Re: Alanis/U2 in U.S. charts

John J. Hlavaty ([email protected])
Wed, 18 Nov 1998 08:28:20 -0500

Kimberly McDaniel ([email protected]) wrote:
> I think that the numbers for the GH were wrong, to be honest. I don't
> think the numbers are properly reported because the record stores in
> both my hometowns are not affiliated with Soundscan...I asked and they
> said they refused to do it. So what if a lot of hometown record stores
> didn't report to Soundscan? U2 doesn't appear to sell as many
> records...It sounds funny because in Alexandria they were rationing
> copies and I got offered $50 outside the store for a copy. No, I
> didn't sell. :) I think U2 are getting screwed in the numbers game so
> the reporters will have someone to down this year...

While your concern is a valid one, SoundScan openly
acknowledges that they gather as much data as possible
from the stores that do report to them. Based on that
information, SoundScan then estimates total sales for an entire
area (like Canada or the U.S.).

This esitmate is probably the biggest flaw in relying on
SoundScan's numbers. However, SoundScan is far more accurate
than the reporting methods used in the past. Before
1990, stores would report their own numbers to BillBoard.
As such, a lot of bias could occur. Sometimes record
labels would like to create the illusion of an album
rising in the charts. This illusion represented
a growing interest in a particular artist. As
such, more radio stations would play that artist's
work and fans would buy it. Also, a store or a record
label may want a certain artist to stay at the top of
the charts. These situations led to biased numbers
that may not have reflected actual sales.

Since SoundScan originated, most albums reach
their peak ssales point in their debut week. There
are always exceptions (a slow week in sales may push
an older album to the top), but for the most part
most albums from big name artists debut at #1 or #2.
Contrast this to the days before SoundScan where
albums usually rose through the charts. "The Joshua
Tree" debuted at a very high #7 on the U.S. charts.
I recall thinking at the time how much of an accomplishment
this was (the next week, "The Joshua Tree" reached #1).
Likewise, "Rattle & Hum" debuted at #5 (also reaching #1
the following week). In today's world, there's little
doubt that these albums would debut at #1 (or
#2). "Achtung Baby", "Zooropa" and "POP" all debuted
at #1.

Another point of interest is that most #1 albums
spend no more than 4 weeks at the top (again, there are
exceptions like with the "Titanic" soundtrack).
Before SoundScan, albums would regularly spend
months at the top of the charts. Fleetwood
Mac's "Rumors" spent something like 30 weeks at #1!
U2's "The Joshua Tree" spent 9 weeks at #1.

This discrepancy in sales/chart reporting becomes more
obvious when one realizes that "The Joshua Tree" has
sold 10 million copies in the U.S. but spent 9 weeks
at #1 whereas "Achtung Baby" spent only one week
at #1 but sold 8 million copies in the U.S. Two
albums that sold at a similar rate have very different
chart "success".

It has reached a point where having a #1 album isn't
*that* crucial any more. It's the long term sales that
ultimately determine how successful an album is.
The longer an album lingers in the top 10 (or 20) the
better its total sales. Albums that may never reach #1 often
outsell those that do.

So while SoundScan clearly has its limitations (hence
why I stress the need for a "proverbial grain of salt"
whenever I report/summarize chart/sales information)
it does eliminate the biased reporting (euphemism for
"lie") that occurred in the past.

Ciao,

John

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Nov 18 1998 - 05:29:58 PST