The Stones' business manager, Prince Rupert Loewenstein, is of the opinion that tours have never actually helped sales of albums. Instead it’s the promotional exercises in the media that does this. Benny and Bjorne from ABBA agree with him on this.
Well, thats a different debate form what were talking about. Were talking about the negative or positive impact of new albums on tours, NOT a tours impact on the album.
Yes, it is possible to get away with strong album sales if you have great support from radio and other media. This happens every year. But touring can be a method to increase album sales and exposure. For artist that are locked out of the radio or other media outlets, it becomes their primary method of promotion and sales.
I think that 360 did nothing to help convert the casual hit-seeking concert goers into NLOTH album buyers and the album did nothing to increase concert ticket sales since most of the albums were bought by the existing fanbase.
Thats all speculation not supported by ANY facts.
Take a look at the following facts about the Success of No Line On the Horizon in 2012!
THE TOP 10 SELLING ALBUMS OF 2009 WORLDWIDE
01. Susan Boyle - I Dreamed A Dream - 6.0 million copies
02. Lady GaGa - The Fame (Monster) 5.9 million copies
03. Black Eyed Peas - The E.N.D. - 4.6 million copies
04. Taylor Swift - Fearless - 4.2 million copies
05. Michael Jackson - Thriller (25th Anniversary Reissue) - 4.0 million copies
06. Michael Jackson - Number Ones - 3.6 million copies
07. U2 - No Line On The Horizon - 3.5 million copies
08. Kings Of Leon - Only By The Night - 3.5 million copies
09. Michael Bublé - Crazy Love - 3.3 million copies
10. Beyoncé - I Am... Sasha Fierce - 3.2 million copies
These 'facts' don't show who bought the album or whether any sales to casual fans persuaded them to buy a concert ticket. I speculate that the large majority of people who purchased NLOTH were existing U2 fans like me. If you have any facts to disprove that then I'd like to see them.
No kidding. Your points are not based on anything factual. My points are based on facts like those above. I'm not classifying and grouping U2 fans into arbitrary groups like you. There is in no evidence for doing so to the degree that your doing.
My points are not dependent on who purchased the album or the ticket. What matters is that a successful selling album of new songs helps fill seats at the concert with people. When the album of new material does poorly though, it leads to empty seats at the tour that is supporting the album! Who actually purchased the album or ticket is irrelevant.
Bethere, you can't just look at a chart and have tunnel vision. According to you, U2 sold out stadiums for 360 based on the massive success of No Line, not because of the other factors many of us have pointed out.
If the success of 360 was based on No Line being a huge album, then please explain to me why the band that sits at number 3 on your beloved chart (with 1 million more units sold then No Line) were the back up band to U2 at the 360 show I attended? If you are correct then this makes no sense, does it? Shouldn't the Black Eyed Peas with the 3rd highest selling album of the year have been the ones headlining the show? Because according to you concert attendance is based on album sales. But this can't be so because the band with the higher selling album opened for the band with the lower selling album. Maybe we were right and the bands history, marketing of the tour, changes over the last 20 years, etc...had a lot to do with the success of 360. You can use whatever concert/album sales stats you want to support your theory but it doesn't make it right.
Because each artist has a different ratio of album sales to concert ticket sales. The Black Eyed Peas already have an unusually low ratio of album sales to ticket sales, at least at the time of 360 tour. U2 have always had a very strong ratio since the Unforgettable Fire Tour and Album. Some artist are strong at selling both albums and tickets, and others are not. Every artist is different. Some like Mariah Carey have always been strong album sellers but struggle when it comes to concerts. Others like Taylor Swift are strong at both selling albums and selling concert tickets. But even in a case like Mariah Carey, she will do better with whatever concert tour she is doing, if she is supporting a relatively successful album for her.
Now, having explained that, if the Black Eyed Peas had only sold half of what they did in 2009, you would have seen a much smaller level of demand to see them live. That is how album sales impact concert demand for each artist.
My points are based on raw facts, album sales, concert ticket sales, album sales positions for the year, airplay, etc. U2 struggled to sell tickets on POPMART, because the POP album was relatively poorly received by the public. 360 was a success because the NLOTH album was received very well by the public being one of the biggest selling albums of the year.
The difference here(between POPMART and 360) is the success of the album and the new material.
Likewise, although the Stones are not as heavily impacted by their new material, they experienced a dip in concert attendance when they went on the Licks tour in 2002-2003 because they were not touring in support of a brand new album.
If the Black Eyed Peas have a poor selling album on their next tour, it will indeed have a very negative impact on the tour.
STING just went on his Back To Bass Tour. He has not released a new album of all new material in 9 years. Typcially when he visits a city like Philadelphia, he will play one show at a 20,000 seat arena and usually come close to filling it to capacity. On this tour though, he had to scale down and play two shows at a 3,000 seat theater. Had he been touring behind a a relatively successful brand new album, he'd be playing that 20,000 seat arena as he has done many times in his solo career.