ANTI: #27 - Billboard 200 / Work: #9 Hot 100

[Wolf 1,328]

I feel embarrassed for Rih

and those 460 people who bought the album 

[Bebe 16,586]

14 minutes ago, Whispering said:

The Samsung deal has been in place for a long while now. Her team had been working on trying to find a way to make the free downloads count. They finally gave up and funneled the deal through Tidal.

Make no mistake, that record label very much wanted to find a way to chart big the debut week. Instead, they were left with spining WW numbers into numbers for US certification and sending out marketing reps with false numbers. I'm sure we will see them continue to spin away. Labels do that because charts are important! 

Yeah the samsung deal has been in place for a while, what difference does that make? We all know the Billboard rules, this has been in place since forever. 

Would Roc Nation have liked to chart #1? Sure, it's good promo but at the end of the day they are concerned more with profit than with chart positions. Usually a big debut week would =  #1 album on the Billboard charts. In this case it's different, Billboard doesn't count it but they made bank with Anti because Samsung covered the costs of the free downloads.

Charts are great and all, but they are not the main focus of record labels which is important to remember.

[Sunny 12,470]

charity queen 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

4 minutes ago, Bebe said:

"The album was bought by a multimillionaire company in exchange of her being the image of their product. The music industry gets nothing and little artists are still little artists. One spot on the charts makes no difference."

Yes that first part is key. Samsung essentially bought those albums and covered the costs for the free downloads, Roc Nation gets a part of that. Instead of (best case scenario and highly unlikely) Rihanna selling 500,000 records first day, she shifts over 1 million. That's more than double the profit for Rihanna and, most importantly, Roc Nation who can use that money to fund smaller artists.
 

"Roc Nation paid for the creative process which could have been avoided if she was the one writing her songs and didn't need a songwriting camp."

Of course Roc Nation covered the costs of making the album (of course Rihanna was more involved than usual with this album as per her writing credits), like they do with every artist.  That doesn't change whether they release it this way or the traditional way.

"If more big artists did this then Billboard would end up changing the charts because it would be unfair to give higher positions to artists who sold way less copies of their albums than others. It would be more of a charity chart than an actual popularity chart."

If more artists did this then Billboard probably would have to change, but that's their problem frankly. More major artists should do this imo. People want music for free hence the rise of streaming and the fact that piracy continues to grow, the music climate is changing and if record companies want to make money they this is how to do it. The music consumer wins, the artist wins and the record label wins. Billboard has a few options if the music industry shifts like this:

1. They can calculate free downloads and include that in their album chart. This seems unfair to smaller artists though.
2. They can make the chart still focused on sales, big artists grow out of this chart world and the chart is used to show breakthrough artists. This seems to hurt Billboard because they are losing the big stars.
3. They create separate charts, on that works as it does now and one that deals with popularity including through free downloads.

The face however remains that free music is the future of the music industry whether we like it or not. Record labels need to adapt and this is how.

But she didn't make this happen, Samsung did.

Samsung or ther big companies are not going to buy 1M copies of every album from big artists. Even if they did then small artists would be treated unfairly because their albums would be the only ones that have a cost. People would buy them even less because mainstream music would stop having any financial value. That would even hurt streaming services because even a subscription would be almost worthless.

Streaming is the future of music, which is not free. Multimillionaire companies buying copies from only big artists to I've hem away for free in exchange of their image is not the future of music, it's unrealistic because it's not even sustainable.

[Whispering 18,865]

27 minutes ago, Bebe said:

As for people bitching that this move is bad for new artists who have to work harder to get a platinum record look at this, if more major artists did this there would be more new talent represented on the charts.

It's a win for consumers of music that get a free album, It's a win for Rihanna/Roc Nation who effectively shift 1 million albums, it's a win for Tidal who have exclusive rights and it's a win for young artists who will be represented better on the charts (+ Especially better for young artists signed with Roc Nation because they now have more resources to spend on budgets for young artists and can afford to test the market with exciting talent).

Everybody wins 

Those younger artists would have the same benefits if the bigger artists have any type of sponsorship, big numbers for sales, or a big tour. Beyonce had a fifty million dollar sponsorship snd she didn't give her albums away for free. Samsung could have paid Rihanna a dollar for every album sold and 24 million could have gone towards her first three singles, videos and the upcoming tour. As we know, there aren't any rules for certifications. 

The possibility here is that the artists that are in demand will get a sponsorship and funnel their albums this way. In essence, the rich get richer, and the "younger artists" are left struggling to sell every copy of an album in a world where all the big names give their albums away for free. Who will want to buy the "little guys" albums? Who will sponsor them? The bigger artists will get bigger...and they will all be offering their albums for free. There very well could be a problem for a while that ends up hurting the smaller artists, until we end up where all music is basically free. 

[monketsharona 48,460]

13 minutes ago, Tommi said:

I guess the ARTPOP situation didn't teach you anything...being happy for an artist low sales and calling it flop....

ARTPOP sales weren't as low though   Around 2.5M copies sold is still a good selling album..

[Bebe 16,586]

Just now, DrewStevens said:

But she didn't make this happen, Samsung did.

Samsung or ther big companies are not going to buy 1M copies of every album from big artists. Even if they did then small artists would be treated unfairly because their albums would be the only ones that have a cost. People would buy them even less because mainstream music would stop having any financial value. That would even hurt streaming services because even a subscription would be almost worthless.

Streaming is the future of music, which is not free. Multimillionaire companies buying copies from only big artists to I've hem away for free in exchange of their image is not the future of music, it's unrealistic because it's not even sustainable.

Samsung is not the only option out there, obviously Samsung is benefiting though otherwise they wouldn't have made the deal.

Smaller artists are going to be at a disadvantage initially no matter what way you look at it, streaming is problematic for artists (especially new artists) and record labels. We have already seen the problems with that. This doesn't hurt streaming, the opposite is true, especially if deals are made in the future with all streaming platforms. People get exclusive content with streaming where a certain amount of people can download an album for free from their streaming service. People pay a certain amount for this service and as a result get access to multiple albums for free.

The fact is that 90% of all releases from record labels lose money. Record labels rely on their big artists in order to fund the projects of the unknown artists signed to them. If Rihanna shifts 200,000 albums rather than 1 million that affects Roc Nation's bottom line.

This album isn't going to be free forever, but for now it is. That's to the benefit of consumers first of all and benefits record labels and artists who have more money invested in them.

[KarmaPolice 4,724]

3 minutes ago, monketsharona said:

ARTPOP sales weren't as low though   Around 2.5M copies sold is still a good selling album..

this is a stupid comment...who cares if she sold more or less, no artist should face what Gaga faced in the ARTPOP era (or everyone who """flopped"""")

[Whispering 18,865]

9 minutes ago, Bebe said:

Yeah the samsung deal has been in place for a while, what difference does that make? We all know the Billboard rules, this has been in place since forever. 

Would Roc Nation have liked to chart #1? Sure, it's good promo but at the end of the day they are concerned more with profit than with chart positions. Usually a big debut week would =  #1 album on the Billboard charts. In this case it's different, Billboard doesn't count it but they made bank with Anti because Samsung covered the costs of the free downloads.

Charts are great and all, but they are not the main focus of record labels which is important to remember.

Because you stated that Rihanna's team knew the BB rules. They did, but they were working on trying to find a way to make their freebies count. Roc Nation was doing the same. They wanted the money AND they wanted the free downloads to count on the BB chart. They wanted both! They already had the money, but they want one of their top artists to also get the recognition with the sales. 

You are wrong on that one. Charts are very important to record labels. They establish a good start, add momentum and can frame an era. Why do you think artists pulled back to avoid Adele's release season? Record labels spend a great deal of time strategizing the timing of a release, including every single release. Timing is one of the most important components of a successful era. 

[Sakrai 4,759]

It was obvious this would happen. She gave away the album for free and 99% of people who would've actually bought it got it for free so the entire billboard system means absolutely nothing in this situation.

What REALLY bothers me tho is that Monsters didn't learn **** from ARTPOP and what it did to Gaga.

You desperately wanted everyone to stop messing with Gaga when her album didn't do so well, seeing with frustration how she sunk into a huge depression, and now that Rihanna has low sales for completely understandable reasons you rip her to shreds calling her a flop and a has been. Honestly How ****ing dare you call yourselves Gaga stans. 

[monketsharona 48,460]

1 minute ago, Tommi said:

this is a stupid comment...who cares if she sold more or less, no artist should face what Gaga faced in the ARTPOP era (or everyone who """flopped"""")

I didn't compare to Rihanna I just said the sales of ARTPOP weren't as bad as everyone said... It was an underpormance for Gaga for sure but as a pop album ARTPOP didn't do horrible..

[SLAYing 3,016]

 

 

 

[Bebe 16,586]

8 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Because you stated that Rihanna's team knew the BB rules. They did, but they were working on trying to find a way to make their freebies count. Roc Nation was doing the same. They wanted the money AND they wanted the free downloads to count on the BB chart. They wanted both! They already had the money, but they want one of their top artists to also get the recognition with the sales. 

You are wrong on that one. Charts are very important to record labels. They establish a good start, add momentum and can frame an era. Why do you think artists pulled back to avoid Adele's release season? Record labels spend a great deal of time strategizing the timing of a release, including every single release. Timing is one of the most important components of a successful era. 

You are quoting me so many times it's literally impossible for me to respond. That first half is pure speculation and is based on absolutely nothing, Billboard wouldn't change their rules for one artist. Roc Nation would have had no chance and they know it. If they were so concerned with charts they would have just taken the Samsung money straight out and charged for the album.

I haven't denied that charts are important to artists, but that's generally sales related and marketing related. Artists pulled back their album release from Adele because Adele would have demolished them sales wise. Adele would have drawn away some of their customers. Of course in that instance charts are hugely important because they want to market this album as a #1 album.

PROFIT is more important than all else however, in this case it was more profitable for Roc Nation to make this deal with Samsung and shift a million units rather than score a number on album with 200,000 units. Most artists these days (even the major artists) pray their album will go platinum. ARTPOP is a great example because it still hasn't gone platinum. Interscope would have made more money from ARTPOP if they did a deal like this.  ARTPOP is a #1 album, but of course Interscope would have preferred a situation like this where they shift 1 million records.

Charts are great for marketing an album, people want to buy a #1 record. In this case such marketing isn't necessary, they have already shifted a million records and when the album is available for sale physically and on more platforms their chart position will rise anyway.

[Haroon 49,685]

@ARTPOPdidntflop Merged  

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

1 minute ago, Haroon said:

@ARTPOPdidntflop Merged  

why, this is a chart positions thread...