Why don't singles sell in their millions any more?
Discussion
I've spent much of today dipping in and out of Ken "Broadsword Calling Danny Boy" Bruce and Tony "Poptastic" Blackburn running down the top 100 million-selling singles on Radio 2.
And I don't think I heard a song that was less than 10 years old.
So why don't songs these days sell in the volumes they used to?
Is it to do with the fact that the songs featured on the list were (then) only available as a physical purchase (7" vinyl or CD single) rather than a downloaded series of 1's and 0's?
Or is it more to do with the disposable nature of "pop" these days?
And I don't think I heard a song that was less than 10 years old.
So why don't songs these days sell in the volumes they used to?
Is it to do with the fact that the songs featured on the list were (then) only available as a physical purchase (7" vinyl or CD single) rather than a downloaded series of 1's and 0's?
Or is it more to do with the disposable nature of "pop" these days?
Because in the last 10 years singles have replaced posters and adverts - they're now effectively free promotional materials for lucrative 360 deals, touring and merchandising opportunities (and to a minor extent their parent albums). Every man and has dog downloads music for free. The only money to be made now is through secondary channels, licensing, etc.
What I don't get is that in "the olden days", you had to go to Our Price or WH Smiths and actually buy the single.
These days, a click of the mouse and your latest favourite tune is yours, without even having to leave the house.
So, buying music has become easier and more convenient and yet sales are down.
These days, a click of the mouse and your latest favourite tune is yours, without even having to leave the house.
So, buying music has become easier and more convenient and yet sales are down.
I don't think there is the same variety of music anymore.
There were stages last year (maybe this year too, maybe even right now) where people like Cheryl Cole had 3 separate singles in the top 20.
May be the variety is far higher, and individual tracks don't get anywhere near enough sales as it's spread out over different singles.
One thing i have noticed, is whatever Radio 1 decides is good will sell well, even though a lot of their stuff is pretty mediocre.
It could be the listeners don't actually hear enough music these days to decide what is good, they just get told.
There were stages last year (maybe this year too, maybe even right now) where people like Cheryl Cole had 3 separate singles in the top 20.
May be the variety is far higher, and individual tracks don't get anywhere near enough sales as it's spread out over different singles.
One thing i have noticed, is whatever Radio 1 decides is good will sell well, even though a lot of their stuff is pretty mediocre.
It could be the listeners don't actually hear enough music these days to decide what is good, they just get told.
Most youngsters with a bit of nous I'd expect to use Spotify or similar. Back in my day it was all Napster, so I can't see any reason why teenagers would go back to paying for music in their droves.
Re digital downloads, by the time they've got a debit card that's usable online they've probably also discovered beer and girls, hence more likely to fall back on something free like Spotify and its ilk than spend money better spent elsewhere.
Also, even once you get to the point where the pound is spent on music... have you seen the price of albums now? Around the early to mid '90s a decent new album was £12.99 on tape or £16.99 on CD... now you're looking at £8.95 for a new release, dropping to £5-£6 within a few weeks - which for most kids brings it down into discretionary purchase territory rather than something that needs to be saved up for.
(At 13 I was making between £5 and £7 per week on a paper round; I'd assume inflation has driven that up a bit since then.)
Re digital downloads, by the time they've got a debit card that's usable online they've probably also discovered beer and girls, hence more likely to fall back on something free like Spotify and its ilk than spend money better spent elsewhere.
Also, even once you get to the point where the pound is spent on music... have you seen the price of albums now? Around the early to mid '90s a decent new album was £12.99 on tape or £16.99 on CD... now you're looking at £8.95 for a new release, dropping to £5-£6 within a few weeks - which for most kids brings it down into discretionary purchase territory rather than something that needs to be saved up for.
(At 13 I was making between £5 and £7 per week on a paper round; I'd assume inflation has driven that up a bit since then.)
Timberwolf said:
Shaw Tarse said:
When I was young I "knew" people who would copy music, using a cassette tape!
home taping doesnt kill music, it just restricts the profits the record comapny make.
Cock Womble 7 said:
So, buying music has become easier and more convenient and yet sales are down.
That's not strictly true in one sense - total single sales are actually well up on a few years ago before MP3 sales really kicked in (and were allowed to contribute towards sales figures).I think a contributing factor, however, could be the amount of music out there. Loads of new stuff comes out every week and so shelf life could be lower and sales split between more tracks.
Edited by Hub on Tuesday 31st August 12:48
I studied this at Uni 10-12 years ago, and even from then a lot has changed.
12 years ago single sales were down because people preferred to buy albums at £11 rather than a single at £3.99.
11 - 10 years ago the wholesale price of singles was slashed in order to get a high chart placing and publicity to sell the album. You also had Single A and B for the same song at £1.99 each etc for the same reason.
Then downloads came along.
Slowly a whole generation of young people didn't visit the record shop on a Saturday, but sat at home and spent a few minutes downloading it illegally. On of my mates on the same course as me worked for a major record label who did focus groups with kind sot find out what they would pay for a single or album. There answer was nothing. None had ever paid for music.
So what has happened to music now? There is not more out there, there is actually less. 10-20 years ago, a record label might sign 20 new artists a year spend £100k to £500k on each and release singles from 10 and albums from 4 or 5.
Now, instead of signing 20 artists and developing them, they will sign 5 and put their eggs in a smaller basket and pan them all through the media. I said 7-8 years ago that although people love downloads the way it started will kill the industry. You'll be able to get music more conveniently but you'll have less choice and less good new artists.
12 years ago single sales were down because people preferred to buy albums at £11 rather than a single at £3.99.
11 - 10 years ago the wholesale price of singles was slashed in order to get a high chart placing and publicity to sell the album. You also had Single A and B for the same song at £1.99 each etc for the same reason.
Then downloads came along.
Slowly a whole generation of young people didn't visit the record shop on a Saturday, but sat at home and spent a few minutes downloading it illegally. On of my mates on the same course as me worked for a major record label who did focus groups with kind sot find out what they would pay for a single or album. There answer was nothing. None had ever paid for music.
So what has happened to music now? There is not more out there, there is actually less. 10-20 years ago, a record label might sign 20 new artists a year spend £100k to £500k on each and release singles from 10 and albums from 4 or 5.
Now, instead of signing 20 artists and developing them, they will sign 5 and put their eggs in a smaller basket and pan them all through the media. I said 7-8 years ago that although people love downloads the way it started will kill the industry. You'll be able to get music more conveniently but you'll have less choice and less good new artists.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff