Re: Alanis/U2 in U.S. charts
Robbie Robinson ([email protected])
Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:21:16 -0800
John J. Hlavaty wrote:
>
> Kimberly McDaniel ([email protected]) wrote:
> > I think that the numbers for the GH were wrong, to be honest. I don't
> > think the numbers are properly reported because the record stores in
> > both my hometowns are not affiliated with Soundscan...I asked and they
> > said they refused to do it. So what if a lot of hometown record stores
> > didn't report to Soundscan? U2 doesn't appear to sell as many
> > records...It sounds funny because in Alexandria they were rationing
> > copies and I got offered $50 outside the store for a copy. No, I
> > didn't sell. :) I think U2 are getting screwed in the numbers game so
> > the reporters will have someone to down this year...
>
> While your concern is a valid one, SoundScan openly
> acknowledges that they gather as much data as possible
> from the stores that do report to them. Based on that
> information, SoundScan then estimates total sales for an entire
> area (like Canada or the U.S.).
>
> This esitmate is probably the biggest flaw in relying on
> SoundScan's numbers. However, SoundScan is far more accurate
> than the reporting methods used in the past. Before
> 1990, stores would report their own numbers to BillBoard.
> As such, a lot of bias could occur. Sometimes record
> labels would like to create the illusion of an album
> rising in the charts. This illusion represented
> a growing interest in a particular artist. As
> such, more radio stations would play that artist's
> work and fans would buy it. Also, a store or a record
> label may want a certain artist to stay at the top of
> the charts. These situations led to biased numbers
> that may not have reflected actual sales.
>
> Since SoundScan originated, most albums reach
> their peak ssales point in their debut week. There
> are always exceptions (a slow week in sales may push
> an older album to the top), but for the most part
> most albums from big name artists debut at #1 or #2.
> Contrast this to the days before SoundScan where
> albums usually rose through the charts. "The Joshua
> Tree" debuted at a very high #7 on the U.S. charts.
> I recall thinking at the time how much of an accomplishment
> this was (the next week, "The Joshua Tree" reached #1).
> Likewise, "Rattle & Hum" debuted at #5 (also reaching #1
> the following week). In today's world, there's little
> doubt that these albums would debut at #1 (or
> #2). "Achtung Baby", "Zooropa" and "POP" all debuted
> at #1.
>
> Another point of interest is that most #1 albums
> spend no more than 4 weeks at the top (again, there are
> exceptions like with the "Titanic" soundtrack).
> Before SoundScan, albums would regularly spend
> months at the top of the charts. Fleetwood
> Mac's "Rumors" spent something like 30 weeks at #1!
> U2's "The Joshua Tree" spent 9 weeks at #1.
>
> This discrepancy in sales/chart reporting becomes more
> obvious when one realizes that "The Joshua Tree" has
> sold 10 million copies in the U.S. but spent 9 weeks
> at #1 whereas "Achtung Baby" spent only one week
> at #1 but sold 8 million copies in the U.S. Two
> albums that sold at a similar rate have very different
> chart "success".
Were those sales figures for sales since the time of
release? If they were, that means AB has sold better
than JT, since it hasn't been out as long.
> It has reached a point where having a #1 album isn't
> *that* crucial any more. It's the long term sales that
> ultimately determine how successful an album is.
> The longer an album lingers in the top 10 (or 20) the
> better its total sales. Albums that may never reach #1 often
> outsell those that do.
>
> So while SoundScan clearly has its limitations (hence
> why I stress the need for a "proverbial grain of salt"
> whenever I report/summarize chart/sales information)
> it does eliminate the biased reporting (euphemism for
> "lie") that occurred in the past.
>
> Ciao,
>
> John
An interesting piece of information I came across a couple
of weeks ago about the little "corrections" they do on
the charts. An article about the charts mentioned that
they always leave out the "back catalogue" sales, which
are always going on and can be very strong. They gave an
example of the true figures of one week, the No. 1 album
on the charts was some hip-hop or rap thing that I can't
remember the name of, but the real best seller that week
had been Bob Marley's GH album "Legends" and it didn't
show on the charts because it had been released years
ago. Another example was on the most recent Areosmith album.
At one time while it was still in the top 20, one of the band's
older albums was outselling the new one. I'm sure this happens
all the time with the Rollling Stones :) They said something to
the effect that if the charts reflected the real sales figures,
the top 20 would be full of old albums. I wish I'd saved the
article, but I'm sure you know about this Dr. John :)
Robbie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2
on Wed Nov 18 1998 - 08:31:21 PST