ChatterBank2 mins ago
Record sales
How come these days only a few thousand record sales are needed to make number 1, whereas a few years ago you had to sell a lot more?
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Scarlett. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Firstly, as Surfer Mike says, the numbers have been in a state of decline for donkey's years now - it's not just recent.
There are a number of factors. Some of the main ones are:
1) Teenagers (typically the major purchasers of singles) now have a wider range of consumer goods and past times to take their disposable income, thus spend less on music. Chief amongst them are perhaps computer games and mobile phones.
2) The rise of peer-to-peer programmes has changed the sales of music. Would you pay for a song if you could download it free? It's a difficult one though and I don't believe that p2p is anywhere like the problem the record companies like to pretend - my music purchasing habits have increased rather than decreased as a direct result of downloading, but I tend to be after album-centred bands, rather than individual tracks.
3) The way the charts worked was changed. I don't know the exact date, but I recall reading in Simon Napier Bell's excellent Black Vinyl, White Powder that a meeting was called of the BPI sometime in the late 1980s (I think) in which the chairman instituted a system which changed the charts from one where chart positions were influenced through record companies buying up stock of their own singles (this was illegal but widespread) to one where this would no longer happen. This meant that the chief way that records would be promoted would be through marketing and this has lead to the situation where records are released to radio months before they are released and it takes hundreds of thousands of pounds to get a record in the charts. This typically restricts chart success to those with large companies bankrolling them. This has the following knock on effects: (continues)
There are a number of factors. Some of the main ones are:
1) Teenagers (typically the major purchasers of singles) now have a wider range of consumer goods and past times to take their disposable income, thus spend less on music. Chief amongst them are perhaps computer games and mobile phones.
2) The rise of peer-to-peer programmes has changed the sales of music. Would you pay for a song if you could download it free? It's a difficult one though and I don't believe that p2p is anywhere like the problem the record companies like to pretend - my music purchasing habits have increased rather than decreased as a direct result of downloading, but I tend to be after album-centred bands, rather than individual tracks.
3) The way the charts worked was changed. I don't know the exact date, but I recall reading in Simon Napier Bell's excellent Black Vinyl, White Powder that a meeting was called of the BPI sometime in the late 1980s (I think) in which the chairman instituted a system which changed the charts from one where chart positions were influenced through record companies buying up stock of their own singles (this was illegal but widespread) to one where this would no longer happen. This meant that the chief way that records would be promoted would be through marketing and this has lead to the situation where records are released to radio months before they are released and it takes hundreds of thousands of pounds to get a record in the charts. This typically restricts chart success to those with large companies bankrolling them. This has the following knock on effects: (continues)
a) It's so expensive that record companies will only promote songs they can guarantee will be hits, which makes them conservative and boring in their choices
b) It's so expensive, only a few bands will be promoted rather than many
c) Pressure is put on bands to reap financial success immediately. Bands no longer get time to develop as they did under the old system.
All of this has lead to increasing boredom with an increasingly homogenous singles market, also decreasing sales.
4) The singles market is homogenous but the albums market is strictly genre-ized. In the 60s, you can read about the Who (Mods) going to see Pink Floyd (Psychadelic) and meeting up with Jimi Hendrix (Psychadelic/ Mod/ Blues) and Roy Harper (Folk) to go and watch a touring Motown band from John Lennon's reserved row of seating! Now, marketing people have stratified music so that if you're into rap, you're not supposed to be into progressive rock and if you like folk, you're not supposed to be into electo. This means that people are exposed to a lot less variety in their music. These genres don't often feature in the top 40, therefore people don't bother listening.
b) It's so expensive, only a few bands will be promoted rather than many
c) Pressure is put on bands to reap financial success immediately. Bands no longer get time to develop as they did under the old system.
All of this has lead to increasing boredom with an increasingly homogenous singles market, also decreasing sales.
4) The singles market is homogenous but the albums market is strictly genre-ized. In the 60s, you can read about the Who (Mods) going to see Pink Floyd (Psychadelic) and meeting up with Jimi Hendrix (Psychadelic/ Mod/ Blues) and Roy Harper (Folk) to go and watch a touring Motown band from John Lennon's reserved row of seating! Now, marketing people have stratified music so that if you're into rap, you're not supposed to be into progressive rock and if you like folk, you're not supposed to be into electo. This means that people are exposed to a lot less variety in their music. These genres don't often feature in the top 40, therefore people don't bother listening.
Waldo is very far reaching and, in my opinion, correct. I would add that you can pay �4 for a single these days which is for 1 song mixed 3 or 4 different ways you can buy the album for �8/9 in a supermarket.
There appears to be very little longevity of bands these days, so there is no loyal audience for them to build on.People wonder why Cliff Richard, The Stones et al keep appearing in the charts its because they have fan base built up over years. Whereas most chart acts are gone in know time.
1 to 8 of 8
Latest Posts
ChatterBank55 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles73 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles89 mins ago
