Posted November 7, 200717 yr Billboard published a poll asking their readers what they think about the latest chart "revision" controversy: "Now counting sales from Wal-Mart, the Eagles beat Britney Spears for No. 1 on the Billboard 200. Do you think Billboard should include titles sold only through one retailer in the album chart tally?" She is currently dominating this poll. vote here: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/interact.jsp Show them we have a voice. 85% at this point agree britney should be #1 :dance: Edited November 7, 200717 yr by lotsofsnails
November 7, 200717 yr What Bollocks -_- Of cause sales from 1 retailer should count towards the chart... Why in gods name would they not in the first place -_- Edited November 7, 200717 yr by Jonny
November 7, 200717 yr For once I agree with Jonny. Why in the first place did they not count anyways? It IS an album, it IS being legally purchased, just that Wally World holds a monopoly over it. Like Exodus said in the other thread, isn't it that impressive that they've sold 2.5 more times than Britney in just one retailer? OF COURSE it should count, and it's rather stupid if it doesn't.
November 7, 200717 yr Because they made a deal with Wal-mart that it would NOT be counted on the charts because they shipped 3 million copes exclusively to them, it was part of the deal. SECONDLY they didn't change the rule until Tuesday afternoon! f***ing bollocks if you ask me, f*** BB.
November 8, 200717 yr Yeah, I have to agree with Tyler. :lol: And OF COURSE their album was gonna do well it's being promoted by fricken Wal-Mart for f***in sakes! Wal-Mart is EVERYWHERE so who's not gonna see it. :rolleyes: If Britney's album was sold that way I'm sure it would've done better as well. PLUS, to go and change the rules last minute?! PATHETIC. I don't think that's right no matter what album they ended up knocking out of the top spot. -_- Wal-Mart is such a b**ch to go and report sales last minute! Edited November 8, 200717 yr by Music Maniac
November 8, 200717 yr Consider it from their point of view. It's just because you're being biased. In all fairness, they sold a WHOLE LOT more than Britney did, so do I think it should be regarded as the no.1 album? yes I do. However, I do think it's unfair they changed the rules just now, as if they wanted to prevent her string of no.1 albums. But there shouldn't ever have been any rules against monopolized music not being counted in the chart. If it sells more, then it rightfully deserves to be no.1, does it not?
November 8, 200717 yr Author they accepted a huge payout off wal-mart. they gave up eligibility for the billboard 200. but now, they get the money, and the #1. i bet if it was britney's wal-mart exclusive selling well they wouldn't have changed the rules for her.
November 8, 200717 yr Should try and count copies sold legally anywhere in the US. So IMO vote for the last option, if Britney had an exclusive wal-mart deal you would be unhappy if it wasn't counted!
November 8, 200717 yr Author we're just upset they changed the rules with no notice right before the chart was announced. it would be like a singing contest for under 18's, and someone was winning, but at the last minute they announced someone aged 20 should be allowed to win instead. Edited November 8, 200717 yr by lotsofsnails
November 8, 200717 yr I hate it. I mean; I think this rule was stupid to begin with, but I think it's c**p that this was so done just to not give Britney the #1.
November 8, 200717 yr Yeah, I think the rule to exclude exclusively sold albums is dumb. Sales for those albums should be counted. If it was Britney's album and the rule was in effect then I wouldn't have counted on her album being in the charts anyways. It's an awful and REALLY dumb decision to change the rule last minute before the charts come out. Yes, it makes it worse for us since it's Britney's album but how dumb to do that to any album so late like that!
November 9, 200717 yr Ok can you all repeat after me? IT WAS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION TO NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CHARTS. What can you NOT grasp from that?!? Edited November 9, 200717 yr by Dirty Pop
November 9, 200717 yr Billboard Conspiracy... Something's Not Adding Up RollingStone.com has an interesting new update about the Eagles album drama. Remember how "Eden" was supposed to be sold in Wal-mart EXCLUSIVELY? Well RS is claiming that it was sold in other widely known stores too: "...we heard whispers that people were finding the new 'exclusive' album at small mom-and-pop record stores and, remarkably, big chains like Virgin Megastore. We investigated these claims and discovered that the CDs are indeed being sold outside of Wal-Mart." The CD at Virgin was a whopping $24.99! RS continues to say "when we asked one clerk why the album was so expensive at Virgin, and whether the discs might be imports, he whispered into the phone that he “thinks they were hard to get.” Want to know what he means by "hard to get?" "A small record store in Nebraska told us they were re-selling discs that were purchased at Wal-Mart," continues RS. Basically this means that some albums were counted TWICE. If one store is doing this, who says hundreds of others aren't! Soundscan says they tried to weed out all double sales, but how accurate are they? And straight from NYtimes.com: “This seems like a big ego play to me,” said Don Van Cleave, a merchant in Birmingham, Ala., who oversees the Coalition of Independent Music Stores representing more than two dozen independent merchants. “Somebody went through some arm-twisting or negotiations, at least, to have themselves reflected on the industry chart.” It's not about the Eagles outselling her. It's about CHANGING the rules 11 hours before the chart is released. Billboard themselves called her #1. If those were the rules going into the week then fine, but that was not the case. Mayfield said “We were not pressured. I did not get one phone call from Irving Azoff about this,” Mayfield said, referring to the Eagles’ talent manager, “and I did not get one phone call from Wal-Mart.” Then it looks to me as if this was your personal preference!
November 9, 200717 yr Billboard Conspiracy... Something's Not Adding Up RollingStone.com has an interesting new update about the Eagles album drama. Remember how "Eden" was supposed to be sold in Wal-mart EXCLUSIVELY? Well RS is claiming that it was sold in other widely known stores too: "...we heard whispers that people were finding the new 'exclusive' album at small mom-and-pop record stores and, remarkably, big chains like Virgin Megastore. We investigated these claims and discovered that the CDs are indeed being sold outside of Wal-Mart." The CD at Virgin was a whopping $24.99! RS continues to say "when we asked one clerk why the album was so expensive at Virgin, and whether the discs might be imports, he whispered into the phone that he “thinks they were hard to get.” Want to know what he means by "hard to get?" "A small record store in Nebraska told us they were re-selling discs that were purchased at Wal-Mart," continues RS. Basically this means that some albums were counted TWICE. If one store is doing this, who says hundreds of others aren't! Soundscan says they tried to weed out all double sales, but how accurate are they? And straight from NYtimes.com: “This seems like a big ego play to me,” said Don Van Cleave, a merchant in Birmingham, Ala., who oversees the Coalition of Independent Music Stores representing more than two dozen independent merchants. “Somebody went through some arm-twisting or negotiations, at least, to have themselves reflected on the industry chart.” It's not about the Eagles outselling her. It's about CHANGING the rules 11 hours before the chart is released. Billboard themselves called her #1. If those were the rules going into the week then fine, but that was not the case. Mayfield said “We were not pressured. I did not get one phone call from Irving Azoff about this,” Mayfield said, referring to the Eagles’ talent manager, “and I did not get one phone call from Wal-Mart.” Then it looks to me as if this was your personal preference! They should be void from the charts, honestly. Their label has violated the contract more then multiple times in the span of 4 days.
November 9, 200717 yr Should try and count copies sold legally anywhere in the US. So IMO vote for the last option, if Britney had an exclusive wal-mart deal you would be unhappy if it wasn't counted! In this instance I totally disagree. This mockery of the charts is nothing short of scandalous. 1. To change the rules after the chart selling period started is a complete joke. Imagine the Premiership in Football changing the rules at the end of the season so that a win counts as 4 Points instead of 3 Points which results in a different team winning the league then there would be total outrage. Or imagine the Labour Government has a General Election and loses by the current first past the post system, so changes the rules so that Parliament consists of Proportional Representation instead which they just so happen to have had more votes than the Conservatives, that wuld be completely unacceptable. Yet because the moral right-wing majority in Billboard has the embarrassment of a "bad role model" being at #1 instead of one the most iconic bands in US Rock & Roll history they go and change the rules AFTER the sales period has finished. 2. According to Radio 2's News the Eagles album had sales of over 80,000 in other sales outlets apart from WalMart. In which case, if they were bought from WalMart then resold in other record stores, then the album should be DSQ (disqualified) from the US Album charts. At the end of the day, rules are rules for a purpose. If you have a "bad" rule, then you should look to change the rule BEFORE it becomes a bad rule, so in this instance Billboard should have announced that the Eagles album would count before it went on sale "exclusively" in Wal-Mart. As they did not, then this rule should not have been changed retrospectively because it smacks of Conservatism bias.
November 9, 200717 yr Billboard Conspiracy... Something's Not Adding Up RollingStone.com has an interesting new update about the Eagles album drama. Remember how "Eden" was supposed to be sold in Wal-mart EXCLUSIVELY? Well RS is claiming that it was sold in other widely known stores too: "...we heard whispers that people were finding the new 'exclusive' album at small mom-and-pop record stores and, remarkably, big chains like Virgin Megastore. We investigated these claims and discovered that the CDs are indeed being sold outside of Wal-Mart." The CD at Virgin was a whopping $24.99! RS continues to say "when we asked one clerk why the album was so expensive at Virgin, and whether the discs might be imports, he whispered into the phone that he “thinks they were hard to get.” Want to know what he means by "hard to get?" "A small record store in Nebraska told us they were re-selling discs that were purchased at Wal-Mart," continues RS. Basically this means that some albums were counted TWICE. If one store is doing this, who says hundreds of others aren't! Soundscan says they tried to weed out all double sales, but how accurate are they? And straight from NYtimes.com: “This seems like a big ego play to me,” said Don Van Cleave, a merchant in Birmingham, Ala., who oversees the Coalition of Independent Music Stores representing more than two dozen independent merchants. “Somebody went through some arm-twisting or negotiations, at least, to have themselves reflected on the industry chart.” It's not about the Eagles outselling her. It's about CHANGING the rules 11 hours before the chart is released. Billboard themselves called her #1. If those were the rules going into the week then fine, but that was not the case. Mayfield said “We were not pressured. I did not get one phone call from Irving Azoff about this,” Mayfield said, referring to the Eagles’ talent manager, “and I did not get one phone call from Wal-Mart.” Then it looks to me as if this was your personal preference! That's against chart regulations; which means the CD should be disqualified :angry:
November 9, 200717 yr Author Billboard.biz: EDITORIAL: TALKING JIVE November 17, 2007 While Her Fans Rage About The Eagles, Britney's Label Deserves Props by BILL WERDE To say it was a strange week in the music biz would be an understatement. But it may have been an even stranger one in the Billboard offices—or at least in the inboxes of any staffers unlucky enough to have their e-mail addresses posted online. For these poor souls, it was a week that exposed them to horrors most men and women never experience: the vitriol of Britney Spears fans who felt their hero had been shafted. For those under a rock, Billboard's chart team changed its policy on allowing retail exclusives onto The Billboard 200 albums chart, which enabled the Eagles' first album in 28 years—distributed only to Wal-Mart—to reign atop the charts, dislodging Ms. Spears' comeback from the peak position. The e-mails started arriving fast and furious Nov. 6, as news of the change hit the blogs and Spears message boards. Be glad you weren't Anthony Colombo, our affable chart manager for rock, ringtones and videos. In other words, Mr. Colombo had nothing to do with the decision, but had the misfortune of being listed as the charts department contact on Billboard.com. At press time, he had skimmed some 621 Spears-related messages, presumably much in the model of the first several hundred he read, which included an impressive mastery of the profane, various creative anatomical suggestions and even a vaguely worded threat to his well-being. You can get a taste at our jadedinsider.com blog, where some 600 comments follow a post on the Eagles news, many threatening to cancel "prescriptions." All of us are worried, frankly, about the response from our younger cousins when we head home for the holidays. I don't mean to make light of a serious decision, however. My phone did its own share of ringing this week, and it seemed many in the industry were divided along the lines of "This is great—we need titles that sell 700K to anchor our charts," and "$@#^%&!!" I'll leave others to explain the decision (see "Eagles Help Shorten 'Long Road' to Change," page 71) or ponder what it means for the retail world (see "What's (Not) In Store," page 12), and suffice it to say I think the correct call was made, because it's the one that best-represents the facts of the market. My biggest, most sincere hope is that this decision does not tarnish what was nothing short of the campaign of the year orchestrated by those at Jive. As it should be, the folks at that label are too classy to pull the spotlight they deserve away from their artist. Our Q&A with Jive executive VP/GM Tom Carrabba (see page 27) is as refreshing for its low-key tone as it is for its frank appraisals of the moves that worked wonders. He would never say this, but let's face it: Two months ago, the morning after Spears' positively torpid performance at the MTV VMAs, even her fans in the industry—and I unironically count myself as one—had given up hope. Jive immediately got the music out there to tastemakers and kept a laser-focus on those tracks. Now, with Spears yet to do any major press or promotion, Jive is in a position to be talking about a third or fourth single, and few are doubting the label's prospects. If the e-mails Colombo received—from China, from Latin America, from everywhere—are any indication, support is widespread. And very passionate. Source: Billboard :cheer:
