an UNCONDITIONAL OFFER (no apostrophes) to the top department for my chosen subject in the country. The top department indicating that it is the best department for this course in the country. Why should I care how the university is ranked overall when I'm not reading for any of the subjects that it isn't renowned for? :/ YOU'VE clearly missed the entire point of my argument. Which is that you constantly repeat Simon Cowell will profit from this, and state that 'only' £1 per single going to charity from each sale proves this. Don't try to change the subject here. Bizarre? You insulted my intelligence on the basis of my profile. Clearly you have no common sense if you think you can judge intelligence on age...you're the most foolish 1st class graduate I've ever come across if you think that age is a complete measure of intelligence. I'd in fact go on to argue that your lack of reasoning probably suggests you're making up these 'facts' about yourself just to make yourself look more impressive. Isn't working babes.
February 4, 201015 yr look it doesn't look good no matter how hard many are trying to defend simon cowell. £1.00 from every £3.99 going to charity is low. where is the other £2.99 going too? 500k sales = £500,000 to charity £1,500,000 to cover "expenses"? you have got to be kidding me!! any rational person can see that is a hefy sum to cover "cost". simon is a savvy business man he is in control of this release under his label he sets the terms. it can be said objectively that he "could" be making some profit from this. we may never know but we can speculate as the figures don't seem right unless we get a full breakdown of the price. there is nothing wrong with questioning and discussing simon's motives over this matter, its not hate just trying to make sense of it all.
February 4, 201015 yr look it doesn't look good no matter how hard many are trying to defend simon cowell. £1.00 from every £3.99 going to charity is low. where is the other £2.99 going too? 500k sales = £500,000 to charity £1,500,000 to cover "expenses"? you have got to be kidding me!! any rational person can see that is a hefy sum to cover "cost". simon is a savvy business man he is in control of this release under his label he sets the terms. it can be said objectively that he "could" be making some profit from this. we may never know but we can speculate as the figures don't seem right unless we get a full breakdown of the price. there is nothing wrong with questioning and discussing simon's motives over this matter, its not hate just trying to make sense of it all. It says at least £1. As I have stated before the more the CD sells the more money from each CD will go to charity. £1 is the minimum. I'd imagine that The amount going to charity would increase as soon as the CD hits about 100k sales.
February 4, 201015 yr It says at least £1. As I have stated before the more the CD sells the more money from each CD will go to charity. £1 is the minimum. I'd imagine that The amount going to charity would increase as soon as the CD hits about 100k sales. Exactly. Legally, they are more than likely bound to phrase it in such terms as the single will need to shift a certain amount before the £/CD that goes to charity rises substantially. They cannot, with 100% certainty, know that the single will sell what's required in order for it to make a higher threshold, hence the "at least" threshold.
February 4, 201015 yr Still though, on a CD single selling for £3.99, when the average price for one would be about £1.99, the amount that would otherwise be profit has to exceed £1 by some considerable stretch, perhaps as much as £2.50 I grasp that more than £1 per single will probably end up going to the cause, but it does still leave a very large potential grey area.
February 4, 201015 yr Why is that a reason to not buy the Haiti song? :/ As I've said COUNTLESS times to you so far, and you have yet to come up with an adequate response to, how does £1 going to Haiti from the price mean that they're making a profit from it? The rest could easily go to meeting costs/overheads etc...Most current physical singles are sold at £2.49 See here here and here for example. Some like Bad Romance even go for £1.99 Those single make a profit for everyone involved. So it's well to be expected that the Haiti relief single would cost to produce £2.49. With the price being £3.99 and a pound going to charity what's happening to the other 50 pence?
February 4, 201015 yr Still though, on a CD single selling for £3.99, when the average price for one would be about £1.99, the amount that would otherwise be profit has to exceed £1 by some considerable stretch, perhaps as much as £2.50 I grasp that more than £1 per single will probably end up going to the cause, but it does still leave a very large potential grey area. Depends how much it sells though. Why isn't it obvious that some of the costs incurred in making the single are FIXED irrespective of how much it sells? For ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY, fixed costs of £600,000. Single sells @ £4 and sells 100,000 units. It therefore makes a total of £400,000. Even with no other costs to pay, it makes a loss. Single sells @ £4 and sells 200,000 units. It therefore makes a total of £800,000. With no other costs to pay, the single makes a profit of £200,000 - which would go to charity @ £1 per copy. If the single sold double that (400,000 copies) then it would make £2.50 per CD, which would go to charity. However, the above example doesn't include the variable costs in each CD production, which would also need to be factored in. Hopefully that gives the gist of it though.
February 4, 201015 yr Most current physical singles are sold at £2.49 See here here and here for example. Some like Bad Romance even go for £1.99 Those single make a profit for everyone involved. So it's well to be expected that the Haiti relief single would cost to produce £2.49. With the price being £3.99 and a pound going to charity what's happening to the other 50 pence? Those singles have one artist singing, and one recording studio involved. The charity single had multiple artists and multiple studios involved. That alone will result in a (potentially substantial) base cost increase. And in any case, does Gaga's single sold @ £1.99 actually make a profit? That's debatable as, has already been stated, a large number of singles are sold as loss-leaders.
February 4, 201015 yr look, Jedward Are Vile, this was the reason you were attacked on here a few weeks back- youve got to calm down It is just rude insulting someones intelligence I do agree that £1 out of £3.99 isnt great- but the rest of the cost just goes to the factory, the artwork designers and the company who dont do it for free- All proceeds and profits will got to charity and not a penny to Simon- plus, its £1 AT LEAST Simon is a human being and he pisses me off sometimes with all his butcherings of classic songs- but what hes doing here is right and I hope this song sells very well- I will be donating myself, but thats just because I would prefer to see all of it go to charity All you seem to post is negative and sometimes rude posts- which is why everyone on here thinks your a loon, just calm down and dont bother posting if you cant find anything positive in this thread- I thought it was harsh that you were called a tool, but you did bring it on yourself In the mean time, I think you should watch Bambi and listen to Thumpers motto- 'If you cant say something nice, dont say anything at all' It will do you very good ;)
February 4, 201015 yr this uncertainy as to how much a buyer is donating isn't good, they see £1.00 on the sleeve/sticker but spend £3.99. surely its better to give £4.00 to the charity directly knowing that none will be deducted for "costs" or "expenses". i hope some of the mothers and grannies wise up and do that instead.
February 4, 201015 yr Exactly. Legally, they are more than likely bound to phrase it in such terms as the single will need to shift a certain amount before the £/CD that goes to charity rises substantially. They cannot, with 100% certainty, know that the single will sell what's required in order for it to make a higher threshold, hence the "at least" threshold. Agreed. But Syco will surely benefit from the PR of the acts appearing on this record raising their profile so that punters go out and buy their related non charitable product: To give an example here is a list of the acts who appeared at Live Aid in July 13th 1985 and how they did with the following week sales in the album chart: 02 (03) Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms 05 (16) Paul Young - The Secret Of Association 06 (15) Phil Collins - No Jacket Required 09 (09) Sting - The Dream Of The Blue Turtles 10 (19) Madonna - Like A Virgin 12 (46) U2 - The Unforgettable Fire 14 (11) Bryan Ferry - Boys And Girls 16 (54) U2 - Under A Blood Red Sky 17 (72) Queen - Greatest Hits 21 (34) Sade - Diamond Life 25 (39) Tina Turner - Private Dancer 28 (68) Freddie Mercury - Mr Bad Guy 29 (32) The Style Council - Our Favourite Shop 30 (44) Phil Collins - Face Value 31 (35) Alison Moyet - Alf 32 (90) U2 - War 36 (32) Wham! - Make It Big 39 (Re) Queen - The Works 40 (58) Dire Straits - Alchemy 43 (43) Bryan Adams - Reckless 44 (50) Howard Jones - Dream Into Action 48 (Re) The Cars - Heartbeat City 50 (73) Ultravox - The Collection 51 (55) Lionel Richie - Can't Slow Down 56 (Re) Madonna - Madonna / The First Album 58 (60) Wham! - Fantastic 61 (96) Dire Straits - Making Movies 63 (75) Power Station - The Power Station 66 (Re) Dire Straits - Dire Straits 67 (78) Paul Young - No Parlez 69 (88) Dire Straits - Love Over Gold 76 (Re) U2 - October 77 (Re) U2 - Boy 79 (Re) Phil Collins - Hello, I Must Be Going! 82 (Re) Eric Clapton - Behind The Sun 83 (Ne) U2 - Wide Awake In America (Import) 94 (Re) Daryl Hall And John Oates - Big Bam Boom 96 (Re) Howard Jones - The 12'' Album 98 (Re) Daryl Hall And John Oates - Greatest Hits - Rock 'N' Soul Part 1
February 4, 201015 yr Agreed. But Syco will surely benefit from the PR of the acts appearing on this record raising their profile so that punters go out and buy their related non charitable product: To give an example here is a list of the acts who appeared at Live Aid in July 13th 1985 and how they did with the following week sales in the album chart: 02 (03) Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms 05 (16) Paul Young - The Secret Of Association 06 (15) Phil Collins - No Jacket Required 09 (09) Sting - The Dream Of The Blue Turtles 10 (19) Madonna - Like A Virgin 12 (46) U2 - The Unforgettable Fire 14 (11) Bryan Ferry - Boys And Girls 16 (54) U2 - Under A Blood Red Sky 17 (72) Queen - Greatest Hits 21 (34) Sade - Diamond Life 25 (39) Tina Turner - Private Dancer 28 (68) Freddie Mercury - Mr Bad Guy 29 (32) The Style Council - Our Favourite Shop 30 (44) Phil Collins - Face Value 31 (35) Alison Moyet - Alf 32 (90) U2 - War 36 (32) Wham! - Make It Big 39 (Re) Queen - The Works 40 (58) Dire Straits - Alchemy 43 (43) Bryan Adams - Reckless 44 (50) Howard Jones - Dream Into Action 48 (Re) The Cars - Heartbeat City 50 (73) Ultravox - The Collection 51 (55) Lionel Richie - Can't Slow Down 56 (Re) Madonna - Madonna / The First Album 58 (60) Wham! - Fantastic 61 (96) Dire Straits - Making Movies 63 (75) Power Station - The Power Station 66 (Re) Dire Straits - Dire Straits 67 (78) Paul Young - No Parlez 69 (88) Dire Straits - Love Over Gold 76 (Re) U2 - October 77 (Re) U2 - Boy 79 (Re) Phil Collins - Hello, I Must Be Going! 82 (Re) Eric Clapton - Behind The Sun 83 (Ne) U2 - Wide Awake In America (Import) 94 (Re) Daryl Hall And John Oates - Big Bam Boom 96 (Re) Howard Jones - The 12'' Album 98 (Re) Daryl Hall And John Oates - Greatest Hits - Rock 'N' Soul Part 1 Yeah, I think the SyCo acts will probably benefit from the increased exposure - it most certainly can't work in reverse and I doubt it'll have zero effect. However, I think the benefit of this promotion will be a lot less than you might think - for example, it doesn't seem to be benefiting any of the acts who have recorded on the record so far in this week's mids etc, but I guess we'll know more in this Sunday's chart and (more accurately) with next Sunday's, as the promotional video that goes with the track will be on the music channels at that point. In any case, I don't think the effect will be anywhere near as pronounced as the list you've compiled for the Live Aid acts - that was a large scale concert that was beamed across the globe including the UK, compared with a promotional video and airplay for a track which they each feature on for about 5 seconds each. This is substantially different to Live aid, where each act performed their own material (in most cases, more than one track) which in turn directly benefited their sales (as you would expect) - in the case of this charity record, none of the acts are performing their own music. Even with the BRITs performance of the track (if it has now been confirmed?) I still doubt it will benefit any of the artists featured to a large degree.
February 4, 201015 yr Those singles have one artist singing, and one recording studio involved. The charity single had multiple artists and multiple studios involved. That alone will result in a (potentially substantial) base cost increase. And in any case, does Gaga's single sold @ £1.99 actually make a profit? That's debatable as, has already been stated, a large number of singles are sold as loss-leaders. the whole point of a charity single, is the artists, studios and producers give their time for free. costs should be at an absolute minimal of just making the cd. in theory a charity cd should cost less to make then normal as it is expected anyone that works on it works for free.
February 4, 201015 yr Apparently, the awful Haiti Single now has a Million 'Orders'. From Yahoo Blogs:, According to pre-order figures, more than a million copies will be sold when it is released on Sunday, with both Amazon and HMV reporting an extraordinary response. "This single will dominate the charts in the weeks ahead as the biggest release of the past ten years," said HMV spokesperson Gennaro Castaldo. The last single to sell over a million copies was Comic Relief fundraiser ‘Is This The Way To Amarillo' in 2005. Meanwhile, Band Aid's ‘Do They Know It's Christmas?' shifted a whopping 3.5 million in 1984. So can ‘Everybody Hurts' break that record? With acclaimed director Joseph Kahn currently putting the finishing touches to a video starring all the big names, anything is possible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We will see if the Single is No.1 for many Weeks, & if it really can come even close to beating Band Aid - which I doubt. All I know is that it is truly terrible as a Single, & that is the majority view all over The Internet - everywhere I've looked, anyhow. If they must show us how much they 'care', you'd think that they could come up with a better Single, than this. They should all have handed over 5% of their Wealth to Haiti, & kept away from the garbage Cover version, that they've insisted on dumping on us. Still, many people will buy it - for the 'Cause'. I fail to see why people can't simply give to the Haiti Appeals without needing something back in return - like that dreadful Single!
February 4, 201015 yr Depends how much it sells though. Why isn't it obvious that some of the costs incurred in making the single are FIXED irrespective of how much it sells? For ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY, fixed costs of £600,000. Single sells @ £4 and sells 100,000 units. It therefore makes a total of £400,000. Even with no other costs to pay, it makes a loss. Single sells @ £4 and sells 200,000 units. It therefore makes a total of £800,000. With no other costs to pay, the single makes a profit of £200,000 - which would go to charity @ £1 per copy. If the single sold double that (400,000 copies) then it would make £2.50 per CD, which would go to charity. However, the above example doesn't include the variable costs in each CD production, which would also need to be factored in. Hopefully that gives the gist of it though. THIS. You've explained it a lot clearer than I did.
February 4, 201015 yr I can accuse him of whatever I think he has done. You have a cheek to insult anyone's intelligence. Looking at your profile and your age I am pretty sure I have a higher academic level than you. I thought we had a breakthrough last time we spoke, but evidently not. That ^ is a horrid thing to say to someone. And you were unprovoked. Dude, if you seriously wanna remain a poster on this board you need an attitude adjustment.
February 4, 201015 yr Angry? I'm perfectly calm. May I enquire as to the nature of this 1st class degree, because it clearly isn't in economics...or indeed, anything involving money. You're also clearly lying considering I doubt anybody could achieve a 1st class degree without having grasped the concept that to make an argument you must back it up with REASON and EVIDENCE. I have an UNCONDITIONAL OFFER (no apostrophes) to the top department for my chosen subject in the country. The top department indicating that it is the best department for this course in the country. Why should I care how the university is ranked overall when I'm not reading for any of the subjects that it isn't renowned for? :/ YOU'VE clearly missed the entire point of my argument. Which is that you constantly repeat Simon Cowell will profit from this, and state that 'only' £1 per single going to charity from each sale proves this. Don't try to change the subject here. Bizarre? You insulted my intelligence on the basis of my profile. Clearly you have no common sense if you think you can judge intelligence on age...you're the most foolish 1st class graduate I've ever come across if you think that age is a complete measure of intelligence. I'd in fact go on to argue that your lack of reasoning probably suggests you're making up these 'facts' about yourself just to make yourself look more impressive. Isn't working babes. If you think your insane ramblings are perfectly calm then you clearly have more issues than I first thought. No I don't have a degree in economics or anything to do with money but even the least mathematical person is not stupid enough to believe that it costs three pounds to make and distribute a cd single. I'm sorry I don't lie. You are honestly so boring with your constant ramblings of your offer for a top school in the country. Clearly aren't that bright if you are nineteen and still not at uni. My point is why is anyone making three pounds from a charity single. Why doesn't Simon cowell donate the extra three pounds that are going to 'factory costs'. Why should anyone profit from the production and distribution of a charity single. I don't have to make myself impressive. Infact it's not that hard to achieve a first in this day and age if you work hard. If you read back to your previous post you will see that you were the one who insulted me first. Anyway please don't respond to any of my posts as quite frankly I am bored of you and your dreary anger issues.
Create an account or sign in to comment