Timmy84 said:

ABeautifulOne said:

That's not true. For selected artists Amazon usually prices albums at a low price and puts it under their Daily Deal program for albums that do make the top 200 charts although there is not a huge amount of people that know of the deal.

Really? I thought it was a law that it had to be $5.00 or more. I don't get that shit.

Lol no but I get the feeling that Amazon is going to get creative with their pricing soon now that this new chart rule has been announced.

ABeautifulOne said:

Timmy84 said:

Really? I thought it was a law that it had to be $5.00 or more. I don't get that shit.

Lol no but I get the feeling that Amazon is going to get creative with their pricing soon now that this new chart rule has been announced.

Really?! This is the first time I have heard of Amazon doing it. If Amazon was doing it before, then why wasn't it known then? You see what I mean? Come on. $3.00 If they were really selling albums for $3.00, then why have most of the items I see from newer albums were priced higher? That's why I'm laughing at this news. It don't make sense lmao

About time!

Timmy84 said:

ABeautifulOne said:

Lol no but I get the feeling that Amazon is going to get creative with their pricing soon now that this new chart rule has been announced.

Really?! This is the first time I have heard of Amazon doing it. If Amazon was doing it before, then why wasn't it known then? You see what I mean? Come on. $3.00 If they were really selling albums for $3.00, then why have most of the items I see from newer albums were priced higher? That's why I'm laughing at this news. It don't make sense lmao

Well of couse I'm not an Amazon rep but I want to say that it wasn't until Rihanna's Rated R and Gaga's Born This Way both sold for 99 cents that those prices started to decrease. I guess from a marketing standpoint they want to keep business going but of course the company has to pay back the difference on those cheaply priced albums. I think the point I forgot to clarify earlier was that the low prices are mostly attributed to the Mp3 section of Amazon.

ABeautifulOne said:

Timmy84 said:

Really?! This is the first time I have heard of Amazon doing it. If Amazon was doing it before, then why wasn't it known then? You see what I mean? Come on. $3.00 If they were really selling albums for $3.00, then why have most of the items I see from newer albums were priced higher? That's why I'm laughing at this news. It don't make sense lmao

Well of couse I'm not an Amazon rep but I want to say that it wasn't until Rihanna's Rated R and Gaga's Born This Way both sold for 99 cents that those prices started to decrease. I guess from a marketing standpoint they want to keep business going but of course the company has to pay back the difference on those cheaply priced albums. I think the point I forgot to clarify earlier was that the low prices are mostly attributed to the Mp3 section of Amazon.

lol they shouldn't have tried to match the CD price to the MP3's lol waste of time.

Rihanna has never had a #1 album.

Amazon has been discounting albums for a while but it normally goes down to 3,99 and it just a 1 or 2 day promotion. with gaga they went down to 99cents and altered the charts by artificially injecting 440k sales of course who could resist an album at a single price.

HAPPYPERSON said:

When critics talk, Billboard listens.

For, in what news that will serve to change the way albums chart on the Billboard 200 forever, the company has announced it is to introduce a new policy which will make scoring #1 albums all the more difficult for artists who feel they can ‘cheat’ their way to the top.

All the details below…

Effective November 21st 2011, any albums priced below $3.49 during their month of release will be refused entry onto the Billboard 200.

In an official statement released by the company it stated:

Free or almost-free albums don’t represent a marketplace.

Whether you work with or are a fan of Madonna or Kenny Chesney, Lady Gaga or Coldplay, it is your faith in our efforts to keep our charts credible that we work to honor every day.

Ultimately, what swayed us to make a rule change now was the fact that we wouldn’t want an album that sold for one penny to count on our charts. Our charts are meant to indicate consumer intent.

And once you accept that you don’t want to count penny albums, the only remaining question is simply where a threshold should be.

Unit sales for Albums priced below $3.49 during their first four weeks of release will not be eligible for inclusion on the Billboard album charts and will not count towards sales data presented by Nielsen SoundScan.

Allow us break this down for you:

If Artist A released a project which sold 2 million copies in its first week, of which 50% of those copies were sold for less than £3.49, Billboard and Nielsen Sound Scan would only count the sales of copies sold at full price. Completely ignoring those sold at a discount price.

Good news for those in favor of equal playing ground but bad news for the likes of Lady GaGa and Rihanna who in the past have used discounted prices to boost their chances of debuting at #1 in the US.

In May of this year, GaGa’s third album ‘Born This Way’ debuted with sales of 1,108,000 but only because 440,000 copies had been sold by Amazon for an astounding $.099.

Had the project been released after the implementation of this new policy, it still would have been #1 week but would have sold 664,000 as opposed to 1 million copies.

However, all sales generated by Rihanna’s ‘Rated R‘ (including those sold at discount) would still be counted as the lowest available price for that album was $3.99, 50 cents over the newly introduced threshold.

Three cheers for Billboard!

For as they rightly put it, free or almost free releases do not and will never indicate real consumer intent.

Pre-Soundscan, there was a TON of trickery going on regarding inflated sales figures. If an artist wants to make a deal with Amazon to give away their music, to me, that's no different than a sponsorship deal, no different than P having 20Ten included in newspapers.

RIAA's behind this, and they don't want to just give away their awards. And Billboard also has their awards to hand out as well. Lady Gaga did it because people would get a file share copy for free, not just to drive up sales figures. But she's built (and building) her own business model of promoting where established artists don't need to do that.

The market dictates a full length album should cost in between 5-6 dollars, and a deluxe edition can be anything the artist wants it to be.

At some point, there will be other charts, and other recording organizations that artists will care just as much about as they do Billboard and RIAA. People look at sales figures on Amazon and Itunes, all they'd need to do is give awards for sales figures through their companies. People already talk about Amazon placement.

Arbwyth said:

LOL. Now all those artists will be offering their albums for exactly $3.49 the entire first month they're out.

Exactly. Billboard has made the situation far worse.

But on the other hand, will it inspired the mp3 playing generation to buy a whole album more often? OR will they still stick to mostly single tracks?

Rihanna's audience doesn't buy albums and I don't see her going to #1 this time either despite having a huge single out. Lady Gaga will most likely get the top spot since she is rereleasing her album, with 3 discs! Immortal is also coming out, I see that coming in at #2 or #3 if not #1, most likely #2 since there are two versions of the album. Another big release is Mary J. Blige, though I don't see her charting high like before, but yeah, I can see Gaga charting high for sure, she has a Thanksgiving special too.

[Edited 11/20/11 15:03pm]

errant said:

raffi said:

Probably not she's never done that

Bullshit. She racked up a string of #1 singles in the mid-'90s because Sony was giving them away to retailers to sell for 49 cents.

Funny how I am a big Mariah fan from day one and never managed to get a 49 cent single in all those years. What is your source?

AnaisKarim said:

errant said:

raffi said: Bullshit. She racked up a string of #1 singles in the mid-'90s because Sony was giving them away to retailers to sell for 49 cents.

Funny how I am a big Mariah fan from day one and never managed to get a 49 cent single in all those years. What is your source?

She pulled that with the single Loverboy in 2001 if it was being sold in Walmart, and it went to #2 instead of #1, and the media made such a big deal out of that, cause it was the first year she did not gain a #1. I think she may have done the same with Don't Forget About Us too though I forgot.

AnaisKarim said:

errant said:

raffi said: Bullshit. She racked up a string of #1 singles in the mid-'90s because Sony was giving them away to retailers to sell for 49 cents.

Funny how I am a big Mariah fan from day one and never managed to get a 49 cent single in all those years. What is your source?

Shopping in record stores in 1993 through 1999. The 2-track standard singles (not the maxis) were priced at $.49. I believe there was also a Billboard article about it in 1995 or 1996 when she was continuing to rack up so many number ones in a row. But you'll go have to look for that yourself, if it exists. I'm going from my memory. There were practically riots on the Madonna and Janet Jackson mailing lists about it when Sony was practically giving away singles by Mariah and Celine Dion to rack up #1's.

alphastreet said:

AnaisKarim said:

Funny how I am a big Mariah fan from day one and never managed to get a 49 cent single in all those years. What is your source?

She pulled that with the single Loverboy in 2001 if it was being sold in Walmart, and it went to #2 instead of #1, and the media made such a big deal out of that, cause it was the first year she did not gain a #1. I think she may have done the same with Don't Forget About Us too though I forgot.

Yup I remember that and so many customers of hers knew she was really trying her damndest to get another #1 single. I was working @ Sam Goody at that time and I knew. Wouldnt be suprised if she did that mess again with DFAU. Chile.

[img:$uid]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp2uljGRRL1qitl99.gif[/img:$uid]

[Edited 11/20/11 15:24pm]

asg said:

Rihanna has never had a #1 album.

Amazon has been discounting albums for a while but it normally goes down to 3,99 and it just a 1 or 2 day promotion. with gaga they went down to 99cents and altered the charts by artificially injecting 440k sales of course who could resist an album at a single price.

An entire Lady Ga Ga album for the price of a 99 cent single? I could EASILY resist it.

errant said:

AnaisKarim said:

Funny how I am a big Mariah fan from day one and never managed to get a 49 cent single in all those years. What is your source?

Shopping in record stores in 1993 through 1999. The 2-track standard singles (not the maxis) were priced at $.49. I believe there was also a Billboard article about it in 1995 or 1996 when she was continuing to rack up so many number ones in a row. But you'll go have to look for that yourself, if it exists. I'm going from my memory. There were practically riots on the Madonna and Janet Jackson mailing lists about it when Sony was practically giving away singles by Mariah and Celine Dion to rack up #1's.

Thats when billboard stepped in and made hot 100 charts based 100% on airplay and she couldnt do it anymore. In the digital age billboard is back into accounting for sales.

In the airplay only age britneys singles would just stall at #9 apart from the first song

asg said:

errant said:

Shopping in record stores in 1993 through 1999. The 2-track standard singles (not the maxis) were priced at $.49. I believe there was also a Billboard article about it in 1995 or 1996 when she was continuing to rack up so many number ones in a row. But you'll go have to look for that yourself, if it exists. I'm going from my memory. There were practically riots on the Madonna and Janet Jackson mailing lists about it when Sony was practically giving away singles by Mariah and Celine Dion to rack up #1's.

Thats when billboard stepped in and made hot 100 charts based 100% on airplay and she couldnt do it anymore. In the digital age billboard is back into accounting for sales.

In the airplay only age britneys singles would just stall at #9 apart from the first song

As Marvin would say, "ain't it funny how things turn around?"

asg said:

errant said:

Shopping in record stores in 1993 through 1999. The 2-track standard singles (not the maxis) were priced at $.49. I believe there was also a Billboard article about it in 1995 or 1996 when she was continuing to rack up so many number ones in a row. But you'll go have to look for that yourself, if it exists. I'm going from my memory. There were practically riots on the Madonna and Janet Jackson mailing lists about it when Sony was practically giving away singles by Mariah and Celine Dion to rack up #1's.

Thats when billboard stepped in and made hot 100 charts based 100% on airplay and she couldnt do it anymore. In the digital age billboard is back into accounting for sales.

In the airplay only age britneys singles would just stall at #9 apart from the first song

It was never 100%, but it WAS disporpotionally weighted for airplay. On the other hand, there were barely any physical (or digital) singles being released, so what could they do.

The wake-up call for Billboard that they needed to swing back in the other direction somewhat was in 2003 -- the first time a single was #1 on the sales chart, but failed to appear at all on the Hot 100 (Madonna, "Nothing Fails").