Jump to content
The Greatest Show

Why are Record Labels giving up so fast??

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have a good explanation why Record Labels are giving up sooo fast these days??

Slave 4 you only made it to 27 on the US charts but she still performed the song a lot and despite all the other singles of that era doing even worse, they had an overall very sucessfull era
with good album sales and great tour sales.. Imagine if they had just said after Slave and Overprotected "Well this inst working lets give up"

source.gif

As a contrast Make Me made it to 17 on the US charts and they only perfrormed the song a handfull of times and pretty much gave up on the whole album after.

Mileys "Malibu" made it to number 10 on the charts so  it actually did pretty well. "Younger now" flopped at 79 and her album only sod 250.000 copies.
I feel like if that would have happened in 2002 they would have tried way harder to sell the album. Instead we arent even getting a tour.

giphy.gif

 

Christinas "Dirrty" was successfull around the world but only made it to 48!!! on the US charts. They still had her perform the song a lot.
I think I could easily find 20 promo performances with Dirrty. They then released Beautiful and the era turned around and was very successful in th US too.

giphy.gif

As a contrast in 2010 "Not Myself tonight" only made it to 23 of the US charts and they pretty much immediatley gave up on it.
They tried "You Lost ME" but only had her perfrom it twice and then gave up on that too. No international promo at all.

 

I feel like this attitude is really damaging the industry. Why arent they putting more effort into promo and spreading the songs?
There are so many ways you could promote your music on the internet and not much is being done.
They also dont perform as much as they used to and promote overseas either.
Just think about all the different TV Specials and Making the Music, Making the Video and stuff like that we used to get.
They could easily make a deal with Netflix and have a Music show on there that could show us all the things we used to get from MTV.
I mean they loose money if the era is unseccessfull and if the artist doesnt tour since thats where the money is at.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also can everyone Tweet Netflix and ask them to bring back Making the Video, Making the Album, Unplugged and Diary? :sneer:

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question. Probably because album sales are in the toilet for good, and now if the single tanks why bother with churning money into promoting that single when the album itself might just sell more but album may receive massive streams in a best case scenario. 

 

Streams are a joke as far as revenue is concerned. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, patr!ckjean said:

Good question. Probably because album sales are in the toilet for good, and now if the single tanks why bother with churning money into promoting that single when the album itself might just sell more but album may receive massive streams in a best case scenario. 

But they earn most of their money in touring anyway. If they give up quickly on one album (like Miley now) and dont tour for it, it will be that much harder to comeback for the next era.

Same with Christinas Bionic. They postponed the tour after 3 days of ticketsales and then never resceduled. If they had actually done the tour in 2011 (even if it was smaller venues) and had done proper promo for it she wouldnt have had to record Lotus and completly ruin her brand. Now she is in such a deep hole its virtually impossible for her to dig herself out of it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think record labels have gotten quite lazy and cheap over the years and social media and streaming is the main cause. Most big artists can't be bothered even promoting themselves or their new music anymore instead they just use a tweet or an Instagram post and expect the fan's to do all the work. 

But I think as a result of artists like Taylor Swift, Adele etc. who've sold large quantities of albums in a week, they expect the same of others but their sales are just down to large sized fanbases. Sadly labels don't count you as successful if you don't have the number 1's and the top 10 singles but the truth is they mean nothing, just one hit wonders. 

Rihanna has more number one singles than MJ and Madonna but their work has left a legacy spanning decades and has shaped and changed the music industry. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are comparing different time periods. Yes there was illegal downloading back then but nowadays it’s unavoidable and there’s no money in it at all. Sure they can spend money for more promo but that’s the thing, they are putting more money out this putting them more in the whole. That’s why they have artists tour because they can make back the money easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Greatest Show said:

But they earn most of their money in touring anyway. If they give up quickly on one album (like Miley now) and dont tour for it, it will be that much harder to comeback for the next era.

Same with Christinas Bionic. They postponed the tour after 3 days of ticketsales and then never resceduled. If they had actually done the tour in 2011 (even if it was smaller venues) and had done proper promo for it she wouldnt have had to record Lotus and completly ruin her brand. Now she is in such a deep hole its virtually impossible for her to dig herself out of it.

Still a good question. I absolutely loved Bionic but hated Lotus and that's irrelevant but.. idk. :/

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, puppylo16 said:

You are comparing different time periods. Yes there was illegal downloading back then but nowadays it’s unavoidable and there’s no money in it at all. Sure they can spend money for more promo but that’s the thing, they are putting more money out this putting them more in the whole. That’s why they have artists tour because they can make back the money easier.

but if they flop to much they dont tour... Mileys last album and tour were ridiculously successfull and they arent touring for Malibu because it flopped.. Imagine if her next album flops too. The promo these days is more for the possibility to tour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Greatest Show said:

but if they flop to much they dont tour... Mileys last album and tour were ridiculously successfull and they arent touring for Malibu because it flopped.. Imagine if her next album flops too. The promo these days is more for the possibility to tour.

You’re thinking with the classic old school stradegy but in this day and age, you must think outside of the box and use other ventures and sources. There’s just no demand for Miley. She had a big era last time because she was out there and pulling all sorts of stunts but now she is boring no one cares about her. That’s it, you don’t need an album to tour ( look at Britney) the labels aren’t paying for the tours. The artist or label hire a production company to take care of that. Labels aren’t stupid to put their own money out, in fact they don’t have money to find anything, all profits immediately go to paying the execs and upkeep of the company. All projects are funded on a loan and any money made would be used to pay the loan back, and usually the artists is forced to pay that debt that’s how artists get broke right away and that’s why they tour to make back that money. Why you think artists get sponsors? Even for big artists like Britney or Beyonce, they still have to rely on sponsors. There’s no label support at all for tours or even if they agree to put out some funds, it’s not like they call the shots or record sales dictate whether a tour is happening or not.They benefit from residuals and maybe a percentage of the ticket sales or merchandise. Miley can still tour, she would just need to drum up publicity but she obviously doesn’t care.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why Slave, Oops, Overprotected, Lucky, Stronger, Toxic all did so poorly is because Jive never released any CD single sales, in order to boost album sales. The billboard criteria is it takes into account both Singles CD Sales and Radio airplay. Britney received massive radio airplay back then, but then again literally zero Single CD sales. Songs like Oops, Slave, Toxic and Crazy would've easily been No.1 had Jive released Singles CD sales.During the "Britney' Era it was even worse, because Britney was boycott from literally every single radio in America, which is why overprotected only peak at no. 86. With proper sales and airplay, it would've easily been top 10. However ever since the dawn of album sales and cd singles sales, Jive got no choice but to release Britney's digital singles for sales (Starting arround 2007 during blackout period, which explains why Gimme More peak even higher than Toxic and Oops). Therefore "Glory" singles were not really doing that well. It was doing terrible chart wise speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Afiq said:

The reason why Slave, Oops, Overprotected, Lucky, Stronger, Toxic all did so poorly is because Jive never released any CD single sales, in order to boost album sales. The billboard criteria is it takes into account both Singles CD Sales and Radio airplay. Britney received massive radio airplay back then, but then again literally zero Single CD sales. Songs like Oops, Slave, Toxic and Crazy would've easily been No.1 had Jive released Singles CD sales.During the "Britney' Era it was even worse, because Britney was boycott from literally every single radio in America, that is why it onlypeak at no. 86. With proper sales and airplay, it would've easily been top 10. However ever since the dawn of album sales and cd singles sales, Jive got no choice but to release Britney's digital singles for sales (Starting arround 2007 during blackout period, which explains why that song peak even higher than Toxic and Oops). Therefore "Glory" singles were not really doing that well. It was doing terrible chart wise speaking.

Oops and Toxic did well tho.  :ineedthetruth:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Greatest Show said:

Oops and Toxic did well tho.  :ineedthetruth:

We all knew that with proper singles sales it would've been No.1. In fact at least 4-5 weeks at no 1. To reach only at no.9 peak, is definitely underperforming of how truly massive those 2 singles were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Afiq said:

The reason why Slave, Oops, Overprotected, Lucky, Stronger, Toxic all did so poorly is because Jive never released any CD single sales, in order to boost album sales. The billboard criteria is it takes into account both Singles CD Sales and Radio airplay. Britney received massive radio airplay back then, but then again literally zero Single CD sales. Songs like Oops, Slave, Toxic and Crazy would've easily been No.1 had Jive released Singles CD sales.During the "Britney' Era it was even worse, because Britney was boycott from literally every single radio in America, that is why it onlypeak at no. 86. With proper sales and airplay, it would've easily been top 10. However ever since the dawn of album sales and cd singles sales, Jive got no choice but to release Britney's digital singles for sales (Starting arround 2007 during blackout period, which explains why that song peak even higher than Toxic and Oops). Therefore "Glory" singles were not really doing that well. It was doing terrible chart wise speaking.

how do you mean bo cd singles? they were all physically released as singles?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younger Now just sucks and that's why. It's a really boring album played safe. Also, DJs are far more popular now than pop artists...the radio is all about shitty music lately

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, It'sSamB!tch said:

how do you mean bo cd singles? they were all physically released as singles?

No they weren't. It was not released in the US. It was released as a 12" vinyl. Which is not compatible with a VCD player, but compatible to play at Clubs or Disco and so on. Therefore ordinary consumers have no access to Britney's single sales at all. If you look at her singles sales in the US, after Baby One More Time, their sales were rather pathetic. When we all know that with a proper 7-inch CD formats, that is compatible to be played on VCD players singles like Oops and Toxic would've easily sold more than 1 million copies in the US. Simply said, if Jive really released a 7-inch single sales, she would've had way2 more No.1 hits. Plus, do you really think that Make Me is a bigger hit than, Me Against The Music, Sometimes, Lucky, Slave, all of which peak lower than Make Me? We all know that those singles I mentioned back then was very2 huge and Make Me, wasn't even an ok hit single.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know things are different and all digital but it's like they are chewing a piece of art and then spit it out.Such a waste :yaknow: 

I'll never understand or accept how Britney and Christina had low numbers on the charts at the time.They were all over the world.Weird :lostney:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one wnats to byut the music anymore, they just stream it, the whole process is changing, spotify killed the sales  :lemmetellu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Afiq said:

The reason why Slave, Oops, Overprotected, Lucky, Stronger, Toxic all did so poorly is because Jive never released any CD single sales, in order to boost album sales. The billboard criteria is it takes into account both Singles CD Sales and Radio airplay. Britney received massive radio airplay back then, but then again literally zero Single CD sales. Songs like Oops, Slave, Toxic and Crazy would've easily been No.1 had Jive released Singles CD sales.During the "Britney' Era it was even worse, because Britney was boycott from literally every single radio in America, which is why overprotected only peak at no. 86. With proper sales and airplay, it would've easily been top 10. However ever since the dawn of album sales and cd singles sales, Jive got no choice but to release Britney's digital singles for sales (Starting arround 2007 during blackout period, which explains why Gimme More peak even higher than Toxic and Oops). Therefore "Glory" singles were not really doing that well. It was doing terrible chart wise speaking.

Did her singles perform well on radio with the ban still?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day they wanted album sales so they wanted ppl to not focus on buying the singles but the whole package.

I agree though eventually most ppl if you don’t get new audience you won’t be able to tour. 

If Taylor doesn’t keep up for example she won’t be able to do stadiums. That is why they promote her well. 

Britney is lucky for now but how many tours will you want to see the same GH with the same vocals? Be honest. 

Xtina could easily do theaters like Britney is doing in the US. She just had too much pride. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tear the floor up up said:

Did her singles perform well on radio with the ban still?

It did very well. Almost all of her singles went inside the top 5 and top 10 for radio airplay, while Baby, Oops and Toxic went No.1 for airplay. With the support of a single sales, I believe Crazy, Lucky, Oops, Toxic, Everytime would have easily reach No.1 on the Hot 100 charts. But for the "Britney" album it definitely did not do well on the radio airplay charts.This was the era where Clear Channel banned her from radio.  Having said that, MTV was playing her videos all the time. So I dont really think the radio ban affects her album sales by that much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Spearsfan said:

 

Xtina could easily do theaters like Britney is doing in the US. She just had too much pride. 

I dont think its a pride thing with Christina. She has no problem playing at weddings for a couple of million of Dollars or at random parties. And even when she was successfull she had no problem playing at small gigs for the right price. In 2007 she had the most successful female tour and one year later she played at a Halloween party for 1 million. In 2002 She did a small set at the Roxy theatre and played acoustic in a small bar. She has also sang at smaller parties for Linda Perry and Justin Timberlake.. so I dont think its that she doesnt like smaller venues. Also you could also use a big venue and curtain a lot of it off like Gaga did. + She also has no issue doing smaller festivals and actually really seems to enjoy doing smaller venues. With Christina you can allways tell when she hates doing somehting.

I think that they really did intend on resceduling her tour in 2011 but then she got divorced, depressed, fat and maybe wasnt feeling up to it. Or they thought "ok we could do a tour but nobody bought your last album why dont we rush a new pop album instead? " That would also explain why they released Lotus so damn  fast.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, patr!ckjean said:

Good question. Probably because album sales are in the toilet for good, and now if the single tanks why bother with churning money into promoting that single when the album itself might just sell more but album may receive massive streams in a best case scenario. 

 

Streams are a joke as far as revenue is concerned. 

I agree about album sales. A 1 million selling album in 1999 would sell only about 200,000 to 300,000 copies these days. It's sad what's happened to the music industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The industry was veryyyy different in the early 2000s. Firstly. Britney and Christina were exceptions because even with low charting singles they were selling a lot of albums. it was hard for pop actss songs to chart well in 2001-2006 because rock and rap took over in the USA . hence why Toxic peaked at #9. so they carried on with the album/singles/tour and promo as planned which was smart. also, remember brit was banned on USA radio in 2001-2003 the whole britney era. she charted based on sales.

I still think they give up too easily today though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Greatest Show said:

I dont think its a pride thing with Christina. She has no problem playing at weddings for a couple of million of Dollars or at random parties. And even when she was successfull she had no problem playing at small gigs for the right price. In 2007 she had the most successful female tour and one year later she played at a Halloween party for 1 million. In 2002 She did a small set at the Roxy theatre and played acoustic in a small bar. She has also sang at smaller parties for Linda Perry and Justin Timberlake.. so I dont think its that she doesnt like smaller venues. Also you could also use a big venue and curtain a lot of it off like Gaga did. + She also has no issue doing smaller festivals and actually really seems to enjoy doing smaller venues. With Christina you can allways tell when she hates doing somehting.

I think that they really did intend on resceduling her tour in 2011 but then she got divorced, depressed, fat and maybe wasnt feeling up to it. Or they thought "ok we could do a tour but nobody bought your last album why dont we rush a new pop album instead? " That would also explain why they released Lotus so damn  fast.

For the right price but she isn’t in huge demand so her prices can’t be crazy expensive. 

Bionic wasn’t going to be a theater show though. They also gave up on the label so quick. I love NMT but it was a poor choice for single purely on the explicit label. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×