The price rule is based on what the retailer pays. If a retailer pays £5 for an album and sells it for 10p it still counts towards the albums chart. So, these iTunes sales will count. However, as most album sales are still of CDs rather than downloads, this won't get the album into the higher reaches of the albums chart.

The price rule is based on what the retailer pays. If a retailer pays £5 for an album and sells it for 10p it still counts towards the albums chart. So, these iTunes sales will count. However, as most album sales are still of CDs rather than downloads, this won't get the album into the higher reaches of the albums chart.

 

But another but. :lol: I know I bore this thread a bit but when will we ever see this very interesting chart occasion again?

 

I wanted to say that maybe it is not actually an iTunes error. It might be a marketing campaign which definitely works to be honest. And if this marketing campaign was created by record label then or course retailer wouldn't pay the likes of £5 for this album selling only for £0.79? The retailer would pay less than £0.79 in this occasion to make a profit simply.

Edited July 19, 201015 yr by Arrs

Not if the supplier was underwriting the cost of the promotion. The record label could be paying iTunes to hold such a promotion and iTunes as a result would recoup it's loss via such an item. Or it could be a loss leader, Supermarkets do them all the time to steal customers from each other.

This is so gonna be Top 10 soon :lol: Up to #15 now :o

 

 

 

Not if the supplier was underwriting the cost of the promotion. The record label could be paying iTunes to hold such a promotion and iTunes as a result would recoup it's loss via such an item. Or it could be a loss leader, Supermarkets do them all the time to steal customers from each other.

 

Its a possibility but i can't see it tbh - The record company would have nothing substantial to gain from it as there is no new single/album/tour about to happen...

 

 

 

 

Yes, I thought of that repayment scheme later too. But do the record labels actually *need* to pay iTunes to make the price cheaper?

 

It might be also this scheme.

The user buys the album for £0.79 BUT the retailer pays about £3 for the album to the record label. And then the label re-compensates the iTunes company 3-0.79=£2.21+x for every bought album (where x=the profit for iTunes). I don't honestly think OCC will like this scheme but we'll see. :lol: For me it will be simply amazing if 'Hook Me Up' charts this week in the top-100 basing on these sales.

 

 

 

I edit posts a lot don't I? :lol: So I decided to write another one for a change.

 

I just thought that the record label can't be bothered if 'Hook Me Up' doesn't chart in the official chart because the main target of this marketing campaign (if it really exists and it's not just an iTunes error) is just to sell a few extra digital copies from the album and also to create some hype around the album also.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I thought of that repayment scheme later too. But do the record labels actually *need* to pay iTunes to make the price cheaper?

 

It might be also this scheme.

The user buys the album for £0.79 BUT the retailer pays about £3 for the album to the record label. And then the label re-compensates the iTunes company 3-0.79=£2.21+x for every bought album (where x=the profit for iTunes). I don't honestly think OCC will like this scheme but we'll see. :lol: For me it will be simply amazing if 'Hook Me Up' charts this week in the top-100 basing on these sales.

I edit posts a lot don't I? :lol: So I decided to write another one for a change.

 

I just thought that the record label can't be bothered if 'Hook Me Up' doesn't chart in the official chart because the main target of this marketing campaign (if it really exists and it's not just an iTunes error) is just to sell a few extra digital copies from the album and also to create some hype around the album also.

 

That used to happen with CD singles - Because they had to have a certain dealer price to qualify for the charts but record labels wanted stores like HMV etc, to sell singles during the first week for 99p, £1.99 etc, the way they got around this was keep the dealer price the same but offer the CD singles on a 'Buy 10 Get 10 Free' deal - That way the dealer price remained the same but it allowed stores to sell CD singles cheaply during the first week of release.

 

And again i really don't think this is a record company campaign - They have very little to gain from it - I could understand if a new single/album was about to be released but as it stands there is no new releases and all they will gain is a low 1 week only chart position via selling an album for less than a single.

:lol: iTunes have clearly realised their error - The album was charting at #15 and it has been totally removed from the Top 100 - Also when you attempt to buy the 79p version of the album it states "The item you requested is currently not available in the UK store"

Theres a £9.99 album there now xdD

Edited July 20, 201015 yr by Brad2k88

:lol: iTunes have clearly realised their error - The album was charting at #15 and it has been totally removed from the Top 100 - Also when you attempt to buy the 79p version of the album it states "The item you requested is currently not available in the UK store"

 

Aww, was wanting to see how high it could get :lol::(

ohh i thought most album sales come from itunes, where does the most album sales come from in shops? or a different site?

 

85% of album sales are still physical, and I doubt iTunes have more than 3/5ths of the remaining 15%.

I wonder if it'll have a chance of re-entering the top 100 or something officially because of this?

 

Or the budget albums chart, at least?

They've made it £4.99 now :lol:

A fantastic album, definitely one of my favourite albums ever. I wish it was left there, it would have been good to get it a few more sales and possibly get it back in the chart.