CD sales way down in 2008 compared to 2000, check it out

I wrote a blog about this and while researching a bit, I realized how big a hit CD sales have been taking over the years, and I'm only comparing a few years back. In brief:

- The top selling album of 2008 was by Lil Wayne selling 2.87 million copies

- In 2000, the top selling album (by N Sync) sold 9.94 million copies

- In 2000, 18 albums sold over 3 million copies each beating 2008's #1

I knew things were bad but I didn't know exactly how bad so I found the numbers very interesting.

Rediculous huh.

To put it in perspective, as of this week, Guns 'n Roses' "Chinese Democracy" only has sold 423 thousand units, since Nov. 23, 2008.

In 1988, Def Leppard's "Hysteria" had sold 3 million copies (a disappointment because the production costs for that record were the highest ever for an album up to that point), when they released "Pour Some Sugar On Me", it went GOLD (500 thousand units) in one day. They shipped out 500 thousand units to stores in one day.

That's a pretty big difference in 20 years.

"Hysteria" was a disappointment up to that time less because of the cost, than because of the expectations put upon by the success of the 10-million copy selling "Pyromania" and the relative failure of the first 3 singles released prior to "Sugar". But "Chinese Democracy" isn't really an apt comparison. Def Leppard was one of the top bands in the world going into 1988. (even IF the 4 years between "Pyromania" and "Hysteria" was considered excessive at the the time). Guns 'n Roses hasn't been relevant for almost two decades.

Maybe if major labels had better bands instead of overproduced disney rock.

All very true! G n' R, I get the impression that the label FORCED Axl to put out this never ending vanity project. They're going on tour soon, and rumour has it that the label imposed that to drive up sagging sales. Also, Axl has done no interviews, and there's no tour right now. It's a real primadonna approach to it....and that's why I speculate that the label finally forced a release date, and that's why Axl isn't doing interviews, because he'd be talking about something that was unfinished and put out before he spent the next 30 years tweaking it.

But of course it has nothing to do with downloading, right? I wish all of the people who made that lame argument for years (while they were downloading files by the boatload I'm sure) had to stand up in public and admit how wrong they were.

Could be. I don't know the whole story behind "Chinese". But that the label had made a sizable investment in the project that they wanted to see returned is certainly plausible.

It has a LOT to do with downloading, of course. But whining about downloading killing recorded music purchases is a bit like whining about talking movies killing the available jobs for organists.

Technology is going to move forward. There's no way to stop it simply because it puts a dent in some people's revenue streams if, for no other reason, because somebody ELSE is making money from the new technology.

Artists need to get creative and find ways to profit with their talents either within the new technology, or completely outside of it. But complaining that they can't sell their art to the same degree and in the same manner that somebody else did 30 years ago isn't the answer.

The drop in CD sales wouldn't have to do with poor value ($18 for one good song while the remaining 15 are crap fillers) or lack of talent to choose from (major labels only sign the idiot no-talent bands because they don't bother to read the indentured sertivude contract), would it? Naaaaaaaaaaah....

Your point is valid up to a point; however, until distribution gets under the control of the producers again, nothing we come up with will be profitable for anyone. As long a the means exists to get something free that someone else paid for to produce, the downhill slide will continue.

Then the product has to change. Simply creating audio isn't going to be sufficient because simple audio files can be downloaded for free. It's just a small example and piece of the problem, but it didn't help that long before downloading was invented the record industry cheapen the value of their own product by reducing it to a simple digital audio file. Everyone in the business was so thrilled to be able to repackage old albums like "Physical Graffiti" on CD and sell it for 28 bucks that nobody bothered to realize that such albums were initially about much more than just the audio. There was a lot of perceived value to some of those old LP packages that made us kids gladly shell out twice-as-much money for just for a second disc of music. Those of us who lamented the demise of LP package were dismissed as tired old nostalgics. But wouldn't it be nice now if the product the bands and labels were producing were something more than just a simple digital audio file?

In theory, the answer is simple: come up with a product involving your music that goes beyond a simple digital audio or video file that people will desire to purchase.

In practice, of course, it's a bit more difficult than that, but that's what being an "artist" is supposed to be all about--coming up with new and creative ideas.

In theory maybe, but the "new and creative ideas" you're talking about have nothing to do with art and everything to do with marketing, technological prowess and business strategy-all areas in which most artists are notoriously weak. That's why successful artists have management teams.

Left out of this discussion is the fact that music is still selling. I think everyone sees the decline in CD sales, year after year, and assumes that the end result will be zero CD sales. I don't think so. I think it's going to go lower and lower and then stop at a certain level. I don't know how low it will go, but people will still buy CD's. Meanwhile, let's also recognize that digital sales have increased each year.

Maybe the end result of all of this will be a much smaller market for music... which is different than zero market for music.

Phhhht

The reason the Disney pop takes off is it's demographic. The target audience is kids, not young adults. Who buys it tho? Parents ! The kiddies tug at mommy in the store and she puts the cash down for Jonas Bros or Miley Cyrus. Wash rinse repeat.

They make a killing off these kid performers no matter how much more talented they are. Parents buy this stuff all the time. I laugh my ass off when I go to Target and see cd's of other artists buried but 3-4 shelves of Miley or Jonas Bros or Brit crap. It sells. Those kid performers are set for life if they don't f#$%^ it up.

OTOH look at the target market for your rock, young adult, and adult FAN. What do they do? Are they jumping over cd racks to buy the latest from Metallica, Tool, Death Metal fav? No, they are surfing for the free version.

Movies- no different. Kids parents buy the crap their kids want to see. Hanna Montana box set, animated movies and so on. Meanwhile the young adults or older are surfing for their latest torrent.

So if you ran Disney or was a label supporting a Disney prop group or American Idol noob, who would you target? Miley Cyrus gets the big arenas, not your fav Death Metal act or Rocker wannabe. Why? simple, they cannot afford the production and the target audience won't support them the same way Miley's audience can get mom or dad to shell out $150 a seat. Plus, buy all the shirts , hats, lunchboxes, jackets and posters.

There are but a few for every hundred die hard fans of even their favorite groups that will actually purchase their works.

No reason they can't have everything to do with art. The next generation of successful musicians may very well be those who create an art form that demands live attendance.

The problem as I see it is that contemporary artists are giving people anything exciting enough and new enough to warrant them getting out of their houses and paying money to go see. The live-rock-band-on-a-stage-playing-through-a-PA-and-under-a-few-lights paradigm has gone virtually unchanged for nearly 50 years. The public is constantly gravitating towards new technologies in order to find themselves entertained, and the musicians are upset that nobody wants to pay to see them do what is essentially decades-old technology.

Come up with something new and creative and involves new techonology. Probably something interactive with the audience. Something maybe not even dreamed-of yet. Look, I long for the days of writing a few good songs, playing them with a good band, and hoping people like the songs well enough to buy a million copies of my album as well. But those days are gone. And never to return. Time to move on and/or find something else to do.

Lots of big name artists have used video screens, special effects, automated lighting--I think U2 did something like that years ago. I guess I could see concerts turning into sort of a interactive Guitar Hero type show, where audiences can pretend to play instruments along with the band, or experience a simulation of being up on stage with them. But the problem with this type of innovation is that it's usually reserved for the big name acts. Being on the "cutting-edge" of technology costs money, and they are the only ones with the budget for it. And even for those guys, the budget isn't what it used to be. It's often about streamlining production as much as putting on an interesting show.

The only way that kind of innovation could possibly happen for a lower-level act is if the technology in question were to become affordable enough, right around the same time the band happened to figure out a new way of incorporating it. Could happen. But it's a real longshot.

However, I do think lower-level bands could probably stand to put a little more effort into their stage show, rather than just singing and playing. Either with costumes, or props, or choreography, or getting the audience to participate in certain ways. Lots of gimmicks they could use, I suppose. Definitely a good way of setting yourself apart. But quite a few bands did that for decades, and some bands still do. It's pretty low-tech, and really not anything groundbreaking.

Yeah, but talking movies didn't infringe on the copyrights of organists. Obviously I see what you mean, but I guess I'm part of a dying breed: those who don't accept the reality that there's pretty much no way to combat piracy.

But isn't that the issue? Others here have talked about how the business is diluted and the product is cheapened by the fact that virtually ANYONE can make a digital file of their music--that the problem is that the product is no longer one that involves a ton of money and a big record company to produce and control. You can't have it both ways: you can't hope for a product so rare and controlled that you can potentially make millions producing it and an art form so accessible that even the poorest among us can participate.

Anybody with a digital video camera can make a "movie". But it takes a lot of money and professional backing to make "Iron Man". If you want people to pay more for YOUR muscially-based artistic output than they pay for the 150 million other sound-alike MySpace bands, you've got to produce a product worthy of that.

Maybe that will result in new techonological advances that certain big companies control and operate and distribute and they go out and find new 'artists' to be the front faces and artistic contribution to the output of that technology they control.

Kinda like how, say, making a record album was back in the 60's.

1. Music sucks.

2. Indie Bands....for the most part....suck.

3. Most of the morons on this board who claim to be musicians....also suck.

4. The industry shot themselves in the foot when they sued fans. Who also suck.

I never thought of it that way, but you make a good point.

Traditionally, we think of music trends or movements to start underground, and then break through to the mainstream. Perhaps that's become an antiquated idea. Maybe the public is about to come full circle regarding it's cynicism towards the mainstream, and the pendulum has swung the other way again. In the future, perhaps it'll be a "top-down", instead of a "bottom-up" mentality, where large corporations will cook up all the new musical innovations, and the public will willingly embrace them. Going further, maybe the public will come to perceive anything outside the mainstream as merely lacking in quality, rather than possessing a certain degree of "cred" or authenticity.

It would take some real brave and forward-thinking individuals to run these companies, though. Most big companies are too afraid to risk their bottom line to really try anything new. Steve Jobs maybe being the exception (and some might argue he hasn't really changed things for the better.)

Yup. You need killer songs, you need a killer sound, you need a killer recording. And it's really... really... REALLY hard to do all three. That's why the majority of people can't do it. Nice to know there are still some things that the 15 year old kid who's had his guitar for 2 weeks can't do. Um... then again, I can't see to do it either.

I think we tend to romanticize the past. The once-hugely-profitable recording industry whose demise we are all lamenting has ALWAYS been a top-down business. Sure, Elvis and The Beatles started out playing pubs and whatnot, but without the machinations of Colonel Parker andRCA Records, Brian Epstein and Capitol, these acts might never have been more than pub acts. It took the big labels to make it all work. It was right-place/right-time for those acts, and if it hadn't of been Mr. Presley and the 4 lads from Liverpool, it would have been somebody else filling that niche in some manner or another.

In the 60's, every big city had a big recording studio and record label, and those "empresarios" who ran the labels found acts to fulfill their visions. It's always been a two-way street: sure, Smokey Robinson was a major talent, but without Berry Gordy and Motown, he'd likely still be singing on a street corner somewhere.

my point being: the Berry Gordys of the world controlled the technology. Others supplied the talent, but it took those who controlled and monopolizied what was then a difficult and expensive technology and distribution system to make it profitable for all. Once the techonology got so inexpensive that the talent could do it all themselves, there was no profit left to be made. Supply and demand. The problem isn't that there are 150 million sucky bands out there, it's that there is no longer a unique techonology that provides a sufficient profit motive for the labels to find and/or create the Elvis' and the Beatles' among those 150 million sucky bands.

Music will survive. And talented/motivated people will find ways to profit from music. We're simply in a the middle of a huge transition period and nobody has yet quite figured out what the next paradigm will look like.

Great Post; the music industry had gotten greedy.

They're only going to get more greedy. Imagine they're used to making so much. With the decline of CD sales, now forget it. They'll be demanding a bigger cut on every type of income from the artist and their team just to try and match what they were always used to making.

Look at the now '360' music deals becoming standard at Warner Music Group for new artists. The label is now taking a percentage on endorsement deals, event ticket profits, merchandise, and anything else using the artist or band's image / brand. You thought the artist was left with zip before ...