|
|
Post by Milk Monitor on Sept 20, 2003 11:07:40 GMT -5
Right you lot, as part of my thrilling business studies assignment, I have to do some stuff on how companies and such promote their products. I chose record companies and pop stars, of course.
How come all or most of the songs that have got to number one this year have stayed there for a number of weeks? Blu Cantrell and Sean Paul, Black Eyed Peas, Room 5, Tatu, R Kelly, Evanescence - they've all been at number one for four weeks or more. The charts are reknowned for having a new number one pretty much each week.
In comparison, in 2002 the only artists that were at number one for 4 weeks or more were Girls Aloud, Elvis vs JXL, Gareth Gates and Enrique Iglesias.
Also, in 2000 there were 43 number one singles, whereas so far this year there have only been 14.
My question is, do you think this is happening because record companies are using better promotion, or are the products (the pop stars and their singles) just better in general?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Sept 20, 2003 11:19:01 GMT -5
what a good question!  and yet very hard to answer! I think it has a lot to do with the music fans changing, ie the backlash against pop idol hence we have artists like evanesence doing so well. also it could be as simple as the different artists we have had releasing this year. and then there is the phenomenon of r and b this year, ie beyonce, blu cantrell, r kelly. i think it has most to do with music fans changing tastes, it seems every year there is a genre of music prominent in singles. this year it seems to be rnb which tend to stay at the top longer due to airplay, video play etc. when pop was so in last year, there was a large turnover due to songs being released constantly and the arguable fickleness of the young pop fans. tatu- well i think we all know it was hype and promotion that got them to number one, and every year there are a few dance records which are huge number ones. and they did say last year how it was the year with the most number 1's so maybe we are back to normal this year. I hope that is of some use or sense to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Hula on Sept 20, 2003 11:19:19 GMT -5
I think it's probably that the songs are just better in general (for "better" read "more popular with more people"). I don't think the actual quality of promotion has improved, because people like Gareth Gates show that it doesn't matter how much you're promoted, if the song isn't actually that popular in the first place, it won't be that successful. Some were partly down to promotion though, like Tatu (although if the song itslef wasn't as good I don't think it would've done quite as well.)
So yes, I think it's due to a catchy song that appeals to lots of people. Maybe there were just fewer of those last year? Last year also, promotion seemingly helped more than this year, because of the four you listed, two were from TV shows (Gareth and The Aloud).
This year there's probably also a wider gap between the songs that are really good/popular and the songs that aren't, meaning the no.1 spot is challenged less.
Or something like that. I don't know if that post was very coherent, but that's what I imagine has caused it.
|
|
|
|
Post by TallyHo... on Sept 20, 2003 11:20:41 GMT -5
I just did BS A-Level.....I got an A.
|
|
|
|
Post by flum on Sept 20, 2003 11:28:29 GMT -5
I think it's probably that the songs are just better in general.. You could also argue that songs this year are weaker, so a good number one record will stay there for longer as there's nothing else being released that is good enough to push it off the top spot. (NB, I don't necessarily hold this to be true, I just think it's an interesting angle to look at it from) |
|
|
|
Post by Nye on Sept 20, 2003 11:28:33 GMT -5
I think it's down to shows like Pop Idol, Popstars, etc.
It also has allot to do with the artist, and even more so — the promotion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Milk Monitor on Sept 20, 2003 11:34:01 GMT -5
I think it's down to shows like Pop Idol, Popstars, etc. It can't be. All of the long-standing number ones this year have been by fairly new artists (Beyonce and R Kelly can be counted as new, it was Beyonce's first proper solo single, R Kelly hadn't had a hit since 1997 so his fanbase was new). Either way, none of the artists mentioned in the first person were very well known last year (Beyonce wasn't known as being a solo star.) |
|
|
|
Post by kittens-in-a-Peaches-frenzy on Sept 20, 2003 11:34:05 GMT -5
Right you lot, as part of my thrilling business studies assignment, I have to do some stuff on how companies and such promote their products. I chose record companies and pop stars, of course. How come all or most of the songs that have got to number one this year have stayed there for a number of weeks? Blu Cantrell and Sean Paul, Black Eyed Peas, Room 5, Tatu, R Kelly, Evanescence - they've all been at number one for four weeks or more. The charts are reknowned for having a new number one pretty much each week. In comparison, in 2002 the only artists that were at number one for 4 weeks or more were Girls Aloud, Elvis vs JXL, Gareth Gates and Enrique Iglesias. Also, in 2000 there were 43 number one singles, whereas so far this year there have only been 14. My question is, do you think this is happening because record companies are using better promotion, or are the products (the pop stars and their singles) just better in general? short answer: No. long answer: There are three elements that have led to this....and none have anything to do with intentional marketing/promotional campaigns! 1) The overall very low singles sales this year - meaning that strong selling singles are less likely to have serious competition....and also leading to a US type situation where more mainstream acts are releasing their album before the first single. Linked to this is the (huge) increase in MP3 downloads. This is clearly the future of music retailing and the fact that record companies, by and large, are tring to oppose the whole medium, (rather than regulate it and turn it into a business opportunity) demonstrates how cumbersome, conservative and backward looking they are as businesses. 2) The surge in sales of albums. You'll notice that, apart from Evanescence, done of the long-running number 1 singles have come from, or been attached to, successful albums....whereas other singles that may potentially have been number 1's have had their sales impact diluted by coming from big selling albums (Justin, Robbie etc.) i.e. fans are bypassing buying the single and going straight to the album. This is partly encouranged by the drop in the retail price of CD albums....which has been forced upon high street retailers by their having been undercut by on-line sellers such as CD WOW & Amazon. 3) Radio playlists. Several of the long running number 1's this year have been tracks that were largely ignored by radio prior to release, only being picked up once they were at number 1. (or not at all in the case of R1 and Blu Cantrell). The effect of this is to prolong the period of exposure and familiarity for a single. In other words potential customers are getting to hear the tracks later than would otherwise be the case, and so sales are more spread out. |
|
|
|
Post by TallyHo... on Sept 20, 2003 11:38:40 GMT -5
The common opinon is that if a song is given a great deal of airplay then it is likely to do well in the charts. However, surely airplay will allow people to record the tracks and therefore end up on Kazaa etc long before they are released. Furthermore, many record companies often seem to put out a track 2 months before it is released. Liberty X's 'Being Nobody' suffered as a consequence of massive airplay and therefore totally underperformed what was expected of it in the chart.
On the other hand, many of the songs thatr are the bigger hits of the year e.g R-Kelly and Tatu were slow burners. R-Kelly was not listed on many TV channels until it hit number and 1 and in its week or release the biggest singles seller (Woolworths) put it at number 10.
Perhaps a key indicator this year has been the element of suprise coupled with a general disillusionment with mainstream pop - Hence success for Tatu....
|
|
|
|
Post by Nye on Sept 20, 2003 11:54:49 GMT -5
The thing is — record companies want sales and airplay to be equally as high. But when people are recording music/downloading off Kazaa, it's not going to happen.
Off topic: So I suppose record companies have a point when they jail people for using Kazaa - although it's hardly necessary when there's millions of people still out there using it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Muinimula on Sept 20, 2003 13:25:09 GMT -5
Apparently, if the rest of the year is like this, it'll be the slowest chart turnover year since the mid 90s...or something. For the record:
Girls Aloud - Sound Of The Underground (last 2 weeks)
David Sneddon - Stop Living The Lie (2 weeks)
T.A.T.U. - All The Things She Said (4 weeks)
Christina Aguilera - Beautiful (2 weeks)
Gareth Gates ft The Kumars - Spirit In The Sky (2 weeks)
Room 5 ft Oliver Cheatham - Make Luv (4 weeks)
Busted - You Said No (1 week)
Tomcraft - Loneliness (1 week)
R Kelly - Ignition (4 weeks)
Evanescence - Bring Me To Life (4 weeks)
Beyonce - Crazy In Love (3 weeks)
Daniel Bedingfield - Never Gonna Leave Your Side (1 week)
Blu Cantrell ft Sean Paul - Breathe (4 weeks)
Elton John - Are You Ready For Love? (1 week)
The Black Eyed Peas - Where Is The Love? (2 weeks so far)
|
|
and yet very hard to answer!
