Author Topic: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States  (Read 17190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #285 on: September 11, 2018, 08:03:50 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Online laoghaire

  • Running to Stand Still
  • **
  • Posts: 1,218
  • IT MEEEEEEEANS SOMETHING!!!!!!
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #286 on: September 11, 2018, 08:42:27 AM »
U2 need to sell their album honestly, to people who want it. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose by playing these games.

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #287 on: September 11, 2018, 05:11:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
U2 need to sell their album honestly, to people who want it. There's nothing to gain and a lot to lose by playing these games.

Gold and Platinum awards to gain, only the stingiest of fans will protest. Again, were talking a $12 dollar album VS. a $120 dollar ticket on average. There is nothing dishonest about it. Often times people don't realize what is best for them and what they would most enjoy.

Online Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 336
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #288 on: September 15, 2018, 03:12:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline hollywoodswag

  • Stateless
  • *
  • Posts: 166
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #289 on: September 15, 2018, 06:01:47 AM »
Hey, if they aren't using those cards, send them my way, haha!

Online Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 336
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #290 on: September 15, 2018, 10:10:43 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hey, if they aren't using those cards, send them my way, haha!

Next time I come across one Iíll PM you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #291 on: September 24, 2018, 10:14:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

Online Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 336
Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #292 on: September 24, 2018, 12:02:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 12:54:02 PM by Tortuga »

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #293 on: September 24, 2018, 01:40:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 01:44:05 PM by wons »

Online Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 336
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #294 on: September 24, 2018, 05:03:15 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.

People are definitely listening to music less.  When I was a teenager we had three TV channels and no video game.  Music was our thing.  Today teens pay very little attention to music.  They play video games and watch netflix.  Visual and interactive is more compelling than aural and there is an unlimited supply of it.  In my high school years we spent our money on stereos and cars.  How do you think sales of Crager wheels and Hooker headers compares to the past?  Kids donít care about cars anymore either.  When they do listen to music they are much more casual about it, content to hear a free programmed playlist (akin to radio) instead of paying for the privilege to hear what they want to hear on demand.  Its the kids you need to watch because it has always been the youth that bought music.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #295 on: September 24, 2018, 06:14:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.

People are definitely listening to music less.  When I was a teenager we had three TV channels and no video game.  Music was our thing.  Today teens pay very little attention to music.  They play video games and watch netflix.  Visual and interactive is more compelling than aural and there is an unlimited supply of it.  In my high school years we spent our money on stereos and cars.  How do you think sales of Crager wheels and Hooker headers compares to the past?  Kids donít care about cars anymore either.  When they do listen to music they are much more casual about it, content to hear a free programmed playlist (akin to radio) instead of paying for the privilege to hear what they want to hear on demand.  Its the kids you need to watch because it has always been the youth that bought music.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, so if you graduated in High school in 1982, that year music industry revenues were $9.2 BILLION adjusted into 2017 dollars. 17 years later, that figure had more than doubled to $21.5 BILLION. Long before 1999, you had cable TV, internet, Personal Computers etc. Yet, the number of music listeners had grown enormously given the massive increase in revenues. The music industry has it entered the new century was at its peak. Far more people were engaged in listening to music in the year 2000 than in 1980, 1970, or 1960.


             The point here is that what you are comparing is not 2018 with 1969, but 2018 with the year 2000. You have video games and this other media in the year 2000 when the music industry is at its peak. What happened is that technology arrived that allowed more and more people to obtain music for FREE! Again, why pay for something when you can have it for free? Technology has allowed the consumer to get what music they want without paying for it.


             Notice how the concert industry has survived while the recording music industry has essentially been destroyed. Why? You may be able to obtain recorded music for free thanks to technology, but you can't get into a stadium or arena and see a live concert in person without buying a ticket. This is all about what people can get away with. Its easy to steal recorded music, there are so many different ways you can do it. But your chances of getting into a concert without buying a ticket have not changed at all. That perfectly explains why one business has sunk dramatically and the other has continued to grow.


Online Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 336
Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #296 on: September 24, 2018, 07:00:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.

People are definitely listening to music less.  When I was a teenager we had three TV channels and no video game.  Music was our thing.  Today teens pay very little attention to music.  They play video games and watch netflix.  Visual and interactive is more compelling than aural and there is an unlimited supply of it.  In my high school years we spent our money on stereos and cars.  How do you think sales of Crager wheels and Hooker headers compares to the past?  Kids donít care about cars anymore either.  When they do listen to music they are much more casual about it, content to hear a free programmed playlist (akin to radio) instead of paying for the privilege to hear what they want to hear on demand.  Its the kids you need to watch because it has always been the youth that bought music.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, so if you graduated in High school in 1982, that year music industry revenues were $9.2 BILLION adjusted into 2017 dollars. 17 years later, that figure had more than doubled to $21.5 BILLION. Long before 1999, you had cable TV, internet, Personal Computers etc. Yet, the number of music listeners had grown enormously given the massive increase in revenues. The music industry has it entered the new century was at its peak. Far more people were engaged in listening to music in the year 2000 than in 1980, 1970, or 1960.


             The point here is that what you are comparing is not 2018 with 1969, but 2018 with the year 2000. You have video games and this other media in the year 2000 when the music industry is at its peak. What happened is that technology arrived that allowed more and more people to obtain music for FREE! Again, why pay for something when you can have it for free? Technology has allowed the consumer to get what music they want without paying for it.


             Notice how the concert industry has survived while the recording music industry has essentially been destroyed. Why? You may be able to obtain recorded music for free thanks to technology, but you can't get into a stadium or arena and see a live concert in person without buying a ticket. This is all about what people can get away with. Its easy to steal recorded music, there are so many different ways you can do it. But your chances of getting into a concert without buying a ticket have not changed at all. That perfectly explains why one business has sunk dramatically and the other has continued to grow.

 I donít know anyone getting recorded music for free.  Napster has been gone for ages.  The only reason it ever existed is because there was no legal alternative.  People stream for free only in a format that is comparable to radio, which has always been free.  Maybe youtube is an inconvenient hybrid but still requires you to be connected (no downloads).

You canít seriously be comparing 1999 to 2018.  The internet was in its infancy as far as the general public was concerned.  There was barely streaming media and there were no smartphones, which is what really changed everything.  There was no netflix streaming or any of the other services and video games had nowhere near the mass appeal and compulsion they have with modern technology.  Tis was the era of dial-up AOL.  Remember that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: September 24, 2018, 07:34:49 PM by Tortuga »

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #297 on: September 30, 2018, 02:10:30 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.

People are definitely listening to music less.  When I was a teenager we had three TV channels and no video game.  Music was our thing.  Today teens pay very little attention to music.  They play video games and watch netflix.  Visual and interactive is more compelling than aural and there is an unlimited supply of it.  In my high school years we spent our money on stereos and cars.  How do you think sales of Crager wheels and Hooker headers compares to the past?  Kids donít care about cars anymore either.  When they do listen to music they are much more casual about it, content to hear a free programmed playlist (akin to radio) instead of paying for the privilege to hear what they want to hear on demand.  Its the kids you need to watch because it has always been the youth that bought music.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, so if you graduated in High school in 1982, that year music industry revenues were $9.2 BILLION adjusted into 2017 dollars. 17 years later, that figure had more than doubled to $21.5 BILLION. Long before 1999, you had cable TV, internet, Personal Computers etc. Yet, the number of music listeners had grown enormously given the massive increase in revenues. The music industry has it entered the new century was at its peak. Far more people were engaged in listening to music in the year 2000 than in 1980, 1970, or 1960.


             The point here is that what you are comparing is not 2018 with 1969, but 2018 with the year 2000. You have video games and this other media in the year 2000 when the music industry is at its peak. What happened is that technology arrived that allowed more and more people to obtain music for FREE! Again, why pay for something when you can have it for free? Technology has allowed the consumer to get what music they want without paying for it.


             Notice how the concert industry has survived while the recording music industry has essentially been destroyed. Why? You may be able to obtain recorded music for free thanks to technology, but you can't get into a stadium or arena and see a live concert in person without buying a ticket. This is all about what people can get away with. Its easy to steal recorded music, there are so many different ways you can do it. But your chances of getting into a concert without buying a ticket have not changed at all. That perfectly explains why one business has sunk dramatically and the other has continued to grow.

 I donít know anyone getting recorded music for free.  Napster has been gone for ages.  The only reason it ever existed is because there was no legal alternative.  People stream for free only in a format that is comparable to radio, which has always been free.  Maybe youtube is an inconvenient hybrid but still requires you to be connected (no downloads).

You canít seriously be comparing 1999 to 2018.  The internet was in its infancy as far as the general public was concerned.  There was barely streaming media and there were no smartphones, which is what really changed everything.  There was no netflix streaming or any of the other services and video games had nowhere near the mass appeal and compulsion they have with modern technology.  Tis was the era of dial-up AOL.  Remember that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its called FILE SHARING. People exchange free music that way all the time. My cousins, who were born in the late 80s, millinials, all admitted long ago, that the thousands of songs they had on their I-pods were obtained for free through the internet. There are sites all over the internet where you can download music, video, movies etc. for free. If not everything, a lot of it can be found.


     Then yes, there are streaming websites like youtube but that is not at all like the radio. When I listened to the radio in the early 80s, I was forced to listen to what other people programed. Often you did not know what song would be played next. On youtube, you can listen to an artists entire catalog of music for FREE, as often as you like. The artist get paid virtually nothing compared to what they did when people had to actually pay for music. All of these free streaming add supported sights bring in LESS than ONE BILLION dollars per year to the industry. An industry that at this point should be making $30 Billion per year given that it was making 21.5 Billion around the year 2000.


Video games started having mass appeal back in the early 1980s. I know, that's when I purchased the majority of the video games I ever owned. So time spent with that is NOTHING NEW. Most people had broadband high speed internet by 2003. The early days of the internet are the early 90s, not the early 00s. All Netflix is, is a replacement for watching Cable TV, movie channels, and movies purchased or rented from a store. Its not a replacement for music.

By 2010 when Smart Phones came out or became big, the music industry revenues had already sunk to $7.9 BILLION from the peak of $21.5 BILLION in 1999. Over 90% of the damage done to music industry occurred in the 00s decade, January 2000 to December 2009.

So Smart Phones and NET FLIX have had little if any effect. Most of the damage was already done before these things came out.

Online Tortuga

  • Headache in a Suitcase
  • *
  • Posts: 336
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #298 on: September 30, 2018, 07:43:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
People are still pi**ed that they got a free album on their iPhones four years ago.

I don't think U2's reputation could survive ANY SORT of forced album purchase.

And, what, are you going to for a family of four to shell out an extra $48 for four albums they don't want? Even hard core fans will be pi**ed.

Besides, people can already get the album for free with tickets - they just have to click a link and choose a download or CD. And they count toward the album sales. So they are already tapping the concert ticket market to the fullest extent.
Yes, trying to force people to buy an album is really not a good idea.

Of course anyone who buys a ticket has paid for an album, itís figured into the cost. So U2 could conceivably say up front, every ticket buyer gets an album, and send one automatically without waiting for people to request it. But that would be meaningless. If people canít be bothered to order an album theyíve already paid for they must just not want one.

Or maybe some people didnít understand they had to order it, or forgot? I had to remind my friend about ordering her album before the offer expired. I donít know. I think we have to accept that it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think most people did not notice, or forgot the album option on the latest tour. Automatically getting the album with a ticket purchase would be a better idea. The fan would have the option of digital or physical and if they did not choose then they would just get the digital copy on their U2.com account or through E-mail.

But hey, its just an idea. I don't know of any other way of boosting album purchases at this point with more than 80% of the population no longer purchasing music and just streaming. Anyone got a better idea for boosting album sales, lets hear it.

Quit worrying about album sales and awards.  Music is not a competition and even if it was album sales is no longer a way to keep score.  It is becoming obsolete.  You may as well be a fan of Beethoven in 1800 complaining that heís not selling any recordings.  Youíre worrying about a statistic that isnít even relevant any more, trying to come up with a way to boost a score that no longer has any meaning.

People are less and less interested in owning and ďprogrammingĒ their own music.  They would rather listen to a curated playlist.  You can mourn the fact that things arenít the way they used to be.  Iím sure there were people who mourned that horses became relatively scarce when the car came along.  But most people were just glad there were no longer manure puddles in the street every time it rained.

The truth is you canít even give recorded music away to many (especially younger) people today.  People used to gift my kids itunes cards and they would just sit in a drawer unused.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whether its album sales or some other format to determine popularity and earn the band money, its important to U2 and most of their fans enjoy seeing U2 succeed at it. U2 is a music band but its also a businesss. Success in the business is important to the band for many reasons.


Album sales for U2 are relevant because that is how most of their music is listened to. U2's streaming numbers are tiny compared to their album sales numbers both physical and digital.

Please, spare us your crazy comparisons with horses and cars. You really think listening to an album on a physical CD or in a digital format is the equivalent of riding a horse into town as opposed to going in a CAR?! Are you NUTS? CD or digital album = horse while youtube/spotify = a car?  There is virtually no difference in sound quality. The only difference is that in one case the artist gets payed directly and while in the other a service is payed and then the artist might make some money from the service. You enjoy youtube/spotify because its essentially free music or cost very little money. Your philosophy is screw the artist! Who cares if they make any money for their work. It fits with your lazy ass lets sit down at concerts perspective as well.

Finally, I put I lot of time in collecting the information found in this thread. If your not interested in it or don't like it, why the hell do you bother reading and posting in it?

I spend around $500/year on musicians, most of which goes directly into their pockets, not siphoned off to a major label.  I think I do my fair share as a patron of the arts.  I post because Iím very interested in the evolution of the business model for the performing arts.  You and I just disagree on whether its good or bad for most artists.

In thinking the car/buggy analogy is wrong you are making the same mistake the industry initially made.  They thought the point of Napster was theft.  There is a huge advantage to streaming over digital downloads or CDs.  Its called convenience.  You donít understand that because its not relevant to you.  Streaming is continuing to grow and eventually enough people will be paying the monthly fee that the services and artists will both make money.  Or it wonít grow and in that case it will die.  The jury is still out.

Again, most people never bought more than one CD per month.  The same revenue into the system as streaming.  Its not that high of a hurdle.

Most young people pay for it.  Its the older people who think its the enemy that are undermining its success.

In the United States, the music industry revenues were 21.5 BILLION in 1999, adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). By 2015, revenues were 6.9 BILLION dollars adjusted for inflation(2017 dollars). That's means by 2015 the music industry was making about 70% less than it was in 1999.

By comparison, United States GDP and total wealth grew 40% to 50% over that time period. That means if the music industry had kept pace with normal economic trends its revenues by 2015 should be in the $30 BILLION dollar range. Instead they are at $6.9 BILLION. That is a total DISASTER.


So what happened? Did people stop listening to music? Nope. Are less people listening to music? Nope. In fact, more people are listening to music today than ever before thanks to population growth. What happened is that the vast majority of people STOPPED paying for music or at the very least started paying only a fraction of what they used to pay.

A 70% drop in businness, likely 80% if you look at what the music business should be earning now given average economic growth, is a disaster. People simply won't pay for what they can get for free. When people don't pay a business for the service it provides, it suffers enormous losses.

Wonderful for the consumer, terrible for the business. How would you like it if 80% of your wealth and earnings were wiped out?

Streaming subscriptions are now where near to replacing what has been lost. Your idea's about what people used to buy are grossly inaccurate as the numbers show.

People are definitely listening to music less.  When I was a teenager we had three TV channels and no video game.  Music was our thing.  Today teens pay very little attention to music.  They play video games and watch netflix.  Visual and interactive is more compelling than aural and there is an unlimited supply of it.  In my high school years we spent our money on stereos and cars.  How do you think sales of Crager wheels and Hooker headers compares to the past?  Kids donít care about cars anymore either.  When they do listen to music they are much more casual about it, content to hear a free programmed playlist (akin to radio) instead of paying for the privilege to hear what they want to hear on demand.  Its the kids you need to watch because it has always been the youth that bought music.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, so if you graduated in High school in 1982, that year music industry revenues were $9.2 BILLION adjusted into 2017 dollars. 17 years later, that figure had more than doubled to $21.5 BILLION. Long before 1999, you had cable TV, internet, Personal Computers etc. Yet, the number of music listeners had grown enormously given the massive increase in revenues. The music industry has it entered the new century was at its peak. Far more people were engaged in listening to music in the year 2000 than in 1980, 1970, or 1960.


             The point here is that what you are comparing is not 2018 with 1969, but 2018 with the year 2000. You have video games and this other media in the year 2000 when the music industry is at its peak. What happened is that technology arrived that allowed more and more people to obtain music for FREE! Again, why pay for something when you can have it for free? Technology has allowed the consumer to get what music they want without paying for it.


             Notice how the concert industry has survived while the recording music industry has essentially been destroyed. Why? You may be able to obtain recorded music for free thanks to technology, but you can't get into a stadium or arena and see a live concert in person without buying a ticket. This is all about what people can get away with. Its easy to steal recorded music, there are so many different ways you can do it. But your chances of getting into a concert without buying a ticket have not changed at all. That perfectly explains why one business has sunk dramatically and the other has continued to grow.

 I donít know anyone getting recorded music for free.  Napster has been gone for ages.  The only reason it ever existed is because there was no legal alternative.  People stream for free only in a format that is comparable to radio, which has always been free.  Maybe youtube is an inconvenient hybrid but still requires you to be connected (no downloads).

You canít seriously be comparing 1999 to 2018.  The internet was in its infancy as far as the general public was concerned.  There was barely streaming media and there were no smartphones, which is what really changed everything.  There was no netflix streaming or any of the other services and video games had nowhere near the mass appeal and compulsion they have with modern technology.  Tis was the era of dial-up AOL.  Remember that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its called FILE SHARING. People exchange free music that way all the time. My cousins, who were born in the late 80s, millinials, all admitted long ago, that the thousands of songs they had on their I-pods were obtained for free through the internet. There are sites all over the internet where you can download music, video, movies etc. for free. If not everything, a lot of it can be found.


     Then yes, there are streaming websites like youtube but that is not at all like the radio. When I listened to the radio in the early 80s, I was forced to listen to what other people programed. Often you did not know what song would be played next. On youtube, you can listen to an artists entire catalog of music for FREE, as often as you like. The artist get paid virtually nothing compared to what they did when people had to actually pay for music. All of these free streaming add supported sights bring in LESS than ONE BILLION dollars per year to the industry. An industry that at this point should be making $30 Billion per year given that it was making 21.5 Billion around the year 2000.


Video games started having mass appeal back in the early 1980s. I know, that's when I purchased the majority of the video games I ever owned. So time spent with that is NOTHING NEW. Most people had broadband high speed internet by 2003. The early days of the internet are the early 90s, not the early 00s. All Netflix is, is a replacement for watching Cable TV, movie channels, and movies purchased or rented from a store. Its not a replacement for music.

By 2010 when Smart Phones came out or became big, the music industry revenues had already sunk to $7.9 BILLION from the peak of $21.5 BILLION in 1999. Over 90% of the damage done to music industry occurred in the 00s decade, January 2000 to December 2009.

So Smart Phones and NET FLIX have had little if any effect. Most of the damage was already done before these things came out.

Of course...you are 100% correct.  Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline wons

  • Numb
  • **
  • Posts: 842
Re: Songs Of Experience sales in the United States
« Reply #299 on: October 20, 2018, 08:40:47 AM »
New total sales estimate for Songs of Experience in the United States. Its at 325,000 now in total, with about 78,000 of that number having been sold in 2018.


Its week 41 of the year, only about 11 weeks to go before the end of 2018. With that being said, here are the top 10 selling albums of 2018 so far in the United States:

01 - 1,269,000 - THE GREATEST SHOWMAN - Soundtrack
02 - 420,000 - REARVIEW TOWN - Jason Aldean
03 - 414,000 - MAN OF THE WOODS - Justin Timberlake
04 - 406,000 - KAMIKAZE - Eminem
05 - 392,000 - ASTROWORLD - Travis Scott
06 - 359,000 - COME TOMORROW - Dave Matthews Band
07 - 324,000 - BEERBONGS & BENTLEYS - Post Malone
08 - 321,000 - BEAUTIFUL TRAUMA - P!nk
09 - 313,000 - ų - Ed Sheeran 
10 - 306,000 - CRY PRETTY - Carrie Underwood

Remember that this includes both DIGITAL and physical sales combined. Incredible that the year might end with only one album having sold over 500,000 copies.

Things are not very good when it comes to individual song sales either, primarily individual digital track purchases.

These are the top ten selling songs of 2018 to this point:

01 - 1,208,000 - PERFECT - Ed Sheeran
02 - 1,029,000 - GOD'S PLAN - Drake
03 - 981,000 - MEANT TO BE - Bebe Rexha & Florida Georgia Line
04 - 787,000 - WHATEVER IT TAKES - Imagine Dragons
05 - 784,000 - HAVANA - Camila Cabello feat. Young Thug 
06 - 748,000 - I LIKE IT - Cardi B feat. Bad Bunny & J Balvin
07 - 748,000 - GIRLS LIKE YOU - Maroon 5 feat. Cardi B
08 - 722,000 - THE MIDDLE - Zedd, Maren Morris & Grey
09 - 711,000 - THUNDER - Imagine Dragons
10 - 654,000 - IN MY FEELINGS - Drake