Sales are pretty good right now, singles-wise. Between 2003 and 2007, they were pretty abysmal.

 

So I was wondering how sales of songs would differ if they were released under different sales climates.

 

The example that got me thinking of this was Orson's 'No Tomorrow'. Famously the worst-ever weekly sale for a number 1 single with 17k. I can't see total sales of this song being over 250k.

 

Yet 2006 was one of the worst singles sales years ever. So what if Orson released that track now?

 

It's the sort of song that doesn't exactly define an era, so if Orson were new now, they could potentially become popular for 15 minutes again. If No Tomorrow was going to enjoy the same kind of chart run now, it would probably sell 400k or more.

 

The same for hits in other bad sales years: 'All The Things She Said', 'In Da Club', 'Breathe' and 'Crazy In Love' would all have topped 500k if they were released in the last 18 months. Girls Aloud, Keane, Sean Paul, Busted, Usher and Kylie would have probably sold double what they actually did with their various hits in the mid-Noughties. Madonna would never have joined the low-selling number 1s club.

 

Similarly, the likes of Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and even Jason Derulo with consistently high overall sales would probably have been selling half of what they did, had they been released in 2003-6.

 

Of course, there are other factors: genre popularity, media hype, appeal to certain markets, etc. My example of Orson could potentially release now, reach, say, #109 and sell fewer than 10k copies. Artists like Fall Out Boy, Atomic Kitten who had hits (if not big sales) in the lower sales period would almost certainly have fared worse in terms of popularity in 2008-now.

 

I don't know. The only sales constant is probably Morrissey, whose recent sales can't be anywhere as disparate as his recent chart peaks.

 

 

The same for hits in other bad sales years: 'All The Things She Said', 'In Da Club', 'Breathe' and 'Crazy In Love' would all have topped 500k if they were released in the last 18 months.

 

 

These really annoyed me at the time. All the Things She Said was one of my my favourite tracks of the whole decade - I wasn't obsessed with it (I never get obsessed) but it has never worn thin. And it's sales were so low for a 4 week number 1 - 300,000 I think. And Crazy in Love did much worse than that.

Well remember in 2003-6, It was still purely physicals in the singles chart- after 2002, singles sales gradually declined, with the exception of a few big hits and were generally bad which is why they introduced downloads, limited at first but as they rapidly increased, they were fully integrated in 2007 and now they make up 98.8% of the singles chart- and it is in a good state

 

So artists like Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and Jason Derulo who all found fame after downloads were introduced all got higher sales due to sales increasing probably would have sold less in the 2003 era tbh, as is shown from the still existing physical chart- some artists still get high physicals, but much less downloads and vice versa, some artists are more single acts than download acts

 

I guess genre is a trend as well- since downloads were introduced- most R'n'B songs do tend to be big hits, due to teenagers who download them for example, most rock bands like U2 have lost out due to them relying heavily on physical sales and people who are my age just cant be bothered to go out and buy it, there are some exceptions though of course- generally you can tell if a song will be a big hit on downloads more than physicals, or if it wont do well on downloads but will do good on physicals- or if it will do well on both, which usually is what an artist wants these days

 

Phew!

I think the good representation of ups and downs of sales of the naughties are the Sugababes sales as they released a lot of material throughout the whole decade.

 

You can watch them here.

 

For example 'About a Girl', #8 in 2009 peaking single is selling nearly as thrice as 'Easy' in 2006 and 'Caught in a Moment' in 2004 which also peaked at #8. And all three singles didn't have longevity.

 

'No Can Do', #23 peaking single in 2009 with abysmal chart-run is selling as much as 'Shape, #11 in 2003 and the mentioned Caught in a Moment, #8 in 2004. To the same bargain are 'In the Middle', #8 in 2004, and also mentioned 'Easy', #8 in 2006. And in 2009 the sales weren't THAT huge as they are now!

 

'Red Dress', #4 in 2006 didn't still get 100k in three years (as in June'09 it was on the mark of ~98k) while 'About a Girl' (2009, #8) and 'Wear My Kiss' (2010, #7) both easily passed this mark in a couple of weeks.

 

'Overload', 'Freak Like Me', 'Round Round', 'Hole in the Head' would all have huge sales in this climate, and maybe 'Overload' would have had a huge longevity. Even 'Push the Button' and 'About You Now' would sell a lot more but I don't think they would stay at #1 for 3 and 4 weeks respectively in this climate. Maybe 2 or 3 (if they lucky) weeks - yes, but 4... no!

I suppose the lower sales were supplemented by the cost of CDs being much higher than downloads. CDs were around £2.99 ( not 100% sure) and downloads now are mostly 99p. So record labels still made a lot of money but with lower sales.

I suppose the lower sales were supplemented by the cost of CDs being much higher than downloads. CDs were around £2.99 ( not 100% sure) and downloads now are mostly 99p. So record labels still made a lot of money but with lower sales.

Don't forget that making CDs, vinyls etc. also costs quite a bit while production costs of digital songs distributing are equal to zero: you just put the song into iTunes Store and that's it.

 

The thing is that we don't know the variable costs for making CDs (not to mention a lot of other factor but this is the main I suppose): I believe the single CDs were £1.99 though weren't they? Correct me if I'm wrong. But the point is that if the ('retailer price' - 'variable costs per CD') value is more than £0.99 then there will be more dependence of profitability on sales in physical era than in digital era. So you will need to sell more CDs to make a 'break-even' point but after that your profits will be rising quicker with every extra sale than the same extra copies in digital era. I hope you all got what I meant, it's neraly 4 am in my place. :lol:

Orson would probably still be a hit, I would imagine. It has enough appeal for the pop crowd. Maybe it wouldn't be #1 though, but I don't see why it couldn't be top 5 at least. On the other hand, I'm not so sure Arctic Monkeys could have got their perfect career start with 2 #1s in the current climate. Neither were #1 in the download chart at the time, and they probably sold a high ratio of mostly physicals I would imagine, though I don't have the stats and can't quite remember such exact details.

 

I don't think pop acts would generally be affected as much, if at all really. Of course they would have lower sales, that's a fairly obvious deduction to make, but overall performance-wise I don't think someone like Lady Gaga would have done any worse in the 2004 sales climate. She would still have her 4 #1s, and to be honest she'd most likely have a nice run of top 5 hits going by now as LoveGame and Alejandro could easily have taken advantage of their guaranteed maximum impact in the physical era to reach the top 5. Hell, Paparazzi could even have given her another #1 hit in that climate, maybe. It's not too much of a stretch. So overall, peak-wise she would probably be doing better, but obviously worse in terms of sales.

 

Anyway, since they started publishing a download chart in 2004, it's easy to see which songs lost out on sales in the direct year up until downloads were included. For example, Galvanize by The Chemical Brothers was a big download hit in early 2005, a couple of months before they were included for the first time. Lost out on a ton of sales and might even have been able to reach #1 instead of the #3 peak it actually got. And Madonna - Hung Up also lost out on quite a few sales (and maybe even a couple of extra weeks at #1 too?) due to it not being allowed to chart until the physical single was out.

 

And of course longevity would be dramatically shortened. Mumford & Sons - Little Lion Man would probably have charted at #11 or something and then dropped out of the chart never to be seen again a few weeks later back then; instead, it's enjoying an impressive top 100 run despite having a much lower peak. Mr Brightside by The Killers would have remained a relative flop, and never would have had the kind of sales to back up its popularity like its approaching nowadays, very steadily. Journey - Don't Stop Believin' would have remained that #62 peaking single from 1982, never seeing the light of the top 10. And countless other examples like that. It's one of the few things I do like about the download era, the theory that anything can be a hit (provided it's on iTunes, of course) and the charts aren't limited to the few weeks where the single has shelf space in the shops.

 

Sorry if I've branched off topic a bit, anyway. I was just kind of running with the idea in my mind. :lol:

Sales are pretty good right now, singles-wise. Between 2003 and 2007, they were pretty abysmal.

 

So I was wondering how sales of songs would differ if they were released under different sales climates.

 

The example that got me thinking of this was Orson's 'No Tomorrow'. Famously the worst-ever weekly sale for a number 1 single with 17k. I can't see total sales of this song being over 250k.

 

Yet 2006 was one of the worst singles sales years ever. So what if Orson released that track now?

 

It's the sort of song that doesn't exactly define an era, so if Orson were new now, they could potentially become popular for 15 minutes again. If No Tomorrow was going to enjoy the same kind of chart run now, it would probably sell 400k or more.

 

I did an experiment - I plugged its 2006 chart run into my sales estimating spreadsheet, starting at the equivalent week in 2010.

 

It calculated a figure of ~435k.

Interesting information here :) Thanks very much for this guys.

 

I don't know whether it's just me but during the low scoring sales era, there was more diversity in the top 40 compared to now with a majority of urban tracks. Perhaps it's the younger crowd keeping these songs in and the age of single buyers is getting younger?

 

What would someone have to sell to make #75 between 03-06? I am sure Hotpantz "I want to give you one for Christmas" must have took advantage of this in 2004 selling 1000 copies or such :D

 

 

What would someone have to sell to make #75 between 03-06? I am sure Hotpantz "I want to give you one for Christmas" must have took advantage of this in 2004 selling 1000 copies or such :D

 

At the lowest ebb, I think you could reach the T75 on well under 1k.

 

Nowadays, the average for a #200 is about 1.1k, and 3.3k for #75.

2003 - 2007 were hit so hard because the market was still adapting to downloads/physicals. In 2003 illegal downloads were taking away from the physical CD and when legal downloads were finally allowed to chart they weren't as huge as they were now whilst at the same time physicals were still declining. So there was no middle ground so to speak but 2004 was the worst year and sales gradually improved each year until here we are now with downloads stablized and extremely high and physicals barely existant. That's how I always see it anyway.

 

t.A.T.u and others deserved so much higher :( Hits like What You Waiting For & Boulevard Of Broken Dreams also did really well at the time but barely shifted over 200k :(

 

 

Will Smith Switch - 6-8-5-5-{4}-5-6-10-15-17-19-21-23-31-31-28-38-39-40-41-51-62->22

 

To show how poor 2005 was just look at this chart run from that year. This track sold 150,000 (someone could check that?). That chart run now would be well over 350,000 - depending on what time of the year it was released.

Edited July 20, 201014 yr by tonyttt31

Will Smith should release another single. :P. If it was something like Switch or Men in Black he would more or less have guaranteed hit. :P. Also looking at Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends' chart runs they would have probably been Sex on Fire/Use Somebody huge if they had today's sales.

Edited July 20, 201014 yr by laddergoat

Also looking at Boulevard of Broken Dreams and Wake Me Up When September Ends' chart runs they would have probably been Sex on Fire/Use Somebody huge if they had today's sales.

 

 

And they would be so much better too.

Totally agree with how some acts in this day and age would benefit from digital downloads, I always thought Kylies tunes must have been major sellers but its not quite the case!

 

Good thread.

2003-2006 had low sales due to illegfal downloads, personally for me 2007 was a flop due to no talent, however artist nowafays are appearing more in tabloids to boost sales. I think artists today have no talent and just flash themselves infront of the camera, think about it now no artists can have a voice like Whitney, Mariah, Aretha, Tina turner, christina etc. and there will be no good entertainers e.g. Michael Jackson, Madonna, Britney, Prince etc. so what i'm saying is that the low decline of sales artist now deserve it. God works in mysterious ways.

2007 was great for singles quality. Best year since 2003 in my opinion.

I did an experiment - I plugged its 2006 chart run into my sales estimating spreadsheet, starting at the equivalent week in 2010.

 

It calculated a figure of ~435k.

 

That's really interesting. vidcapper, if you have time, could you possibly do the same for some of the other hits that I mentioned?

 

 

The point about illegal downloads is valid. Taking Orson again: including illegal downloads I would imagine that 435k people probably did 'buy' it, maybe more. I don't know how much illegal downloads 'sell' (does anyone?) but I would imagine they increased the 'sales' of some songs a great deal: ironically, probably songs that are already very popular (pop/r'n'b/rap/some dance), as stuff like rock/indie/more alternative things would be more likely to have been bought on physical back in 2003-07.

 

If illegal downloads are still as big as 03-07 period, then theoretically couldn't Gaga, BEPs, KOL, etc, be selling closer to 2m each if the sales were counted? I imagine then that illegal downloads aren't quite as prevalent as they were - maybe people have more faith in itunes, etc, and don't mind paying now? Or perhaps kids that are becoming teenagers now and have always had the internet are happy enough to pay for a download like their older siblings/ parents did with cds and vinyl?

And :o at Will Smith spending 19 weeks top 40! 2005 did have some long-runners though. Daniel Powter for one, who again lost loads of sales: probably would have done 500-600k nowadays.

If Umbrella was released now, it would have definitely shifted over 1 million copies but wouldn't have lasted 10 weeks at the top.

 

Also, I wonder how Bleeding Love would have performed in this sales climate.