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

[Haroon 49,685]

2 minutes ago, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

why 

Because it was discussing ANTI's opening numbers and stuff which are being discussed here, and the second tweet from a random Twitter user isn't enough to validate it being the lowest opening in history, like it doesn't make it Entertainment News  I was either to move it to Entertainment Talk and give you a warning point for posting it in the wrong section, or merge it into here - I chose the latter  

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

1 hour ago, ryhanna said:

A million free copies tho. I'm sure Rihanna isn't bothered. 

Doesn't matter how high it charts on Billboard. A million people have the damn album. 

bc it waz free. Donatella has more views than that on YouTube.

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

3 minutes ago, Haroon said:

Because it was discussing ANTI's numbers sold and stuff which are being discussed here, and the second tweet from a random Twitter user isn't enough to validate it being the lowest opening in history, like it doesn't make it Entertainment News  I was either to move it to Entertainment Talk and give you a warning point for posting it in the wrong section, or merge it into here - I chose the latter  

did you not notice the thread title about the record being broken or what

whats going on in your head tbh, it is news, maybe message me to include more receipts. Would make more sense than merging to different threads into one..... which is what you did... now we have 11 pages of mess

[monketsharona 77,454]

11 hours ago, Brandon said:

ANTi was released on iTunes a day later. 460 people bought ANTi on Tidal when it was free. Wait for the real first week sales next week.

She would still sell more if it's her just talking.

Apparently it's estimated to 125k copies sold

[Haroon 49,685]

Just now, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

did you not notice the thread title about the record being broken or what

whats going on in your head tbh, it is news, maybe message me to include more receipts 

I just said "the second tweet from a random Twitter user isn't enough to validate it being the lowest opening in history"  You need a valid source to go along with threads that claim that a record is broken and stuff  I didn't message you because you've been sent this thread before:

 

If you want to further argue about it then take it to the Support section, thanks  

 

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

when haroons bored at 4am he likes to secretly merge Adele and Kesha threads together 

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

Just now, Haroon said:

I just said "the second tweet from a random Twitter user isn't enough to validate it being the lowest opening in history"  You need a valid source to go along with threads that claim that a record is broken and stuff  I didn't message you because you've been sent this thread before:

 

If you want to further argue about it then take it to the Support section, thanks  

 

then message me to add "valid" receipts rather than making a huge messy thread tbh 

[Haroon 49,685]

Just now, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

then message me to add "valid" receipts rather than making a huge messy thread tbh 

Like I said at the end of the post:

"I didn't message you because you've been sent this thread before:"

 

Anyways, enough discussion about the merging because it can derail and stuff  You know where to go if you want to discuss it.

 

To go back on-topic: The numbers so far aren't including iTunes sales and she hasn't had a week's worth of sales yet anyway so I'm sure it isn't as bad as it looks, plus I don't really think they care and more power to them. They've already got the money from the 1 million bought by Samsung so they're good  

 

[DrewStevens 5,249]

31 minutes ago, Bebe said:

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.

If smaller artists are always going to be in disadvantage how does everyone wins with this? 

If streaming is problematic how is this (which you said that benefits streaming) something positive?

Your idea may sound fine but it's unrealistic and dangerous because it would cause a crisis in the music industry and labels would never endorse it.

As if it wasn't hard enough for artists to release their music because of how strict labels are, now they would have to be endorsed by some corporation. Those corporations would never endorse Rita Ora or Charlie XCX so they would be on hold until some small corporation pay for a small amount of albums if they are lucky enough.

There's no industry that works like that and it's for a good reason. It's not sustainable.

[StarstruckIllusion 52,278]

460 lol

[Varo Yan 2,984]

GO BUY SIA's pure masterpiece This Is Acting! She deserves to be on top Billboard 200! 

 iTunes: http://smarturl.it/iThisIsActing?IQid=yt 

Spotify: http://smarturl.it/sThisIsActing?IQid=yt 

Amazon: http://smarturl.it/aThisIsActing?IQid=yt 

Google Play: http://smarturl.it/gThisIsActing?IQid=yt 

[Whispering 18,865]

53 minutes ago, Bebe said:

 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.

That first part is not speculation. Rihanna's team went to Billboard to try to get the sales to count in their charts. Billboard finally came to the agreement that the Samsung sales could count if Samsung made the offer for a free album from anyone, not just Rihanna. That wasn't acceptable for Rihanna's team, so they went with this plan. That isn't speculation. Billboard reported this exchange. Roc Nation did try to work something out and Billboard did work with them on what could or couldn't be counted. 

Having a good start to an era turns into profit. Good opening weeks make for a positive start and momentum, which turns into prime promo spots, better reception from radio, and better tour sales. Yes, money is important...and a way to make more of it is for an artist to do well at the start and to do well every era. 

Thank goodness Interscope didn't do anything like this for Gaga. She already had enough backlash for her 99 cent deal...and she SOLD four times more than those albums worldwide that week! Keeping legitimacy is far more important for Gaga at this point! ARTPOP ended up keeping up with her peers worldwide and doing better than most of them with tour numbers that year.  A mess and deal like Anti had, could have hurt Gaga to a point that a deal wouldn't have been worth it...not for an artist that has the level of talent and possibilities in the future that she has. 

[ryhanna 3,507]

1 hour ago, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

bc it waz free. Donatella has more views than that on YouTube.

Doesn't matter. A million is still a million, no matter how much $ was paid for it. Nothing worth being bitter over, tbh. 

[Bebe 17,053]

45 minutes ago, DrewStevens said:

If smaller artists are always going to be in disadvantage how does everyone wins with this? 

If streaming is problematic how is this (which you said that benefits streaming) something positive?

Your idea may sound fine but it's unrealistic and dangerous because it would cause a crisis in the music industry and labels would never endorse it.

As if it wasn't hard enough for artists to release their music because of how strict labels are, now they would have to be endorsed by some corporation. Those corporations would never endorse Rita Ora or Charlie XCX so they would be on hold until some small corporation pay for a small amount of albums if they are lucky enough.

There's no industry that works like that and it's for a good reason. It's not sustainable.

In terms of your first two questions, I have already answered that what is positive is that record labels (In this instance Roc Nation) have found a way to make more money, in a way that is also beneficial to the consumer. The more money the record label gets the more they can invest in new talent.

"Those corporations would never endorse Rita Ora or Charlie XCX so they would be on hold until some small corporation pay for a small amount of albums if they are lucky enough." No they wouldn't but they don't need to be supported by corporations. These artists are probably profitable as is, but these bigger artists are not really posing a problem for them. How is Rihanna hurting Rita Ora or Charli XCX with this? If anything consumers can get Rihanna's album for free, Rihanna doesn't chart and these artists have less competition.

This is a big play for major artists who are the backbone of every record label.

[Bebe 17,053]

25 minutes ago, Whispering said:

That first part is not speculation. Rihanna's team went to Billboard to try to get the sales to count in their charts. Billboard finally came to the agreement that the Samsung sales could count if Samsung made the offer for a free album from anyone, not just Rihanna. That wasn't acceptable for Rihanna's team, so they went with this plan. That isn't speculation. Billboard reported this exchange. Roc Nation did try to work something out and Billboard did work with them on what could or couldn't be counted. 

Having a good start to an era turns into profit. Good opening weeks make for a positive start and momentum, which turns into prime promo spots, better reception from radio, and better tour sales. Yes, money is important...and a way to make more of it is for an artist to do well at the start and to do well every era. 

Thank goodness Interscope didn't do anything like this for Gaga. She already had enough backlash for her 99 cent deal...and she SOLD four times more than those albums worldwide that week! Keeping legitimacy is far more important for Gaga at this point! ARTPOP ended up keeping up with her peers worldwide and doing better than most of them with tour numbers that year.  A mess and deal like Anti had, could have hurt Gaga to a point that a deal wouldn't have been worth it...not for an artist that has the level of talent and possibilities in the future that she has. 

"Billboard finally came to the agreement that the Samsung sales could count if Samsung made the offer for a free album from anyone"  I highly doubt that, I'd love to see a source for this.

"Having a good start to an era turns into profit... (rest of this)"

Yeah that's fantastic, but Rihanna was selling out her tour before her album was even dropped... She doesn't need massive promo for that. Why does she also need marketing for an album that's already passed platinum? The album is already a hit in the eyes of Roc Nation.

The 99 cent backlash was even dumber than this frankly, but it's not something I really care to discuss because it's irrelevant. I wasn't suggesting ARTPOP should have been released like this, I was just making the point that profit for a record label is more important than a chart position and that's the most obvious thing in the world. If a record label could choose between a million albums sold or a #1 album on Billboard they would choose a million albums. You can't pay your bills with chart positions.