June 1, 201313 yr How so? Single sales were terrible in 2003. Plus, artists could make a lot more profit from physical single sales than digital downloads. True, I guess 2003 was a bad example, I meant a little earlier than that really. But back then, it seemed more common for a song to have MASSIVE sales than it does now, even though sales in general were lower. If a song had enough appeal, people seemed to all rush out and buy it in the same week when sales were mostly physical. Now, because there's no rush for singles as they don't stop selling them, songs are more likely to sell a lot over a long period of time. Although I admit I should have maybe said 2002 rather than 2003, even in 2003 there were as many weeks of the year (2) in which a song sold over 200k as in 2012 - and in the few years before that there were even more. That's all I'm saying, although sales were lower overall back then, it was more common for songs to have generally massive first week sales because people were more likely to rush out and buy them. :)
Create an account or sign in to comment